|
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 10:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:33 Introvert wrote: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.
But you weren't talking about the kids, you were talking about the parents. Meanwhile, saying "faux empathy" is revealing.
We're actually supposed to feel sorry for both.
And we'll disagree, I don't want the government imposing itself on me for my own mental anguish. We're not talking like I'm suicidal, we're just talking like I'm, say ,heartbroken that my kid is going to die.
On July 04 2017 10:50 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:40 Introvert wrote: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: 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.
You asked for a doctor(s), you got one.
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.
By the logic of many who supported that stem cell research or talk about abortion, flying your kid around to try treatments would be small potatoes. The child does have rights, as do the parents. It's far from obvious that the latter imposes on the former in this case.
If I thought the kid was actually in real pain and this was actually prolonging torture, then I think we could talk.
****
The argument that "it won't help him anyways" is pretty low on the persuasion scale, espeically when no cost is involved.
There is a lot to discuss here (like my general objection to letting the state decide these matters) , but I'm trying to limit it to a few issues so I can enjoy my 4th of July. Which I may start to do right now...
Edit:
On July 04 2017 12:22 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +If I thought the kid was actually in real pain and this was actually prolonging torture, then I think we could talk.
How convenient that there's no way to tell and you let wishful thinking dictate your argument.
That works both ways. I've acknowledged that this is a murky area.
|
If I thought the kid was actually in real pain and this was actually prolonging torture, then I think we could talk.
How convenient that there's no way to tell and you let wishful thinking dictate your argument.
|
On July 04 2017 11:49 Gahlo wrote: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?
hatch act is a legit thing. will probably just be a warning/cease and desist thing. think one already got sent out on somebody. not sure who's in charge of actual enforcement though
|
On July 04 2017 12:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2017 10:33 Introvert wrote: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. But you weren't talking about the kids, you were talking about the parents. Meanwhile, saying "faux empathy" is revealing. We're actually supposed to feel sorry for both. And we'll disagree, I don't want the government imposing itself on me for my own mental anguish. We're not talking like I'm suicidal, we're just talking like I'm, say ,heartbroken that my kid is going to die.
I've already invested more time in this than I think it's worth, so I'll just reiterate this is flagrant virtue signaling and it's not fooling anyone.
|
On July 04 2017 12:19 Introvert wrote:
The argument that "it won't help him anyways" is pretty low on the persuasion scale, espeically when no cost is involved.
There is a lot to discuss here (like my general objection to letting the state decide these matters) , but I'm trying to limit it to a few issues so I can enjoy my 4th of July. Which I may start to do right now...
The argument whether it will help the kid or not is very relevant. After all if there is no potential upside, prolonging the life of the kid is cruel. We can reasonably assume at this point that the kid is either practically dead or suffering, given what we know about the disease and the state it is in.
And again, even if there was a theoretical upside or chance, this can never be decided by the parents. Who gains access to (experimental) treatment under what conditions needs to be determined by doctors and regulators. Just imagine parents who belief in some form of homeopathic treatment or whatever and hand their child over to con artists, like those parents in Canada with the result of the child dying.
The objective safety / health of the child takes precedence over the subjective preference of a parent. This is the minimum the state must guarantee for everybody.
Parenting isn't an unconditional right, if you prove that you are unfit, harm your child, neglect it and so forth authority intervenes. I don't think this ought to be controversial.
|
On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:"The only emotional arguments allowed are about the Republicans' literally murderous healthcare plan." Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 08:10 IgnE wrote: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.
but precisely why are the parents entitled to it? would you be making this argument if they were penniless? they are entitled to it because they have raised millions of dollars. it has very little to do with the sanctity or profanity of life and much more to do with the sanctity of money. a life is only worth the money any body can spend to preserve it.
|
On July 04 2017 13:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:"The only emotional arguments allowed are about the Republicans' literally murderous healthcare plan." On July 04 2017 08:10 IgnE wrote: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. but precisely why are the parents entitled to it? would you be making this argument if they were penniless? they are entitled to it because they have raised millions of dollars. it has very little to do with the sanctity or profanity of life and much more to do with the sanctity of money. a life is only worth the money any body can spend to preserve it.
Ok, I responded to you first so I'll take this.
They have the right to try because they are the child's parents. + Show Spoiler +and aren't making an obviously abusive or immoral choice
So sure, if they wanted to go into debt over it, then yes. They were willing to try, and doctors were willing to perform.
Again, the money is mentioned because of how the U.K. healthcare system works. Nothing is free, they aren't entitled to the American or U.K doctors doctors trying this procedure.
