Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou must be talking about Beauchamp and Childress' four principles.
Oh dear, another epic failure of grotesque proportions, the Hippocratic oath is trumped by the right of self determination, any doctor will tell you that, in fact if a Doctor happens to be a Jehovah's witness and the person requests an intravenous blood transfusion then the doctor or surgeon is under duress to comply with their wishes. Please think ...[text shortened]... word is law. But its not the case for adults and the right of self determination is paramount.
The first of these principles is described as follows:
Respect for autonomy: respecting the decision-making capacities of autonomous persons; enabling individuals to make reasoned informed choices.
"To make reasoned informed decisions"
A question for you Robbie, regarding this specific case:
If the parents had jurisdiction, and wished for there to be no blood treatment,
would respecting this decision and allowing the child to die be a reasonable thing to do?
Please think about your answer before posting.
4 edits
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainI cannot comment on the specifics because i have not read the contributors posts, i don't read them, he is a hater of Jehovahs witnesses, has been caught in the past posting false information from articles that he had not even read, from third party hate sights that he frequents. He uses emotive issues like minors and intravenous blood transfusions for propping up his hatred. I have no comment to make on not only purely speculative questions but on highly emotive issues such as this, the fact is, in the UK parents have NO jurisdiction and it is therefore a non issue for me.
You must be talking about Beauchamp and Childress' four principles.
The first of these principles is described as follows:
[b]Respect for autonomy: respecting the decision-making capacities of autonomous persons; enabling individuals to make reasoned informed choices.
"To make reasoned informed decisions"
A question for you Rob ...[text shortened]... the child to die be a reasonable thing to do?
Please think about your answer before posting.[/b]
-Removed-I don't think you fully understand my point.
Where will it end? If all life is determined by mob rule. Then it could come down to, whenever you retire, you will be terminated. Does this sound extreme?
Why we could eliminate the world's debt. No more care of those who do not contribute to society. And their savings confiscated.
It would be the perfect world, to the mob rule.
So, again I ask, where will it end?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWould you like parents to have jurisdiction in cases like this?
I cannot comment on the specifics because i have not read the contributors posts, i don't read them, he is a hater of Jehovahs witnesses, has been caught in the past posting false information from articles that he had not even read, from third party hate sights that he frequents. He uses emotive issues like minors and intravenous blood transfusions f ...[text shortened]... his, the fact is, in the UK parents have NO jurisdiction and it is therefore a non issue for me.
1 edit
Originally posted by PudgenikHi Pudgenik, I think we normally agree on many issues that arise on these forums but here we will part company.
I don't think you fully understand my point.
Where will it end? If all life is determined by mob rule. Then it could come down to, whenever you retire, you will be terminated. Does this sound extreme?
Why we could eliminate the world's debt. No more care of those who do not contribute to society. And their savings confiscated.
It would be the perfect world, to the mob rule.
So, again I ask, where will it end?
In order to wade through all the mass of discussions and opinions it is a good idea to see the end result of any course of action. The end result is pointless death. The root cause is irresponsible parenting. Anyone or anything [including mob rule] that removes this scourge from society is a blessing. The day mob rule/government steps out of line then it is at that point society should deal with it. In this case they work in favour of mankind.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm talking about this specific case, I know you like to talk in big, vague generalities. For once be specific and stop being daft.
Cases like this, how about all cases? You want to give all of your choices,
all of your authority turned over to the state? Should every choice everyone
makes be screened by the state?
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobNot being daft, I'm very serous at this moment our country is 17T debt and
I'm talking about this specific case, I know you like to talk in big, vague generalities. For once be specific and stop being daft.
it is sky rocketing to a higher numbers every minute. The government is
going to be the very thing that is going to be in charge of every medical
choice they pay for. This specific case can just as easily be flipped to where
they will not do any life saving procedures due to costs! If you were
watching during Obama's first run for President he was asked about an
older lady that had a zeal for life, would he want her to get the care she
need to enjoy life, he said no give her a pill. Rights and morals are going
to be tossed for costs, and I can only imagine it isn't that far away.
Look at the VA health care issues we are seeing today, they don't even have
to deny care, just push you to the back of the line, you will go away after
a little while.
Kelly
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSurely if you had no comment to make, you wouldn't have responded the way you did in the first place?
I cannot comment on the specifics because i have not read the contributors posts, i don't read them, he is a hater of Jehovahs witnesses, has been caught in the past posting false information from articles that he had not even read, from third party hate sights that he frequents. He uses emotive issues like minors and intravenous blood transfusions f ...[text shortened]... his, the fact is, in the UK parents have NO jurisdiction and it is therefore a non issue for me.
It doesn't matter now anyway, after all, it's a non issue for you.
All you've ever done is side-step peoples questions whilst aiming to ridicule other posters,
try to bring hate out of them and see how long you can make it last... in other words, trolling.
You must get a serious kick out of it.
Also, I noticed you've just referred to yourself as a Christian.
FYI, Christianity and Jehovah's Witness are 2 seperate religions entirely.
Perhaps you've over-indulged in the spiritual buffet (again), and it's made you delirious?
Originally posted by KellyJayThis isn't about 'costs', this is about whether a parent has the right to let their child die by refusing a specific life saving treatment.
Not being daft, I'm very serous at this moment our country is 17T debt and
it is sky rocketing to a higher numbers every minute. The government is
going to be the very thing that is going to be in charge of every medical
choice they pay for. This specific case can just as easily be flipped to where
they will not do any life saving procedures due to cost ...[text shortened]... deny care, just push you to the back of the line, you will go away after
a little while.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainI have not ridiculed anyone, i have merely mocked your pretensions of erudition and as for side stepping your imaginary, speculative and thus futile questions, its my prerogative to ignore such questions, in fact, as a Christian I am counseled to do so. Now you can suck it up and accept it or continue whining about it, either way, life goes on.
Surely if you had no comment to make, you wouldn't have responded the way you did in the first place?
It doesn't matter now anyway, after all, it's a non issue for you.
All you've ever done is side-step peoples questions whilst aiming to ridicule other posters,
try to bring hate out of them and see how long you can make it last... in other wor ...[text shortened]... ely.
Perhaps you've over-indulged in the spiritual buffet (again), and it's made you delirious?
and for your information, Jehovahs witness are Christians and your ludicrous claim that they are somehow not Christian or different to other Christians is demonstrably false on the first point and an obvious observation on the latter.