US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7996

On July 04 2017 10:22 Introvert wrote:


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 10:30 Introvert wrote:


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..

On July 04 2017 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


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.

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?

On July 04 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:
From my previously linked article:


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?

On July 04 2017 08:10 IgnE wrote:



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.

On July 04 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:

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.

On July 04 2017 06:20 KwarK wrote:

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.

On July 04 2017 10:34 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:


Citation needed on a doctor willing to perform the experiment treatment on this child.

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.