|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 04 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 06:20 KwarK wrote:On July 04 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:
In the U.K. infants are people who get the protection of the law, even when that is protection from their parents. Parents are entrusted to make decisions on behalf of their children but they do not own their children and can have those decisions contested by an advocate appointed on behalf of the child. It's not really a controversial subject in my opinion. Hell, in the US you prosecute faith healing parents who deny their children medical care. Same principle here. Not even close to the same principle; faith healing vs experimental medical procedures. In the UK, once a child is admitted to a hospital, the state is entrusted to make the best decisions for the child instead of the parent. Just brief them on the child's name and what a panel says is the dignified way to die. It reminds me of a US case a while back when a bureaucrat was brought to a house or senate panel and argued that his department knew better how to raise a questioner's kids than the father himself. Do you not think that a highly educated, highly experienced civil servant might know more about raising children than some parents do? Or that doctors might know more than the parents of their patients? Doctors do not make recommendations contrary to the wishes of the parents lightly. The courts are not on a power trip here, they are involved because the doctors involved in the case have communicated that the infant needs an advocate and that the parents are failing in that role. This is kind of the high water mark of the defense of state involvement. State actors know how to raise your children better, professional doctors (well, those the state chooses, not those developing next-generation treatments) know better than you if your child deserves to die this week or next for dignity's sake. This is seen most particularly when the courts deem to allow another week for the child to live, and when they salute the parents for bravely raising money for treatments they are disallowing to happen. It really is quite disgusting.
Maybe it's just because I work in pharma, but it seems like the loco parentis issue here isn't the main one. Really it's an issue of the government allowing untested medical treatments for extremely ill patients. Put it this way: if the kid was grown up, and wanted to do an experimental treatment, the government would still likely say no - it isn't tested, so it's not ethical to give it to humans. Even more so when the human in question can't consent, of course, but if the treatment hasn't even been through phase one clinical trials, it doesn't matter how sick you are, that treatment isn't allowed.
But I only skimmed the article, so maybe I missed something saying the treatment was farther along than that? Because otherwise it seems pretty normal for the state to stop people from giving untested treatments to their kids.
No clue why Trump decided to weigh in on this, of all things
|
On July 04 2017 08:14 ChristianS wrote:
No clue why Trump decided to weigh in on this, of all things
(Was there a news report aired about it on Fox News that characterized the lack of treatment as a governmental injustice?)
|
On July 04 2017 08:14 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2017 06:20 KwarK wrote:On July 04 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:
In the U.K. infants are people who get the protection of the law, even when that is protection from their parents. Parents are entrusted to make decisions on behalf of their children but they do not own their children and can have those decisions contested by an advocate appointed on behalf of the child. It's not really a controversial subject in my opinion. Hell, in the US you prosecute faith healing parents who deny their children medical care. Same principle here. Not even close to the same principle; faith healing vs experimental medical procedures. In the UK, once a child is admitted to a hospital, the state is entrusted to make the best decisions for the child instead of the parent. Just brief them on the child's name and what a panel says is the dignified way to die. It reminds me of a US case a while back when a bureaucrat was brought to a house or senate panel and argued that his department knew better how to raise a questioner's kids than the father himself. Do you not think that a highly educated, highly experienced civil servant might know more about raising children than some parents do? Or that doctors might know more than the parents of their patients? Doctors do not make recommendations contrary to the wishes of the parents lightly. The courts are not on a power trip here, they are involved because the doctors involved in the case have communicated that the infant needs an advocate and that the parents are failing in that role. This is kind of the high water mark of the defense of state involvement. State actors know how to raise your children better, professional doctors (well, those the state chooses, not those developing next-generation treatments) know better than you if your child deserves to die this week or next for dignity's sake. This is seen most particularly when the courts deem to allow another week for the child to live, and when they salute the parents for bravely raising money for treatments they are disallowing to happen. It really is quite disgusting. No clue why Trump decided to weigh in on this, of all things
Rile up a bunch of emotional appeal in a completely transparent thinly veiled attempt at showing compassion. Apparently it's working on conservatives as Danglars is in here making emotional arguments and is very disturbed by this story. I wonder where that same compassion/empathy goes when a multitude of other topics come up.
