The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Ah but you are an adult with a DNR on file, you have made your wishes known. Charlie, like most infants, is unable to act in such a manner hence it defaults to his parents to make that decision as you admit.

 

That is not what I personally chose to call life.

 

Then why is the UK trying to take the parental rights away from his parents?


.

 

Well that's the generally accepted definition. What's more, what do you think Charlie thinks? If the answer is "he's an infant unable to ponder such things" then why is the default properly the state and not his parents?

 

No I said generally, in this case I have told you why Charlies parents are not the best choice to make the decision. Now you tell me why they are?

 

Thanks for that link

 

Again the state is not in involved, an independent judge who has only to consider the best interests of Charlie, is.

 

Because parental rights have a limit in the UK as I presume they have in the US.

 

I think if they have the funds the child should go for the treatment but its unreasonable to not have a government system ration care in what amounts to hopeless cases and which will cost a lot of money for the government to do what is asked for treatment or sustaining the child on life support past where medical opinion says its a practical course of treatment.

 

No he is not, why do you keep thinking of this in terms of the state, it is an independent judge who is paid to think of no ones interest but Charlies. If you cannot get that, then you cannot understand our system. He is the best choice because he has no vested interest, bar that of the welfare of Charlie!

 

But it became international now, the world is watching this independent judge as you call him..the family has a million dollars raised and America and the Vatican want to try to save him..

It seems to me you want death and we want life.

 

Funds are simply not an issue here, the judge is not allowed to consider the cost, only the best interests of Charlie.

 

With the technology of yesterday..

.

 

I want what the Judge decides, based on the medical advice of the best doctors from both continents. You want to make that decision, I do not.

 

Yea because it became political..the judge and your type want him to die.


.

 

Thanks, your comment shows you have not even bothered to research the issue!

 

One small hope is all you need..the judge is acting like a dictator, why does he get to decide?

.

 

No, he is going to die. Your type want to torture a child, regardless of what medical experts say.

 

Read my post in this thread, thank you for ignoring everything I wrote here in this thread.


.

 

No, the judge is using logic and reason to make a decision you wish to make on emotion.

 

Did you ask Charlie?

.

 

Because, again, he's part of the state. I get that you think him having independent judgement somehow makes him not part of the judicial apparatus, but that's simply incorrect. We have the same thing here in the federal system, that doesn't make them not part of the state. He's a stranger, I don't find a stranger as a better choice than the parent. Remember the choice is slim chance or begin the process of being killed now which will take some weeks or months. So obviously time is not THAT much of a concern, nor is Charlie's suffering as the treatment could be administered in the time it took to go through all this bullshit plus the time the docs will take to kill the wee bairn when the state decides nope its best to just kill the sprat for his own good we the strangers appointed to shepherd his interest over his parents have decreed it so.. This is simply about control.

 

Logic no..


He is trying to score political points.


.

 

No, parents, even with the best of motives, are not automatically in the best position to make such a determination, and intervention is what they are requesting. If an informed, realistic assessment of the highly-experimental treatment is that the terminal child's marginally-extended existence would consist of pain and suffering, inflicting that upon him would not be ethically valid.

 

Why do you think a parent is the best choice to make a decision? You have avoided that question.