Nanny State

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

The issue that is being debated is whether or not the parents' wishes should be respected.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The issue that is being debated is whether or not the parents' wishes should be respected.

No, the legal issue that is being decided by the courts is whether it is in the child's best interest to be allowed to be moved outside of the country for further treatment or whether it should be simply removed from life support here. As grotesque as such an "issue" is, the fact that his parents wish to do so is treated as a secondary one of little import.

That is the problem.

EDIT: From the article I cited on page 1 of this thread:

Specialists believe the US trial is experimental and will not improve his quality of life, and therefore he should be allowed to die with dignity.
Charlie's parents have exhausted all legal options in the UK.

On Tuesday, the High Court ruled that life-sustaining treatment could be withdrawn,and on Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected the parents' appeal against that decision.
The Supreme Court said parents were not entitled to insist on treatment which was not in their child's best interests.

How arrogant of the parents to "insist" that their child get treatment (in this case with funds they have raised on their own).

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, the legal issue that is being decided by the courts is whether it is in the child's best interest to be [b]allowed to be moved outside of the country for further treatment or whether it should be simply removed from life support here. As grotesque as such an "issue" is, the fact that his parents wish to do so is treated as a secondary one of litt ...[text shortened]... "insist" that their child get treatment (in this case with funds they have raised on their own).[/b]

Exactly.
The doctors say going to the trial and participating in it is not beneficial to the child.

The courts agree.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Exactly.
The doctors say going to the trial and participating in it is not beneficial to the child.

The courts agree.

That you think that is fine and dandy is the problem. Doctors have expertise in medical matters but absolutely zero expertise in what is best for someone else's child. And judges might have expertise in legal matters but they too have zero expertise in what is best for someone else's child. So we are replacing the parent's judgment in this matter as to what treatment their child should receive with that of others through sheer fiat.

The State was created to protect the Natural Rights of the People not meddle in such fundamentally personal matters.

The more I think about this case, the more I get upset.

Here's my bottom line:

It's none of the doctors or the judges or anybody else's goddamn business if Charlie Gard's parents want him to get experimental treatment in the US rather than having his life support terminated by the caring physicians of Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The more I think about this case, the more I get upset.

Here's my bottom line:

It's none of the doctors or the judges or anybody else's goddamn business if Charlie Gard's parents want him to get experimental treatment in the US rather than having his life support terminated by the caring physicians of Great Ormond Street Hospital.

So, the doctors and courts are saying that moving the kid to the US will be more distressing for him with 0 chance of recovery and a possibility of a very limited increase of function for a very limited time... than stopping the current situation.

I.e. The parents are going to drag the kid through a hell to postpone the agony they're going to feel anyway.

So, the parents are not doing this in the child's interests, but for their own.

And you're upset because the doctors and judges don't want the kid to suffer anymore than it is?

Originally posted by shavixmir
So, the doctors and courts are saying that moving the kid to the US will be more distressing for him with 0 chance of recovery and a possibility of a very limited increase of function for a very limited time... than stopping the current situation.

I.e. The parents are going to drag the kid through a hell to postpone the agony they're going to feel anywa ...[text shortened]... And you're upset because the doctors and judges don't want the kid to suffer anymore than it is?

I'm upset that you are willing to cast the parents as bad guys and the State as the all knowing protector of children ----- that in this case they'd like to kill ASAP (in his own "best interest" of course).

There is also the possibility, perhaps a slim one but there it is, that this experimental program might yield knowledge that may help a similarly situated child in the future. That your omniscient doctors testifying here don't think this will be the case might be good enough for you, but given the uncertainties of medical knowledge I don't find such an opinion sufficient to deny this child treatment even if you think it is some vanity project for his parents.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm upset that you are willing to cast the parents as bad guys and the State as the all knowing protector of children ----- that in this case they'd like to kill ASAP (in his own "best interest" of course).

There is also the possibility, perhaps a slim one but there it is, that this experimental program might yield knowledge that may help a similarly ...[text shortened]... icient to deny this child treatment even if you think it is some vanity project for his parents.

IF you believe it is entirely up the the parents - assuming they will pay for it - then you should not be making the case on their behalf. You should be arguing that it is their right even if they are doing completely the wrong thing altogether.
So, if you believed that the parents choice would result in extreme and unnecessary suffering for the child, would you support it?
What if the parents choice would likely result in a shorter lifespan for the child as well as extreme and unnecessary suffering?
Suppose for example the parents just want the child to die on the beach on a tropical island (they may have what they see to be good reasons for doing so), so they request the child be transported there, but you (or the doctors and judge) believe this will result in a sooner death and extreme suffering?
You seem to be suggesting that the only reason you side with the parents is there are uncertainties involved. Who decides when the uncertainties are significant enough?

Originally posted by twhitehead
IF you believe it is entirely up the the parents - assuming they will pay for it - then you should not be making the case on their behalf. You should be arguing that it is their right even if they are doing completely the wrong thing altogether.
So, if you believed that the parents choice would result in extreme and unnecessary suffering for the child, w ...[text shortened]... is there are uncertainties involved. Who decides when the uncertainties are significant enough?

None of your hypotheticals apply. In fact, the State is seeking to terminate the child's life in his "best interests" against the wishes of his parents even though it will cost the state nothing for the child to get treatment that the parents think is desirable.

I find this an extraordinary assertion of State power. That the State has a legitimate power to prevent parents from abusing their children (though I think that power should be limited) is entirely besides the point.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, the legal issue that is being decided by the courts is whether it is in the child's best interest to be [b]allowed to be moved outside of the country for further treatment or whether it should be simply removed from life support here. As grotesque as such an "issue" is, the fact that his parents wish to do so is treated as a secondary one of litt ...[text shortened]... "insist" that their child get treatment (in this case with funds they have raised on their own).[/b]

Neither doctors nor parents are infallible, but armed with our knowledge that 63 million Americans - many of them parents - voted for Donald Trump surely puts to rest the notion that people are typically of sound judgement when it comes to anything including decisions with respect to their children's health. A child is not a parent's property.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm upset that you are willing to cast the parents as bad guys and the State as the all knowing protector of children ----- that in this case they'd like to kill ASAP (in his own "best interest" of course).

There is also the possibility, perhaps a slim one but there it is, that this experimental program might yield knowledge that may help a similarly ...[text shortened]... icient to deny this child treatment even if you think it is some vanity project for his parents.

I couldn't agree with you more.
That's why the courts can overview the decisions.

I'm not painting the parents as bad guys, but nobody wants their kid to die. And that urge can be strong enough to cloud judgement.

If the research element is so grand, why doesn't the American doctor come to the UK to do the trial treatment?

I understand your hesitance on giving authority over children to doctors, lawyers and governments.
In many cases I would probably agree with you.
If there was a 20% chance of significant benefits for the kid, I'd probably agree with you too. But probably the doctors and courts would agree as well.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Neither doctors nor parents are infallible, but armed with our knowledge that 63 million Americans - many of them parents - voted for Donald Trump surely puts to rest the notion that people are typically of sound judgement when it comes to anything including decisions with respect to their children's health. A child is not a parent's property.

A child isn't the State's property either. Long before there were States, parents were entrusted with the care and protection of their children and they generally did a pretty good job.

That the State can insist on your child's death in his own "best interests" should be something inconceivable to anyone who fancies themselves a free human being.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Apparently you can't read. I took no such position and tearing my quotes out of context as support for your silly vendetta is stunningly disgusting given the topic of this thread. Not that I expect an extreme narcissist like yourself to engage in the type of self-analysis necessary to realize that.