|
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 10:11 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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? because I don't see anything particularly scary about this specific instance. Show nested quote +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.
I think I may trust a judge even less, but that's not really the point.
From what I've read, it doesn't seem like the child is currently in pain, and it's unknown what pain this procedure would cause. I have no doubt that the parents and doctors would stop immediately if they thought they were causing pain. The benefit question is murky, at least as murky as the pain question. I think in cases with ambiguity, it shouldn't left the courts to decide how to "die with dignity" (which apparently doesn't even involve the ability to take him home).
The last point was just an observation. People think a lot less of parental rights than they used to.
|
On July 04 2017 10:20 Introvert wrote:... I have no doubt that the parents and doctors would stop immediately if they thought they were causing pain. ...
I suppose I have a lot less faith on this point than you do.
|
On July 04 2017 10:18 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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 Show nested quote +(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.
It's entirely possible that it has a legal meaning, but the phrase "die with dignity" has a common meaning as well. But it's certainly not clear in this case (from anything I've read) that trying such a treatment amounts to torture.
|
On July 04 2017 10:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:11 Aquanim wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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? because I don't 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. I think I may trust a judge even less, but that's not really the point. From what I've read, it doesn't seem like the child is currently in pain, and it's unknown what pain this procedure would cause. I have no doubt that the parents and doctors would stop immediately if they thought they were causing pain. The benefit question is murky, at least as murky as the pain question. I think in cases with ambiguity, it shouldn't left the courts to decide how to "die with dignity" (which apparently doesn't even involve the ability to take him home). The last point was just an observation. People think a lot less of parental rights than they used to.
Would it change your mind if the doctors who care for the child said there was absolutely nothing that could be done. The judge only decided that the parents had no grounds to prevent the doctors from removing their child from life support. This decision has been upheld by four other judges over the past few months.
Doctors have said he cannot see, hear, move, cry or swallow.
If the child can't do any of that I'm going to assume he doesn't feel pain either. Does that give you free reign to experiment on him?
|
On July 04 2017 10:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:20 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 10:11 Aquanim wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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? because I don't 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. I think I may trust a judge even less, but that's not really the point. From what I've read, it doesn't seem like the child is currently in pain, and it's unknown what pain this procedure would cause. I have no doubt that the parents and doctors would stop immediately if they thought they were causing pain. The benefit question is murky, at least as murky as the pain question. I think in cases with ambiguity, it shouldn't left the courts to decide how to "die with dignity" (which apparently doesn't even involve the ability to take him home). The last point was just an observation. People think a lot less of parental rights than they used to. Would it change your mind if the doctors who care for the child said there was absolutely nothing that could be done. The judge only decided that the parents had no grounds to prevent the doctors from removing their child from life support. This decision has been upheld by four other judges over the past few months.
Well we could go ask the doctors who agreed to perform the procedure. We could go around and around. But yes, that would weaken one leg of the argument. Not enough, but purely as a logical matter it would.
If the child can't do any of that I'm going to assume it doesn't feel pain either. Does that give you free reign to experiment on him?
Personally I'd say no, but I was adopting the argument I alluded to when I mentioned stem cell research.
|
On July 04 2017 10:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:18 Toadesstern wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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. It's entirely possible that it has a legal meaning, but the phrase "die with dignity" has a common meaning as well. But it's certainly not clear in this case (from anything I've read) that trying such a treatment amounts to torture.
I didn't read much, but the kid is brain dead, so can't be tortured (as that takes brain activity). Unless I'm misunderstanding the jargon used?
If anything, it's torture for the parents who are thus far unable to cope with the loss of their child. As a result they are attempting to prolong their own torture and it seems the courts are intervening. That seems like an appropriate response.
If the kid loved soccer and lost a foot and the government was trying to sell that the kid would be better off dead I think this might actually be of consequence, as it stands, just typical virtue signaling from the right.
|
On July 04 2017 10:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:18 Toadesstern wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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. It's entirely possible that it has a legal meaning, but the phrase "die with dignity" has a common meaning as well. But it's certainly not clear in this case (from anything I've read) that trying such a treatment amounts to torture.
this is what I got:
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm", in line with advice from specialists at Great Ormond Street.