It seems to me like you are steering this towards the commonly discussed "privilege vs. right" discussion. But that's not the question in this instance, the donations of private individuals have removed that from the equation.
|
On July 04 2017 14:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 13:58 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2017 09:56 Introvert wrote:"The only emotional arguments allowed are about the Republicans' literally murderous healthcare plan." On July 04 2017 08:10 IgnE wrote: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. but precisely why are the parents entitled to it? would you be making this argument if they were penniless? they are entitled to it because they have raised millions of dollars. it has very little to do with the sanctity or profanity of life and much more to do with the sanctity of money. a life is only worth the money any body can spend to preserve it. Ok, I responded to you first so I'll take this. They have the right to try because they are the child's parents. So sure, if they wanted to go into debt over it, then yes. They were willing to try, and doctors were willing to perform. Again, the money is mentioned because of how the U.K. healthcare system works. Nothing is free, they aren't entitled to the American or U.K doctors doctors trying this procedure. It seems to me like you are steering this towards the commonly discussed "privilege vs. right" discussion. But that's not the question in this instance, the donations of private individuals has removed that from the equation.
I dont actually have an opinion on this, mostly because I have nowhere near enough information to make a truly informed condition, but my question would be that while I generally endorse a parents right to decide many things about a child they are also not going to be necessarily making a rational decision in the best interest of the child. As such, I understand why in such circumstances where the parents are too emotionally compromised to think about the best interest of the child that there are medical professionals to do so whose sole interest should be in what they feel is best for the child in question.
|
Canada11378 Posts
On July 04 2017 08:10 KwarK 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. The ability to make decisions on the behalf of children is not a right, it is a responsibility that parents are entrusted with.
This particular phrase is very interesting to me. "A responsibility that parents are entrusted with." Entrusted by whom? By the State? And if not the State then who or what is entrusting parents with anything and in what way? This seems a rather important piece.
edit.
More generally, when talking about the interests of the child, it seems to me once the child is dead there are no interests to speak of, so it seems a rather moot point. It's been ten months already, surely one more go in the US can't be that out of the interests of the child. Maybe there is such a thing as dignity in death, what it is I don't exactly know, but there is also a nobility in fighting to the last: to "not go gentle into that good night" and to "Rage, rage against the dying of the light". Obviously, the child cannot choose one way or the other, so the matter of not consenting to an experimental treatment seems moot as the child is also not consenting to die.
|
United States43282 Posts
On July 04 2017 14:43 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 08:10 KwarK wrote: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. The ability to make decisions on the behalf of children is not a right, it is a responsibility that parents are entrusted with. This particular phrase is very interesting to me. "A responsibility that parents are entrusted with." Entrusted by whom? By the State? And if not the State then who or what is entrusting parents with anything and in what way? This seems a rather important piece.
The state on behalf of the children. Children can't make decisions for themselves. Therefore we collectively allow parents to make decisions for children on the assumption that generally parents act in the best interests of their children. But in cases of abuse, neglect and so forth the state is right to intervene to withdraw the responsibility given to parents.
|
Canada11378 Posts
Why is it that the state has the right to make decisions on behalf of the child, whereas the parents are only entrusted with responsibility by the state? How did the state gain that right to grant responsibility to parents as the state is really only made up of other people, running a system set up by still other people. Why does one larger group of people have the right where a group of two people from whom the child originated are only granted responsibility. Why wouldn't this larger group of people also only have a responsibility that they have been entrusted with? (And then again from whom?)
|
On July 04 2017 15:33 Falling wrote:
Why is it that the state has the right to make decisions on behalf of the child, whereas the parents are only entrusted with responsibility by the state? How did the state gain that right to grant responsibility to parents as the state is really only made up of other people, running a system set up by still other people. Why does one larger group of people have the right where a group of two people from whom the child originated are only granted responsibility. Why wouldn't this larger group of people also only have a responsibility that they have been entrusted with? (And then again from whom?)
Do you want a philosophical discussion who gave society the right to come up with and enforce laws? Or who was given the right by whom to come up with human rights? And who is entitled to protect said human rights?
Or do you want an argument whether things like child protection service are fundamentally a bad thing because why shouldnt parents own their child?
|
On July 04 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If what above posters said is true, there's exactly as much evidence for this "experimental procedure" working as there is for faith healing. The main difference is sample size. How about that "procedure" goes through proper clinical trials before it gets used on sick babies? If this baby was being recruited into such a trial, that would be reasonable, but that is not the case, insofar as I understand: the procedure is still a few steps away from human trials, and it would be downright unethical to skip those steps.
