Nanny State

Originally posted by shavixmir
Complete bollocks and taking the whole story out of context.

The kid is going to die.
Without life support, it will die.
The trial treatment in the US won't cure it, might slightly increase brain function for a limited time.
Might, trial, costs millions and even the doctor who's willibg tondonthe trial says the kid is going to die; the parents might ...[text shortened]... l cause the kid for a treatment that might increase brain activity, but has 0% chance of a cure.

We're all going to die. The object of treatment isn't to make us immortal but perhaps increase our life span a bit and, more importantly, improve our quality of life.

Whether this treatment (and it is treatment) will do so is debatable I suppose but what matters is who gets to decide. I don't think the State should have the power to override the parent's wishes in these matters esp. where, as here, it will cost the State nothing.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Complete bollocks and taking the whole story out of context.

The kid is going to die.
Without life support, it will die.
The trial treatment in the US won't cure it, might slightly increase brain function for a limited time.
Might, trial, costs millions and even the doctor who's willibg tondonthe trial says the kid is going to die; the parents might ...[text shortened]... l cause the kid for a treatment that might increase brain activity, but has 0% chance of a cure.

First off, Charlie is a 'he,' not an "it."
Yes, Charlie is going to die one way or another... as we all will sooner or later.
But not only does a prolonged life possibly grant Charlie an opportunity to connect with his parents, it makes Charlie a trailblazer for the next kid who suffers from the same ailment.

People with children understand.
You don't.
You're not intended to understand everything so sometimes you'll have to take the word of people with experience in the situation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Looks like I missed it.
What was the point?

One point is you finding compassion in your addled brain for a child destined to die but expressing ZERO compassion for the 20 people who died and a lot more injured in the Manchester bombing. You are a desperate little man, a hypocrite of the lowest order.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One point is you finding compassion in your addled brain for a child destined to die but expressing ZERO compassion for the 20 people who died and a lot more injured in the Manchester bombing. You are a desperate little man, a hypocrite of the lowest order.

Let me help you save a tremendous amount of energy with an added bonus of keeping from looking like an immature, bitter old man.

Stop with the insults.
Not only am I completely impervious to personal attacks, your desperation to injure or kill me forces you to greater and greater exaggerations and unfounded character assassination--- none of which has any basis in reality, nor is there any connection or relevance to the actual topic at hand--- even if there was any accuracy to your childish silliness.

Just stay on topic, please.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH


People with children understand.
You don't.
You're not intended to understand everything so sometimes you'll have to take the word of people with experience in the situation.

I do.

We had to give instructions to take our first child off the machines.

We didn't want to prolong her life.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I do.

We had to give instructions to take our first child off the machines.

We didn't want to prolong her life.

I am sorry for your family's loss.

In the same situations I can see myself doing what Charlie's family is doing as readily as I can see myself doing what you and your wife did.

Either way, it hurts like hell inevitably.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I do.

We had to give instructions to take our first child off the machines.

We didn't want to prolong her life.

My sister made the same choice.

But it should be her and your choice, not the State's.

Originally posted by no1marauder
My sister made the same choice.

But it should be her and your choice, not the State's.

And that's my point, as well.

Originally posted by no1marauder
My sister made the same choice.

But it should be her and your choice, not the State's.

I strongly disagree.
Where the choice is arbitrary (ie arguments for both) then the parents may as well have the "deciding vote".

Otherwise the best interests of the child should be addressed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
We're all going to die. The object of treatment isn't to make us immortal but perhaps increase our life span a bit and, more importantly, improve our quality of life.

Whether this treatment (and it is treatment) will do so is debatable I suppose but what matters is who gets to decide. I don't think the State should have the power to override the parent's wishes in these matters esp. where, as here, it will cost the State nothing.

If it's the parents rights, no matter what, then they can also opt to abuse a child.

There's a check in place (in most European countries): if the doctors decide one thing and parents disagree... a court decides. And they decide: what is best for the child.

It's not a nanny state, it's sensibly checking a child doesn't need to suffer excessively.