[...]
Doctors have said he cannot see, hear, move, cry or swallow.
|
On July 04 2017 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:22 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 10:18 Toadesstern wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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. It's entirely possible that it has a legal meaning, but the phrase "die with dignity" has a common meaning as well. But it's certainly not clear in this case (from anything I've read) that trying such a treatment amounts to torture. I didn't read much, but the kid is brain dead, so can't be tortured (as that takes brain activity). Unless I'm misunderstanding the jargon used? If anything, it's torture for the parents who are thus far unable to cope with the loss of their child. As a result they are attempting to prolong their own torture and it seems the courts are intervening. That seems like an appropriate response. If the kid loved soccer and lost a foot and the government was trying to sell that the kid would be better off dead I think this might actually be of consequence, as it stands, just typical virtue signaling from the right.
If the parents wish to continue "torturing themselves" then that seems like that their right. But that argument goes even further than "what about the kid."
|
On July 04 2017 10:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 04 2017 10:20 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 10:11 Aquanim wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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? because I don't 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. I think I may trust a judge even less, but that's not really the point. From what I've read, it doesn't seem like the child is currently in pain, and it's unknown what pain this procedure would cause. I have no doubt that the parents and doctors would stop immediately if they thought they were causing pain. The benefit question is murky, at least as murky as the pain question. I think in cases with ambiguity, it shouldn't left the courts to decide how to "die with dignity" (which apparently doesn't even involve the ability to take him home). The last point was just an observation. People think a lot less of parental rights than they used to. Would it change your mind if the doctors who care for the child said there was absolutely nothing that could be done. The judge only decided that the parents had no grounds to prevent the doctors from removing their child from life support. This decision has been upheld by four other judges over the past few months. Well we could go ask the doctors who agreed to perform the procedure. We could go around and around. But yes, that would weaken one leg of the argument. Not enough, but purely as a logical matter it would..
Citation needed on a doctor willing to perform the experimental treatment on this child.
|
On July 04 2017 10:31 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:22 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 10:18 Toadesstern wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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. It's entirely possible that it has a legal meaning, but the phrase "die with dignity" has a common meaning as well. But it's certainly not clear in this case (from anything I've read) that trying such a treatment amounts to torture. this is what I got: Show nested quote +Judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm", in line with advice from specialists at Great Ormond Street.
[...]
Doctors have said he cannot see, hear, move, cry or swallow.
Harm is another funky word. I'm simply assuming that if the kid were in any sort of state that could be described as "pained" we'd know it. Listen, I think if the kid is undeniably suffering than the moral calculation her is much closer (though by no means decided).
|
@GH I don't actually think he is brain dead. Brain damage yes, but not brain dead
"There is significant harm if what the parents want for Charlie comes into effect," she told appeal judges. "The significant harm is a condition of existence which is offering the child no benefit."
She added: "It is inhuman to permit that condition to continue."
Ms Gollop said nobody knew whether Charlie was in pain.
"Nobody knows because it is so very difficult because of the ravages of Charlie's condition," she said.
"He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot make a noise, he cannot move."
|
On July 04 2017 10:34 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:30 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 10:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 04 2017 10:20 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 10:11 Aquanim wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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? because I don't 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. I think I may trust a judge even less, but that's not really the point. From what I've read, it doesn't seem like the child is currently in pain, and it's unknown what pain this procedure would cause. I have no doubt that the parents and doctors would stop immediately if they thought they were causing pain. The benefit question is murky, at least as murky as the pain question. I think in cases with ambiguity, it shouldn't left the courts to decide how to "die with dignity" (which apparently doesn't even involve the ability to take him home). The last point was just an observation. People think a lot less of parental rights than they used to. Would it change your mind if the doctors who care for the child said there was absolutely nothing that could be done. The judge only decided that the parents had no grounds to prevent the doctors from removing their child from life support. This decision has been upheld by four other judges over the past few months. Well we could go ask the doctors who agreed to perform the procedure. We could go around and around. But yes, that would weaken one leg of the argument. Not enough, but purely as a logical matter it would.. Citation needed on a doctor willing to perform the experiment treatment on this child.
uh, it was a sentence in a few articles, but quick googling found this:
The American, who cannot be identified, said the therapy for Charlie Gard would be "treatment but not a cure".
