Here is the case I was talking about. Parents against Doctors:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3693204.stm
"The case will centre around the baby's right to treatment."
"The parents of a seriously-ill premature baby have been permitted to have their High Court fight for her right to treatment heard in public."
"Doctors have said they will not resuscitate Charlotte if she develops life-threatening breathing problems."
The question was who decides ? The parents or the doctors ? I bet the doctors will win this case.
Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Exactly ... and who is going to advise the parents ..... exactly the doctors. No1 hasn't answered the question what the parents are going to do if the doctors are not prepared to help their child and they, the parents, disagree with that decision.
Doctors are obligated to help the child by the nature of their ...[text shortened]... t and subject
it to my analysis. I assure you, if I find it sound, I will adopt it.
Nemesio[/b]
Please read the BBC article it will make many issues discussed here clear.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHere's a recent update: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4297801.stm
Here is the case I was talking about. Parents against Doctors:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3693204.stm
"The case will centre around the baby's right to treatment."
"The parents of a seriously-ill premature baby have been permitted to have their High Court fight for her right to treatment heard in public."
"Doctors have said they ...[text shortened]... on was who decides ? The parents or the doctors ? I bet the doctors will win this case.
I disagree with the court's decision, but note that the Groningen Protocol article you cited specifically required parental consent (along with the other conditions), so I'm not sure of the relevance.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's a recent update: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4297801.stm
I disagree with the court's decision, but note that the Groningen Protocol article you cited specifically required parental consent (along with the other conditions), so I'm not sure of the relevance.
No1,
You are not aware of all the criteria that have been made up during the Euthanasia discussion. They all were wiped from the table at one time or another. This "Parents Consent" criterion doesn't mean a thing in practise. Don't be so damned naïve.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's a recent update: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4297801.stm
I disagree with the court's decision, but note that the Groningen Protocol article you cited specifically required parental consent (along with the other conditions), so I'm not sure of the relevance.
No1: "I disagree with the court's decision, .... "
There have been many. Which one are you referring to ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeDon't be an idiot. A Parental Consent provision means what it means if it's legally enforceable. The argument in this thread was what the LAW should be; if the law requires parental consent along with the other conditions, that's the law. Simple.
No1,
You are not aware of all the criteria that have been made up during the Euthanasia discussion. They all were wiped from the table at one time or another. This "Parents Consent" criterion doesn't mean a thing in practise. Don't be so damned naïve.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Don't be an idiot. A Parental Consent provision means what it means if it's legally enforceable. The argument in this thread was what the LAW should be; if the law requires parental consent along with the other conditions, that's the law. Simple.
Yea, simple ..... you are not au courant of the Dutch situation, believe me.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have, of course, disagreed with many court decisions but I was referring to the one in the case cited whereby the doctors were allowed to put in a DNR order against the parent's wishes.
No1: "I disagree with the court's decision, .... "
There have been many. Which one are you referring to ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat laws are passed by the Dutch are their business; the thread was about our opinion of assisted suicide and I've given my opinion. I also gave my opinion that I don't have a problem with the Groningen Protocol as outlined in the articles you cited. You mentioned a case in the UK; I've given my opinion that it was wrongly decided. Anything else?
Yea, simple ..... you are not au courant of the Dutch situation, believe me.
Originally posted by ivanhoeNaturally, I am opposed to doctors' making choices which are
Please read the BBC article it will make many issues discussed here clear.
contrary to the wishes of the guardians in question. I should
hope that the courts would rule in the favor of the parents.
If you are saying that a law should be passed because there is
a risk that a court will make a bad decision, then I will have to
say that such a position is not reasonable.
I would like you, Ivanhoe, to articulate you argument in your
own words. You are citing articles as your argument; I want you
to formulate your own argument with the articles as supporting
material.
Right now, I don't see your presentation of an argument, just
assertions. Will you do this so I (we) can scrutinize it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauder
I have, of course, disagreed with many court decisions but I was referring to the one in the case cited whereby the doctors were allowed to put in a DNR order against the parent's wishes.
I see.
You hopefully have some idea now what it takes for parents to fight the doctors decision. Don't you think a lot of average normal people would be inclined to yield to the doctors's pressure and go along with their advice of killing their child, performimg infanticide ?
I know the formal answer, but I would like to have a realistic one, if possible ......
Originally posted by Nemesio
Naturally, I am opposed to doctors' making choices which are
contrary to the wishes of the guardians in question. I should
hope that the courts would rule in the favor of the parents.
If you are saying that a law should be passed because there is
a risk that a court will make a bad decision, then I will have to
say that such a position is not reaso ...[text shortened]... tion of an argument, just
assertions. Will you do this so I (we) can scrutinize it?
Nemesio
Do you want me to reason against killing young children ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, I don't. That is a realistic answer and a true one. I also don't think many doctors and hospitals would go so far as to fight these cases in court, at least in the US.
I see.
You hopefully have some idea now what it takes for parents to fight the doctors decision. Don't you think a lot of average normal people would be inclined to yield to the doctors's pressure and go along with their advice of killing their child, performimg infanticide ?
I know the formal answer, but I would like to have a realistic one, if possible ......