As far as I know, the doctors are all in agreement (except for the American who'll earn a million for his unproven treatment which may or may not allow the kid to smile before he dies) that moving the kid to the States and putting him through the whole ordeal is worse than the other option.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I do.

We had to give instructions to take our first child off the machines.

We didn't want to prolong her life.

That's a horrible and sad thing for all of you.
It hurts just to contemplate it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
First off, Charlie is a 'he,' not an "it."
Yes, Charlie is going to die one way or another... as we all will sooner or later.
But not only does a prolonged life possibly grant Charlie an opportunity to connect with his parents, it makes Charlie a trailblazer for the next kid who suffers from the same ailment.

People with children understand.
You don ...[text shortened]... everything so sometimes you'll have to take the word of people with experience in the situation.

You have no idea who I am or what I've experienced. Please refrain from suggeting otherwise.

Yes. Generally it's a parents choice.
However, doctors don't think of the parents. They think of what's best or least worst for the kid.
And that might not always be what parents want or want to hear.
Hence that courts sometimes get involved.
And generally (I can't comment on all individual cases) they do their best to weigh up all interests and possibilities.
If they side with doctors over the parents wishes, then, again generally, it is not to impose state-rule, it's not intended to rip hope from the parents... it's what's logically and medically the best option for the child.

Originally posted by shavixmir
You have no idea who I am or what I've experienced. Please refrain from suggeting otherwise.

Yes. Generally it's a parents choice.
However, doctors don't think of the parents. They think of what's best or least worst for the kid.
And that might not always be what parents want or want to hear.
Hence that courts sometimes get involved.
And generally ( ...[text shortened]... rip hope from the parents... it's what's logically and medically the best option for the child.

You have no idea who I am or what I've experienced. Please refrain from suggeting otherwise.
Sure I do.
You have made it unequivocally clear that you hate kids.
Therefore, anything you wish to opine on any topic concerning kids will necessarily be informed from that hatred.

Yes. Generally it's a parents choice.
So we’re in agreement.

If they side with doctors over the parents wishes, then, again generally, it is not to impose state-rule, it's not intended to rip hope from the parents... it's what's logically and medically the best option for the child.
It’s a fine line, which apparently you consider already established.
In your hierarchy, the ultimate decision is the State.
The State considers the input of the parents, weighed against the input of the doctor.
The State is neither an expert in medicine or prognosticator of odds and certainly cannot be considered more vested in the welfare of the child than the parents of the same.
But that is exactly what your scenario not only allows for, but assumes to be the case.

Does the State offer compensation against its purse for injuries or losses incurred which are a result of forced medical treatment?

The matter is gray, not black and white.
Were the situation related to vaccines, which some parents wish to avoid, according to your metrics, the State would again prevail and override the parent’s wishes--- on the input of doctors.

It’s nice to know that in most situations, the State will allow parents to be parents.
But when it comes to the big stuff, well, the State is going to have the final say.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I strongly disagree.
Where the choice is arbitrary (ie arguments for both) then the parents may as well have the "deciding vote".

Otherwise the best interests of the child should be addressed.

If the issues is debatable (as it is here), the parent's wishes should be respected. Arguing that it is in the child's best interests to die is perverse.

Originally posted by shavixmir
If it's the parents rights, no matter what, then they can also opt to abuse a child.

There's a check in place (in most European countries): if the doctors decide one thing and parents disagree... a court decides. And they decide: what is best for the child.

It's not a nanny state, it's sensibly checking a child doesn't need to suffer excessively.

...[text shortened]... g the kid to the States and putting him through the whole ordeal is worse than the other option.

This is not a case of abuse; it is the case of parents trying to do what they think is best for their child. No one in their right mind would argue that it is abusive not to let a child die; well except some doctors and UK judges.

Courts should not be given such power. "What is best for the child" is an empty vessel into which can be poured any brew of ideological and philosophical preconceptions. It might be an appropriate test when two parents cannot agree on custody or other arrangements, but it is a frightening thing that the State can be given such a carte blanche to override the decisions of parents in "free" countries.