Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    30 Jun '17 21:491 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Yeah the parents are MUCH better qualified than a battalion of doctors. 🙄
    As to what is in their child's best interests, they certainly are.

    Mind you, the "battalion of doctors" preferred treatment here is Charlie's immediate death.
  2. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    30 Jun '17 21:492 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Based on the advice of doctors.
    Even let's assume for the sake of argument that it was the doctors' call only (though the state is obviously enforcing it), does that make it any better?

    Why should a doctor get to sanction the killing of another person without consent based on his subjective opinion that his life is not worth living?

    Since poor Charlie obviously can't make his own decision, his parents have every right to make the decision on his behalf. That the state would sanction a doctor's opinion that a life is not worth living and enforce it upon the parents of the victim is sickening.

    I get that medical resources are scarce and if it were a question of clearing a bed for another critically ill person, I could understand that, hard as it is, a choice sometimes has to be made. But the Gards were ready, willing and able to arrange and pay for his transport. He wasn't consuming resources that would otherwise go to save someone else. To execute Charlie under those circumstances just because you don't think his life is worth living is, frankly, homicide.
  3. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    30 Jun '17 21:52
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Yeah the parents are MUCH better qualified than a battalion of doctors. 🙄
    If you made the rules, just how much authority would you give a battalion of doctors to order the involuntary execution of another human being?
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    30 Jun '17 21:52
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    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'.
    Kinda bigger fish to fry in this thread, Duchy.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '17 21:52
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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 experiment ...[text shortened]... is condition. Thus, the State's meddling in this case might be condemning them to death as well.
    Given that Charlie Gard's condition is so extremely rare, there could be at most only
    extremely few persons who could benefit from any improved treatment.

    My point (which No1Marauder fails to comprehend) is simply that upon a 'bang for buck' basis,
    a population would derive greater health benefits if the money was allocated elsewhere.
    The utilitarian moral principle is one of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'.

    I can understand that a privileged affluent white American man like No1Marauder might
    prefer that money be spent lavishly upon a photogenic (in Western eyes) patient with an
    extremely rare incurable terminal condition than upon many poor non-Western patients
    whose lives could be readily saved if they could afford standard treatments.

    If Charlie Gard were a dark-skinned baby of, say, Pakistani Muslim heritage, then would
    there be an equally strong outpouring of Western hearts and donations to help?
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    30 Jun '17 21:55
    Originally posted by sh76
    Even let's assume for the sake of argument that it was the doctors' call only (though the state is obviously enforcing it), does that make it any better?

    Why should a doctor get to sanction the killing of another person without consent based on his subjective opinion that his life is not worth living?

    since poor Charlie obviously can't make his own decisi ...[text shortened]... those circumstances just because you don't think his life is worth living is, frankly, homicide.
    You and I both agree that the government can step in and overrule parents' decisions in the interests of a child's well-being, and you and I both agree that parents do not always have "every right" to make decisions on behalf of their child. The question is only whether this case warrants such intervention. It's not for me to say, really, but I trust the judgement of experts well-aware of the specifics of the case (both of a medical and legal nature) over that of anonymous Internet contributors.

    This is not at all about the scarcity of medical resources. It's about whether or not a child should suffer because their parents are chasing a vain hope they can save their child, however understandable that hope and despair may be.
  7. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    30 Jun '17 21:57
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Given that Charlie Gard's condition is so extremely rare, there could be at most only
    extremely few persons who could benefit from any improved treatment.

    My point (which No1Marauder fails to comprehend) is simply that upon a 'bang for buck' basis,
    a population would derive greater health benefits if the money was allocated elsewhere.
    The utilitaria ...[text shortened]... tage, then would
    there be an equally strong outpouring of Western hearts and donations to help?
    === My point (which No1Marauder fails to comprehend) is simply that upon a 'bang for buck' basis, a population would derive greater health benefits if the money was allocated elsewhere. The utilitarian moral principle is one of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. ===

    I think the above paragraph describes precisely the rabbit hole we must not go down when dealing with human life.
  8. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    30 Jun '17 21:59
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You and I both agree that the government can step in and overrule parents' decisions in the interests of a child's well-being, and you and I both agree that parents do not always have "every right" to make decisions on behalf of their child. The question is only whether this case warrants such intervention. It's not for me to say, really, but I trust th ...[text shortened]... sing a vain hope they can save their child, however understandable that hope and despair may be.
    I agree that the government can step in and overrule parents' decisions when the parents' decision could kill the child, not when the parents' decisions could save the child. I trust the difference between those two cases are self-evident.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    30 Jun '17 22:02
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Given that Charlie Gard's condition is so extremely rare, there could be at most only
    extremely few persons who could benefit from any improved treatment.

