Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Jun '17 16:10
    Murder victim of of the Orwellian MiniLife that's the inevitable consequence of the "It Takes a Village" mindset.


    :'(


    (as of this moment, I am uncertain that Charlie is dead, but as his state-sanctioned execution is scheduled for today, I hope you'll allow me this indulgence)
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '17 19:56
    Originally posted by sh76
    Murder victim of of the Orwellian MiniLife that's the inevitable consequence of the "It Takes a Village" mindset.


    :'(


    (as of this moment, I am uncertain that Charlie is dead, but as his state-sanctioned execution is scheduled for today, I hope you'll allow me this indulgence)
    I'm truly stunned and disappointed by the apparent decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the UK Courts were correct in deciding that the State is a better judge of whether a sick child can receive medical care than his parents.
  3. 30 Jun '17 20:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I'm truly stunned and disappointed by the apparent decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the UK Courts were correct in deciding that the State is a better judge of whether a sick child can receive medical care than his parents.
    Not "the State." Doctors.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '17 20:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Not "the State." Doctors.
    No, the State made the final decision through the legal system.

    Pretending otherwise might be a way to salve your conscience but it is inaccurate. There were doctors who thought that continued treatment was a better option than summary execution but the State's judges overrode their and the parents' judgment.
  5. 30 Jun '17 20:40 / 2 edits
    'The Telegraph' is a right-wing British newspaper.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

    "Who is Charlie Gard, what is the mitochondrial disease he suffers from and why was there a legal battle?"

    "When parents do not agree [with doctors] about a child’s future treatment, it is standard
    legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case."

    "Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street's legal team, suggested that further
    treatment would leave Charlie in a "condition of existence".
    She said therapy proposed in the USA was "experimental" and would not help Charlie.

    "There is significant harm if what the parents want for Charlie comes into effect," she told appeal
    judges. "The significant harm is a condition of existence which is offering the child no benefit."
    She added: "It is inhuman to permit that condition to continue."

    Ms Gollop said nobody knew whether Charlie was in pain.
    "Nobody knows because it is so very difficult because of the ravages of Charlie's condition," she said."

    It seems to me that the hospital argued (successfully) that a non-curative experimental
    treatment in the USA might make feel Charlie Gard's parents feel better but could not
    significantly improve his condition or offer him any realistic hope of recovery.
    Should the perceived interests of Charlie Gard outweigh those of his (selfish?) parents?

    Personally, I would prefer that the funds raised for his experimental treatment be spent
    upon some of the many poor patients with very realistic hopes of recovery but not enough
    money to afford even basic treatment.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '17 20:47
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    'The Telegraph' is a right-wing British newspaper.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

    "Who is Charlie Gard, what is the mitochondrial disease he suffers from and why was there a legal battle?"

    "When parents do not agree [with doctors] about a child’s future treatment, it is standard
    legal pr ...[text shortened]... knows because it is so very difficult because of the ravages of Charlie's condition," she said."
    Calling the State's decision to kill Charlie and his parent's wishes that they not do so, a "disagreement about a child's future treatment" is Orwellian.
  7. 30 Jun '17 20:54
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Calling the State's decision to kill Charlie and his parent's wishes that they not do so, a "disagreement about a child's future treatment" is Orwellian.
    No1Marauder's hyperbole is noted. People routinely have disagreements about medical
    treatment, make (varyingly informed) decisions, and sometimes deaths are a consequence.
    (A friend of mine is a doctor who treats cancer patients and is accustomed to heartbreak.)

    In the interest of clarity, I hope that No1Marauder's condemning The Telegraph's words
    as 'Orwellian' rather than me for accurately quoting them.
  8. 30 Jun '17 20:59
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I'm truly stunned and disappointed by the apparent decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the UK Courts were correct in deciding that the State is a better judge of whether a sick child can receive medical care than his parents.
    I believe that, under some circumstances, a government authority (advised by the relevant experts)
    should have a greater right than a parent to decide what's in the best interests of a child.
    To me, the question was whether this case fell under one of these circumstances.
  9. 30 Jun '17 21:06
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No, the State made the final decision through the legal system.
    Based on the advice of doctors.
  10. 30 Jun '17 21:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I'm truly stunned and disappointed by the apparent decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the UK Courts were correct in deciding that the State is a better judge of whether a sick child can receive medical care than his parents.
    Anarchist
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '17 21:28
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Based on the advice of doctors.
    As I said in the other thread:

    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.

    AND:

    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.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '17 21:29
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    No1Marauder's hyperbole is noted. People routinely have disagreements about medical
    treatment, make (varyingly informed) decisions, and sometimes deaths are a consequence.
    (A friend of mine is a doctor who treats cancer patients and is accustomed to heartbreak.)

    In the interest of clarity, I hope that No1Marauder's condemning The Telegraph's words
    as 'Orwellian' rather than me for accurately quoting them.
    It's not all about you, Duchy.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '17 21:38
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    'The Telegraph' is a right-wing British newspaper.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

    "Who is Charlie Gard, what is the mitochondrial disease he suffers from and why was there a legal battle?"

    "When parents do not agree [with doctors] about a child’s future treatment, it is standard
    legal pr ...[text shortened]... ents with very realistic hopes of recovery but not enough
    money to afford even basic treatment.
    Duchess: Personally, I would prefer that the funds raised for his experimental treatment be spent upon some of the many poor patients with very realistic hopes of recovery but not enough money to afford even basic treatment.

    Your personal preferences aside, there appear to be only 16 cases in the world of the condition that Charlie has. The experimental treatment his parents want him to have has never been tried on a human subject; surely it is not beyond the realm of possibility that its use on Charlie might lead to an expansion of knowledge that might benefit future children born with this condition. Thus, the State's meddling in this case might be condemning them to death as well.
  14. 30 Jun '17 21:42
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's not all about you, Duchy.
    The disingenuous No1Marauder presumably would not be unhappy if a naïve reader was
    misled into construing his post as No1Marauder's condemning my writing as 'Orwellian'.
  15. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    30 Jun '17 21:45
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I'm truly stunned and disappointed by the apparent decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the UK Courts were correct in deciding that the State is a better judge of whether a sick child can receive medical care than his parents.
    Yeah the parents are MUCH better qualified than a battalion of doctors.