Charlie Gard's last days were turned into 'soap opera' says medic

[Wyrt]

Okay, tell me one thing then - how does experimental treatment work? istnt it based on...experimental treatment? duh. He had a chance. Be it a little - he had it. The Parents wanted to try it out - but were refused.

The same people will tell others that abortion is something we can decide on. We are truly living during the culture of death but I'm not going to just let it slide.

The experimental treatment wasn't to cure him. Even in the very low chance it worked it wouldn't have cured him. He still would have died. Jesus fucking christ do none of you even research the topic before shitposting about it?

[Astalnar]

The part where NO ONE KILLED THE KID.

Yes they did. The court killed him when they denied him opportunity to get aid elsewhere. The doctors killed him when they refused to treat him. British Court ordered the hospital to shut off child's life support. If you prefer, you can call it judicial killing, but that doesn't change the fact they killed Charlie, they didn't let him die, they killed him. What you don't like is that I call it as I see it. I don't pretend about it. An innocent child was condemned to death because those in power thought themselves to be superior to everyone affected around them. They killed this child, and they even have the gall to smile about it, as if they did something good. The blood is on their hands, and as far as I'm concerned, they should pay for it.

[Wyrt]

Yes they did. The court killed him when they denied him opportunity to get aid elsewhere. The doctors killed him when they refused to treat him. British Court ordered the hospital to shut off child's life support. If you prefer, you can call it judicial killing, but that doesn't change the fact they killed Charlie, they didn't let him die, they killed him. What you don't like is that I call it as I see it. I don't pretend about it. An innocent child was condemned to death because those in power thought themselves to be superior to everyone affected around them. They killed this child, and they even have the gall to smile about it, as if they did something good. The blood is on their hands, and as far as I'm concerned, they should pay for it.

So, hospitals should just keep people hooked up to machines forever then?

[Pann]

Yes they did. The court killed him when they denied him opportunity to get aid elsewhere. The doctors killed him when they refused to treat him. British Court ordered the hospital to shut off child's life support. If you prefer, you can call it judicial killing, but that doesn't change the fact they killed Charlie, they didn't let him die, they killed him. What you don't like is that I call it as I see it. I don't pretend about it. An innocent child was condemned to death because those in power thought themselves to be superior to everyone affected around them. They killed this child, and they even have the gall to smile about it, as if they did something good. The blood is on their hands, and as far as I'm concerned, they should pay for it.

Complete and utter nonsense.

At no point did the doctors refuse to treat him. Nor did a British court order the hospital to turn off the life support machines.

Why not try to actually read about what actually happened instead of spouting ignorant nonsense?

Try reading this; https://politicsmeanspolitics.com/ch...s-e4b933ed8c12

[Astalnar]

So, hospitals should just keep people hooked up to machines forever then?

They certainly shouldn't kill them. That's for sure.

[AeneasBK]

So, hospitals should just keep people hooked up to machines forever then?

You're forgetting that everything is black and white; good or evil. The whole situation makes a lot more sense if you can just reduce it to these basic ideas.

[Mister Cheese]

He needs to stfu no one cares what he has to say if he is going to remain anon what a coward.

The anonymous internet poster is criticizing the anonymous doctor who wants to keep his job? Holy shit the hypocrisy!

[Deleted]

How merciful of you? You're such a good Samaritan, you're willing to kill someone else. But that is very opposite of what a good Samaritan did. As I said to the others, I say to you. Apply that standard first to yourself, then think of the others. Until then you're just advocating for murder because it feels good.It's easy to say he should die because he suffers, and he's a blob of molecules anyway, so by killing him we lose nothing of importance. Might as well, throw the kid to the lions for the entertainment purposes at that point.

This is the greatest flaw of utilitarianism.

I don't subscribe to the notion that every position is equally relevant. Either you're right, or you're wrong, good or evil. And if you're advocating for the murder of an innocent child, you're evil. Simple as that.

I base my decisions of rationality and compassion, not some dodgy shite written in a distorted book of some of the sickest shit you can imagine......

Btw, thats not at all what i said, what you are doing is making a strawman because you have no point, so are making up absurdities to argue against because you realise you have no valid position. Its obvious and quite quite sad.

Murder? Wow aren't you evocative. You are evil if you are condoning the continued torture of an innocent child, end of. Simple as that.