|
On July 04 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 06:20 KwarK wrote:On July 04 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2017 05:23 KwarK wrote:
In the U.K. infants are people who get the protection of the law, even when that is protection from their parents. Parents are entrusted to make decisions on behalf of their children but they do not own their children and can have those decisions contested by an advocate appointed on behalf of the child. It's not really a controversial subject in my opinion. Hell, in the US you prosecute faith healing parents who deny their children medical care. Same principle here. Not even close to the same principle; faith healing vs experimental medical procedures. In the UK, once a child is admitted to a hospital, the state is entrusted to make the best decisions for the child instead of the parent. Just brief them on the child's name and what a panel says is the dignified way to die. It reminds me of a US case a while back when a bureaucrat was brought to a house or senate panel and argued that his department knew better how to raise a questioner's kids than the father himself. Do you not think that a highly educated, highly experienced civil servant might know more about raising children than some parents do? Or that doctors might know more than the parents of their patients? Doctors do not make recommendations contrary to the wishes of the parents lightly. The courts are not on a power trip here, they are involved because the doctors involved in the case have communicated that the infant needs an advocate and that the parents are failing in that role. This is kind of the high water mark of the defense of state involvement. State actors know how to raise your children better, professional doctors (well, those the state chooses, not those developing next-generation treatments) know better than you if your child deserves to die this week or next for dignity's sake. This is seen most particularly when the courts deem to allow another week for the child to live, and when they salute the parents for bravely raising money for treatments they are disallowing to happen. It really is quite disgusting.
what do you make of other cases where parents don't get to decide for their (still young) children anymore and the state takes over. Be it because the parents are addicted to drugs and can't care for them, are abusive or something else?
Do you also consider that bad because the parents should know best, or at least have the option to to raise their kid the way they want it?
The way the case was explained it really seems rather black and white to me with what the UK decided being the correct decision
|
So government should never interfere with a parents decision about their child.
Unless those parents are getting an abortion, in which case the government should have total control.
The life of children should be the number one priority without any other consideration.
Unless that life is helped by tax-funded programs, in which case no dice.
Consistency is wonderful, is it not?
|
Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children? Same case could be made about anti-vaxxers.
|
Forcing a child to suffer because of religious beliefs is just child abuse. It doesn't matter if child gets physical abuse, is set to have the gay shocked out of them or is denied medical aid from others. People need to stop polishing this turd.
|
To be honest some of it is all that people have left to hang on to. Look at Global Warming for example people think the weather acting more and more crazy and out of whack is a sign of God's judgement and signs of the next coming. Is it idiotic? of course it is. But I could easily see it as a sign of an emotional fragility.
Now think of a child brought into the mix.
|
In this case I don't blame the parents. They need to go someplace with their grief. It's is the people jumping on the band wagon to blame the U.K. Courts for putting and end to this sad affair.
|
On July 04 2017 08:47 warding wrote:
Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children? Same case could be made about anti-vaxxers.
Not anywhere near the same world. Jehovah's witness's can refuse it after they are of age to make that decision. Anti-vaxxers are flat earth level conspiracy nuts that kill their own children in a celebration of ignorance.
On July 04 2017 08:54 Plansix wrote:
Forcing a child to suffer because of religious beliefs is just child abuse. It doesn't matter if child gets physical abuse, is set to have the gay shocked out of them or is denied medical aid from others. People need to stop polishing this turd.
But then baptism and jewish circumcision gets thrown into the mess and no one wants to do anything about it.
|
On July 04 2017 08:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:
So government should never interfere with a parents decision about their child.
Unless those parents are getting an abortion, in which case the government should have total control.
The life of children should be the number one priority without any other consideration.
Unless that life is helped by tax-funded programs, in which case no dice.
Consistency is wonderful, is it not?
The thing with abortion is that I'm not entirely supportive of it really. I don't think anyone serious is supportive of abortion in the way American conservatives like to think about it. But enough studies have shown that abortion rates go down when sexual education and ease of access to contraception goes up. And when said abortion rates go down, abortion rates become more limited to more serious cases.
Yet American conservatives are hellbent on trying to restrict contraception and sexual education via elimination of programs like Planned Parenthood. I mean, they can stop being Christian Fundamentalists and accept that people are going to have sex or they'll have to accept women throwing themselves down stairs and the rise of back-alley abortion solutions again.
On July 04 2017 09:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 08:47 warding wrote:
Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children? Same case could be made about anti-vaxxers. Not anywhere near the same world. Jehovah's witness's can refuse it after they are of age to make that decision. Anti-vaxxers are flat earth level conspiracy nuts that kill their own children in a celebration of ignorance.