A decision whether to turn off his life support machines is being considered by the High Court.
Connie Yates and Chris Gard want to take their son who has progressive muscle weakness to the US.
A crowdfunding campaign for the trip is now less than £60,000 short of its £1.3m target.
The judge is analysing medical evidence at a hearing in the Family Division before deciding what option is in Charlie's best interests.
The neurologist who would oversee the treatment told the court that while Charlie was in the "terminal stage" of his illness, treating him would be compassionate.
|
On July 04 2017 10:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2017 10:22 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 10:18 Toadesstern wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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. It's entirely possible that it has a legal meaning, but the phrase "die with dignity" has a common meaning as well. But it's certainly not clear in this case (from anything I've read) that trying such a treatment amounts to torture. I didn't read much, but the kid is brain dead, so can't be tortured (as that takes brain activity). Unless I'm misunderstanding the jargon used? If anything, it's torture for the parents who are thus far unable to cope with the loss of their child. As a result they are attempting to prolong their own torture and it seems the courts are intervening. That seems like an appropriate response. If the kid loved soccer and lost a foot and the government was trying to sell that the kid would be better off dead I think this might actually be of consequence, as it stands, just typical virtue signaling from the right. If the parents wish to continue "torturing themselves" then that seems like that their right. But that argument goes even further than "what about the kid."
I suppose masochism would be an example of someone being legally allowed to torture themselves, but there's the whole part that the kid isn't a consenting participant.
This seems so far from being a real problem that I'm surprised it even came up. The faux empathy is bewildering to me as well. Like who are we supposed to even be feeling is getting abused? The parents who are being prevented from wasting resources on a treatment that has no chance at working?
Personally I would hope there would be some entity to step in and help me make a rational choice in such a situation rather than the emotionally distressed decisions I would make. I mean I don't have a kid, but I imagine if I did I'd be willing to try anything and spare no expense to keep them alive, but if that's just like a cat keeping her dead kitten around , I'd like the government to step in and take it away.
I just have so many vastly more relevant problems that I can't imagine even having this come up as something I thought was important.
|
On July 04 2017 10:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:34 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 04 2017 10:30 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 10:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 04 2017 10:20 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2017 10:11 Aquanim wrote:On July 04 2017 10:06 Introvert wrote: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? because I don't 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. I think I may trust a judge even less, but that's not really the point. From what I've read, it doesn't seem like the child is currently in pain, and it's unknown what pain this procedure would cause. I have no doubt that the parents and doctors would stop immediately if they thought they were causing pain. The benefit question is murky, at least as murky as the pain question. I think in cases with ambiguity, it shouldn't left the courts to decide how to "die with dignity" (which apparently doesn't even involve the ability to take him home). The last point was just an observation. People think a lot less of parental rights than they used to. Would it change your mind if the doctors who care for the child said there was absolutely nothing that could be done. The judge only decided that the parents had no grounds to prevent the doctors from removing their child from life support. This decision has been upheld by four other judges over the past few months. Well we could go ask the doctors who agreed to perform the procedure. We could go around and around. But yes, that would weaken one leg of the argument. Not enough, but purely as a logical matter it would.. Citation needed on a doctor willing to perform the experiment treatment on this child. uh, it was a sentence in a few articles, but quick googling found this: Show nested quote +The American, who cannot be identified, said the therapy for Charlie Gard would be "treatment but not a cure".