    My point (which No1Marauder fails to comprehend) is simply that upon a 'bang for buck' basis,
    a population would derive greater health benefits if the money was allocated elsewhere.
    The utilitaria ...[text shortened]... tage, then would
    there be an equally strong outpouring of Western hearts and donations to help?
    I am going to ignore your posts in this thread from now on; your continued efforts to make everything personal as well as your inappropriate playing of the race card here is disgusting.

    I do not buy utilitarian arguments. The money here was donated to the Gards specifically for Charlie's care; doling it out to "poor non- Western patients" would be fraud.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    30 Jun '17 22:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You and I both agree that the government can step in and overrule parents' decisions in the interests of a child's well-being, and you and I both agree that parents do not always have "every right" to make decisions on behalf of their child. The question is only whether this case warrants such intervention. It's not for me to say, really, but I trust th ...[text shortened]... sing a vain hope they can save their child, however understandable that hope and despair may be.
    The child gets to suffer immediate death because the "experts" say that is better for him than treatment.

    I have never seen such an argument successfully used to override a parent's wishes before.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '17 22:102 edits
    Ethnocentric affluent Americans here like to act as though scarcity of resources never can be an issue.
    That may explain why they prefer so smugly to dismiss utilitarian moral arguments.

    In China (I am not certain of how much conditions may have changed recently) there are
    many people who need kidney transplants and too few kidneys available to meet their needs.
    Kidney dialysis (which can keep a patient alive until a kidney becomes available) is expensive.
    Traditionally, patients lacked the private means to afford kidney dialysis, which was paid for by the state.
    But the government decided that it could not afford to pay for kidney dialysis for everyone who needed it.
    So only a fortunate small minority of patients received kidney dialysis; the others died.

    Committees of doctors (or perhaps other officials) had to make the hard decisions of who
    would get kidney dialysis and who would not and die. They considered factors such as
    a patient's age (favoring youth), general health, abilities (exceptional talent or skills helped).
    Other (unofficial) factors may have included a patient's political status or connections to the powerful.
    There were desperate families who attempted to influence the doctors to help their loved ones.
    Reportedly, there were attempted bribes ranging from money to offering a beautiful daughter in marriage.

    I don't believe that the Chinese doctors cared any less than American doctors would have about their patients.
    But, unlike the USA, China was too poor to offer state-subsidized kidney dialysis to everyone who needed it.
    My point is that lack of money can as surely as lack of technology result in suffering and death.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '17 22:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    === My point (which No1Marauder fails to comprehend) is simply that upon a 'bang for buck' basis, a population would derive greater health benefits if the money was allocated elsewhere. The utilitarian moral principle is one of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. ===

    I think the above paragraph describes precisely the rabbit hole we must not go down when dealing with human life.
    In the interest of clarity, I have *not* claimed that a utilitarian moral principle of 'the
    greatest good for the greatest number' must be the *only* governing principle at work.
    I would submit that utilitarian principles deserve more consideration than given by some
    privileged affluent Westerners here.

    I already expect that these Westerners would prefer to spend lavishly (money's no object!)
    to treat an elderly rich white man with an incurable condition than to help (but what would it cost?)
    many poor non-Westerners with readily curable serious conditions.
  13. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    01 Jul '17 08:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    I agree that the government can step in and overrule parents' decisions when the parents' decision could kill the child, not when the parents' decisions could save the child. I trust the difference between those two cases are self-evident.
    In this case, doctors were apparently of the opinion that the child could not be saved.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    01 Jul '17 08:06
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The child gets to suffer immediate death because the "experts" say that is better for him than treatment.

    I have never seen such an argument successfully used to override a parent's wishes before.
    The first official gay marriage ceremony in modern society took place in Amsterdam in 2001, and had never been seen before.
  15. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45756
    01 Jul '17 11:33
    Originally posted by sh76
    I agree that the government can step in and overrule parents' decisions when the parents' decision could kill the child, not when the parents' decisions could save the child. I trust the difference between those two cases are self-evident.
    Clearly there are cases when adults do not wish to be "saved".
    We should give the same right to children.
Back to Top