Anti-vaxxers are a public health issue in general because it completely screws up herd immunity in the community.
|
On July 04 2017 08:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:
So government should never interfere with a parents decision about their child.
Unless those parents are getting an abortion, in which case the government should have total control.
The life of children should be the number one priority without any other consideration.
Unless that life is helped by tax-funded programs, in which case no dice.
Consistency is wonderful, is it not?
double standard is better because you have twice as many standards right?
|
On July 04 2017 09:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 08:47 warding wrote:
Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children? Same case could be made about anti-vaxxers. Not anywhere near the same world. Jehovah's witness's can refuse it after they are of age to make that decision. Anti-vaxxers are flat earth level conspiracy nuts that kill their own children in a celebration of ignorance. Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 08:54 Plansix wrote:
Forcing a child to suffer because of religious beliefs is just child abuse. It doesn't matter if child gets physical abuse, is set to have the gay shocked out of them or is denied medical aid from others. People need to stop polishing this turd. But then baptism and jewish circumcision gets thrown into the mess and no one wants to do anything about it.
Circumcision (jewish or not) of children for non-medical reasons IS child abuse.
|
On July 04 2017 09:50 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 09:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 04 2017 08:47 warding wrote:
Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children? Same case could be made about anti-vaxxers. Not anywhere near the same world. Jehovah's witness's can refuse it after they are of age to make that decision. Anti-vaxxers are flat earth level conspiracy nuts that kill their own children in a celebration of ignorance. On July 04 2017 08:54 Plansix wrote:
Forcing a child to suffer because of religious beliefs is just child abuse. It doesn't matter if child gets physical abuse, is set to have the gay shocked out of them or is denied medical aid from others. People need to stop polishing this turd. But then baptism and jewish circumcision gets thrown into the mess and no one wants to do anything about it. Circumcision (jewish or not) of children for non-medical reasons IS child abuse.
And now you're persecuting the jews and not allowing them to practice their religion. If someone advocated in the USA and you'd lose florida.
|
"The only emotional arguments allowed are about the Republicans' literally murderous healthcare plan."
On July 04 2017 08:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:From my previously linked article: These decisions, too, were probably products of “compassion.” But the state does not suffer with the sick. Justice Francis did not “look at the question from the assumed point of view of the child,” as the law naïvely demands; Justice Francis looked at the question from Justice Francis’s point of view.
The question, then, is not what would Charlie Gard want — a question no one can answer. The question is what do we owe to people such as Charlie, who cannot speak for themselves? What duty of care do we owe them simply on account of their being human beings, who are by nature possessed of an inalienable dignity? What obligations do we have to those who suffer, and how should we understand their suffering? And, pertinent to this case, under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection — those between parent and child — be subordinated to the judgment of the state?
The precedent established by Charlie Gard’s case will metastasize, as similar decisions have. It will be made to apply to children with more-familiar illnesses and better prognoses; it will be used to dismiss the input of parents whose values and priorities when it comes to medical care and end-of-life issues do not align with those of the state; it may be used simply to clear beds for “worthier” patients in a health-care system with very limited resources. This, presumably, will be “compassionate,” too.
Any day now, they’ll kill Charlie Gard. But it’s in his own best interest. Don’t you see? And aforementioned, if posters are talking about what kind of life the child will lead if saved, does this also apply to rare disorders found in the womb and what justices and scientific experts rule is a baby better left aborted? Charlie deserves to live because he has £1.3M though right? Isn't this really about the right to spend your money any way you want? You argued earlier that the state was biased by what amounted to "efficiency" considerations. What kind of "right to life" are we talking about here though? This is a right to spend money. Isn't that what it comes down to? Surely you wouldn't be making all this noise if the parents were demanding that the State pay. But since the parents are relatively good looking people with a sad story who can exploit social media fund-raising they have obtained a right to life greater than some circumscribed right to "bare life." They have obtained the right to spend money on life.
Surely you see that this is ridiculous.
The "right to spend your money" is, at best, tangentially related the question. Money is brought up to preempt the argument that "the State doesn't have infinite resources to spend."
We could discuss why this is a reasonable objection to state-run healthcare, but I don't think that's the point of it either.
The crux is here that A) the parents are being denied the ability to undertake an action they, as parents, are entitled to, and B) that some bureaucrats and courts hold this much over life and death.
I guess I'm not surprised that some on the left would go for this money argument, but it's not really relevant.