It is sometimes the state's duty to protect children from their parents' awful decisions. This seems like one of those cases.
|
On July 04 2017 18:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +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. If what above posters said is true, there's exactly as much evidence for this "experimental procedure" working as there is for faith healing.
That's pretty accurate.
Put it this way, it's a bit like giving a terminal lung cancer patient drugs that are used for skin cancer. This doesn't work: the same with the suggested treatment. There's a boy getting quoted constantly in this discussion (Arturo), whos condition improved after starting the therapy - leaving out the key fact that he has a very different "version" of this disorder. More common, not as severe, and nowhere near the current condition of Charlie. There's very few drugs "interchangeable" between skin cancer and lung cancer, there's a very high (i'd say around 8/10) chance that you make your condition worse with side effects of drugs that don't work for your type of cancer.
There's zero evidence for this treatment working because it was never tested on anything. The doctor is thinking that because the treatment worked for a different kind of this disorder, it should work again - bringing me back to the cancer example. In the real world, a treatment working for one type of cancer doesn't for the most part work for a different kind of it.
|
On July 04 2017 15:33 Falling wrote:
Why is it that the state has the right to make decisions on behalf of the child, whereas the parents are only entrusted with responsibility by the state? How did the state gain that right to grant responsibility to parents as the state is really only made up of other people, running a system set up by still other people. Why does one larger group of people have the right where a group of two people from whom the child originated are only granted responsibility. Why wouldn't this larger group of people also only have a responsibility that they have been entrusted with? (And then again from whom?)
When people live together in a society, they give away some of their rights in order to allow society to fuction. Theoretically, by living in a society, in this case a national state, you agree to that. Of course this isn't really a choice thse days as there is no real option to leave society besides moving into the jungle or living on a boat or something weird like that. The societal contract means you give away authority over your self in some way to the society and in return society protects the rights you keep against other people.
|
For those interested, the legal doctrine underpinning the State's right to act on behalf of children is not exactly new nor untested.
Parens Patriae
|
|
|
The child case. Imo the parents should be allowed to get this experimental procedure,i don't think there is a moral right or wrong in this case. It is just a matter of opinion. Legally it has already been decided so that kinda leaves the moral discussion.
The parents have the authority to decide for the child,they have this even legally in many situations. The only case when this authority can be stripped partially is if the parents severely neglect the best interests of the child. Are the parents neglecting the best interest of the child here? No you can not say that,the child in this situation has virtually nothing to lose,he will die for sure without any treatment. For all that is known he does not feel pain or suffer otherwise from his condition. His situation can not realistically become worse then being death. If the parents want to do a treatment that qualified western educated doctors think can help then why not let them,i don't see any moral argument to prevent them from doing so.
|
On July 04 2017 12:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 10:50 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 04 2017 10:40 Introvert wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
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. You asked for a doctor(s), you got one.
I will admit that it was poorly worded on my part. My point is that to subject a child to experimental treatment that has never been tested you're going to need a lot more compelling evidence than one doctor who stands to profit that it isn't going to hurt the child. When that doctor even admits that the experimental treatment is unlikely to do anything and the best case scenario is barely an improvement, I think it is clear that the courts upheld the correct decision.
Your original point was that some doctors would disagree that the treatment is fruitless and I'm saying you're going to need at least a majority of doctors to say this is a good idea to undergo an experimental treatment that has never been tested. Even that standard might be too low.
On July 04 2017 23:18 pmh wrote:
The parents have the authority to decide for the child,they have this even legally in many situations. The only case when this authority can be stripped partially is if the parents severely neglect the best interests of the child. Are the parents neglecting the best interest of the child here? No you can not say that,the child in this situation has virtually nothing to lose,he will die for sure without any treatment. For all that is known he does not feel pain or suffer otherwise from his condition. His situation can not realistically become worse then being death. If the parents want to do a treatment that qualified western educated doctors think can help then why not let them,i don't see any moral argument to prevent them from doing so.
Nothing to lose is a bit of a stretch. What happens if the experimental treatment that has never been tested causes him immense pain? I don't know if he feels pain is not a compelling argument. The treatment will help is also of questionable merit in this case. The single doctor who stands to profit said that the best case scenario is barely an improvement and would merely give the child a chance to move its head a little bit. I'm sure that appeals to the parents on an emotional level, but I'd rather a rational decision be made regarding the quality of life of the child than we can't make the child suffer anymore since he is dying anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