A decision whether to turn off his life support machines is being considered by the High Court.
Connie Yates and Chris Gard want to take their son who has progressive muscle weakness to the US.
A crowdfunding campaign for the trip is now less than £60,000 short of its £1.3m target.
The judge is analysing medical evidence at a hearing in the Family Division before deciding what option is in Charlie's best interests.
The neurologist who would oversee the treatment told the court that while Charlie was in the "terminal stage" of his illness, treating him would be compassionate.
Now I'm curious if any doctor besides the one who stands to make millions of dollars off this agrees that the treatment would be compassionate. At the end of the day, we don't do experimental treatments so it is easy to stand beside all the doctors who disagree with this one.
|
On July 04 2017 10:30 Introvert wrote:
Personally I'd say no, but I was adopting the argument I alluded to when I mentioned stem cell research.
Stem cells haven't acquired personhood and as such have no moral or legal status, the ethical discussion around them happens in the abstract ("how far can science go" and so forth..). The rights of the child here as an individual are already clear and real.
Also when people volunteer for scientific studies the decision is still with the body carrying out the experiment. You can't just fly your kid to someone and grant them the right to experiment on them. That is not how it works. No matter what happens, in pretty much every country these things are subject to state or professional authority.
|
On July 04 2017 11:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:30 Introvert wrote:
Personally I'd say no, but I was adopting the argument I alluded to when I mentioned stem cell research. Stem cells haven't acquired personhood and as such have no moral or legal status, the ethical discussion around them happens in the abstract ("how far can science go" and so forth..). The rights of the child here as an individual are already clear and real. Also when people volunteer for scientific studies the decision is still with the body carrying out the experiment. You can't just fly your kid to someone and grant them the right to experiment on them. That is not how it works. No matter what happens, in pretty much every country these things are subject to state or professional authority.
With respect to both sides The problem is with stem cells that have been harvested from fertilized eggs. Much of the debate about that came before and during the George W Bush days (I suspect one of the bigger reasons why his machine was so effective). George W made the compromise to fund stem cell research on already created lines of fertilized eggs while banning the research on new lines. there has been breakthroughs in the past decade or so that made it moot with non fertilized egg sources of stem cells.
|
When Trump fails to do anything about baby Card and forgets he even said anything about it, will all the people applauding Trump's benevolent tweet update their opinions about Trump? My bet is that all the imbeciles clapping for Trump's fabulous tweet will simply forget that Trump never followed up on his tweet.
|
|
|
The fuck does this mean? Is it actually going to result in something or is it just a case of "not rules, guidlines" that people will get upset over for no reason?
|
I don't actually understand how there can be a page long argument supporting the parents in this. At best, they make sure that Charlies suffering will continue for a while until he inevitably dies. At which point his condition will be considerably worse. The treatment won't do anything except possibly (again, nobody knows because it literally was never used in this stage, which is hardly surprising considering only sixteen people ever suffered from this condition) prolonging the inevitable.
This condition leads to multi-organ failure, nothing will get Charlie away from that. So the parents have to chose between: letting him go now (if he's in pain, it's the best decision anyway - if he's not, he will be further down the line), or letting him go a couple of weeks later, if nothing bad happens and whoever is responsible for it descends and comes and gets him.
The only reason to prolong his potential suffering is the parents selfishness. And i don't think that that's reason enough.
edit: and there's the slight issue i have with their fundraiser. They immediately asked for 1.5 million dollars, with buzzers like: "If we don't raise enough money then we wont be able to go to America for treatment and Charlie will die!" in bold.
Or, more importantly, flatout lies like this one here.
If Charlie receives this treatment and it does work like the Dr in America thinks, it won't be just Charlie's life that has been saved, it will be many more children in the future, who are born with this horrible disease
That's quoted from their fundraiser.
The neurologist who would oversee the treatment told the court that while Charlie was in the "terminal stage" of his illness, treating him would be compassionate.
That's the doctor acknowledging that Charlie will die regardless.
Make of it what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