I remember when embryonic stem cell research was a hot topic, one of the left's two favorite arguments was: even if it's killing a fetus (and a person) think of how many lives it could save in the long run!
At the very least this could be viewed in an experimental way. The parents and the doctors were willing. I don't think either are acting irrationally or not in the child's best interest. But the hospital (last I saw) even denied them to right to bring the kid home as he died.
|
On July 04 2017 09:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 09:50 Ghostcom wrote:On July 04 2017 09:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 04 2017 08:47 warding wrote:
Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children? Same case could be made about anti-vaxxers. Not anywhere near the same world. Jehovah's witness's can refuse it after they are of age to make that decision. Anti-vaxxers are flat earth level conspiracy nuts that kill their own children in a celebration of ignorance. On July 04 2017 08:54 Plansix wrote:
Forcing a child to suffer because of religious beliefs is just child abuse. It doesn't matter if child gets physical abuse, is set to have the gay shocked out of them or is denied medical aid from others. People need to stop polishing this turd. But then baptism and jewish circumcision gets thrown into the mess and no one wants to do anything about it. Circumcision (jewish or not) of children for non-medical reasons IS child abuse. And now you're persecuting the jews and not allowing them to practice their religion. If someone advocated in the USA and you'd lose florida.
I'm sorry for being unclear - I'm not talking from a political point of view (and I don't care about Florida). Some rather developed countries still have some very barbaric laws and ethically sketchy practices which can't be changed any time soon due to the political climate in these countries. That doesn't make it any less barbaric or any less ethically sketchy.
|
On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:
The crux is here that A) the parents are being denied the ability to undertake an action they, as parents, are entitled to, ...
Says who?
In all seriousness this is a central point of the discussion; arguing in absentia does not convince me to your point of view.
|
On July 04 2017 10:01 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:
The crux is here that A) the parents are being denied the ability to undertake an action they, as parents, are entitled to, ... Says who?
That's one of the two parts of the argument. They are certainly more entitled than the government, which should only step into these issues when there is an actual case of abuse, not "I disagree that this is the absolute best for the child."
And practically, I do think that I trust parents more in the aggregate than a bureaucrat. Although this seems to be a less and less popular view, which is scary on its own.
Edit: perhaps I was unclear. What I meant to say is something like the "crux of the argument is..." and instead jumped straight to my view.
|
On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:01 Aquanim wrote:On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:
The crux is here that A) the parents are being denied the ability to undertake an action they, as parents, are entitled to, ... Says who? That's one of the two parts of the argument. They are certainly more entitled than the government, which should only step into these issues when there is an actual case of abuse, not "I disagree that this is the absolute best for the child." And practically, I do think that I trust parents more in the aggregate than a bureaucrat. Although this seems to be a less and less popular view, which is scary on its own.
If the parents are going to make the child suffer for no real possibility of benefit to the child, in what sense is that not abuse?
As I understand it the question was decided by a judge, which is a somewhat different spin to a faceless "bureaucrat".
Is your last point based on a slippery-slope argument? I don't personally see anything particularly scary about this specific instance.
On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote:
Edit: perhaps I was unclear. What I meant to say is something like the "crux of the argument is..." and instead jumped straight to my view.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up.
|
On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:01 Aquanim wrote:On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:
The crux is here that A) the parents are being denied the ability to undertake an action they, as parents, are entitled to, ... Says who? That's one of the two parts of the argument. They are certainly more entitled than the government, which should only step into these issues when there is an actual case of abuse, not "I disagree that this is the absolute best for the child." And practically, I do think that I trust parents more in the aggregate than a bureaucrat. Although this seems to be a less and less popular view, which is scary on its own. Edit: perhaps I was unclear. What I meant to say is something like the "crux of the argument is..." and instead jumped straight to my view.
i don't know what it's like in the UK / US but for example "dignity" isn't just a simple term the way you use it in everyday (?) conversation when it comes to courts, at least over here.
Our art 1 for example, translated into english comes out as(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. and while that might sound flowery and hippy-esque it's basicly the "you're not allowed to torture people" (or so I was told) that's written in such a round about way so that you don't have define what torture is in the first place and potentially change it (which we're not allowed to, which is besides the point).
So long story short, when the court argues that the baby should die with dignity what I, as a german, read into that is that the court basicly considers the alternative to be something along the lines of torture. And quite frankly I don't think the UK court would go out of it's way to prohibit treatment unless it genuinely thinks it is something along those lines with no hope in sight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
