Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Jul '17 13:01
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Clearly there are cases when adults do not wish to be "saved".
    We should give the same right to children.
    Why is the State a better judge of what a child would want than his own parents?
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Jul '17 13:031 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    In this case, doctors were apparently of the opinion that the child could not be saved.
    Why is their opinion sufficient to condemn Charlie to immediate death?

    It is unseemly that the hospital spent months fighting to kill Charlie Gard; he could have been in the US receiving treatment a long time ago. What purpose did it serve?
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    01 Jul '17 13:11
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Why is the State a better judge of what a child would want than his own parents?
    Why are parents a better judge of what a child would want than the state?
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    01 Jul '17 13:12
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Why is their opinion sufficient to condemn Charlie to immediate death?

    It is unseemly that the hospital spent months fighting to kill Charlie Gard; he could have been in the US receiving treatment a long time ago. What purpose did it serve?
    The purpose that was served is that the child did not suffer needlessly.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Jul '17 13:25
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The purpose that was served is that the child did not suffer needlessly.
    The State could execute you tomorrow on the same rationale. As the Dread Pirate Roberts said "Life is pain" (actually there was no evidence that Charlie was in pain BTW).
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    01 Jul '17 13:26
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The State could execute you tomorrow on the same rationale. As the Dread Pirate Roberts said "Life is pain" (actually there was no evidence that Charlie was in pain BTW).
    Well, in that case let's leave everything up to parents and reduce children to their parents' property to do with as they see fit.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Jul '17 13:29
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why are parents a better judge of what a child would want than the state?
    Gee, why does the State allow parents to make any decisions for their children? I'm sure the proper State run board of experts would be more knowledgeable about what they should wear, what time they should eat, etc. etc. etc.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Jul '17 13:30
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, in that case let's leave everything up to parents and reduce children to their parents' property to do with as they see fit.
    Non sequitur. In most cases, the State isn't trying to kill a child for its own good.
  9. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    01 Jul '17 13:34
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Non sequitur.
    Indeed. Just like "[t]he State could execute you tomorrow on the same rationale."
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Jul '17 13:401 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Indeed. Just like "[t]he State could execute you tomorrow on the same rationale."
    You've expressed no limiting principle for your belief that the State can be an adequate judge of the worth of an individual's life. By contrast, I've already covered the "you want children to be the parent's property" silliness in the other thread on this topic.

    EDIT: To remind you:

    no1: 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.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    01 Jul '17 14:33
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You've expressed no limiting principle for your belief that the State can be an adequate judge of the worth of an individual's life. By contrast, I've already covered the "you want children to be the parent's property" silliness in the other thread on this topic.

    EDIT: To remind you:

    no1: the State is seeking to terminate the child's life in his " ...[text shortened]... sing their children (though I think that power should be limited) is entirely besides the point.
    The limiting principle is that which leads to optimal outcomes.

    Governments routinely make judgements with respect to the value of human life. For example, a government might have the option to invest 100 million dollars on improving infrastructure so that 100 people can be saved due to improved road safety.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Jul '17 14:431 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The limiting principle is that which leads to optimal outcomes.

    Governments routinely make judgements with respect to the value of human life. For example, a government might have the option to invest 100 million dollars on improving infrastructure so that 100 people can be saved due to improved road safety.
    Your confidence in the State's ability to decide the worth of any individual's life and make policy which lead to the "optimal outcome" of their death is unsettling.

    And the example given is inappropriate anyway; saving 100 lives is a bit different from taking one.
  13. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    01 Jul '17 14:47
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your confidence in the State's ability to decide the worth of any individual's life and make policy which lead to the "optimal outcome" of their death is unsettling.

    And the example given is inappropriate anyway; saving 100 lives is a bit different from taking one.
    No lives were "taken" in the Charlie Gard case - the state intervened (on the advice of medical professionals) because the parents wanted to prolong the suffering of their child who was inevitably going to die soon anyway.

    My confidence is not in "the state" but rather in doctors, who, while far from infallible, are better equipped to make medical decisions than you, I, or Gard's parents.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    01 Jul '17 14:541 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    No lives were "taken" in the Charlie Gard case - the state intervened (on the advice of medical professionals) because the parents wanted to prolong the suffering of their child who was inevitably going to die soon anyway.

    My confidence is not in "the state" but rather in doctors, who, while far from infallible, are better equipped to make medical decisions than you, I, or Gard's parents.
    When the only advise of "medical experts" is that a child be put to death, it should be ignored where alternate treatments exist (that was going to be provided by doctors). That they are "experimental" is quite beside the point.

    Your and the other Euros vilifying of the parents is appalling.
  15. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    01 Jul '17 15:25
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    When the only advise of "medical experts" is that a child be put to death, it should be ignored where alternate treatments exist (that was going to be provided by doctors). That they are "experimental" is quite beside the point.

    Your and the other Euros vilifying of the parents is appalling.
    Oh my, a "non-viable" baby worthy of saving? I've seen it all.
Back to Top