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

Crackpot arguments do nor contribute to resolving this matter in an intelligent, compassionate manner.

If the chances of marginal improvement and stabilization are even fairly meagre, and if the pain and suffering is manageable, the experimental treatment is a realistic option for a reasonable period of time. If not, it isn't.

Obviously, parents alone are in no position to assess those essential considerations.

 

Then stop talking about it and get on with it.

 

The Nazis acted out of compassion to prevent the continued torture of terminally ill babies?

 

We, the British people, who have elected the British government, who have created the British laws. Understand do we?

 

You have been misinformed. The judiciary is an arm of the state - think.

"The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state." Wiki

 

Oh, sorry glad your having fun, debating a terminally ill child!

 

No, you simply do not understand the system.

 

Its a fair comparison. They're holding this child against the wishes of the parents and refuse to release him either to a physician for care or to go home to die instead mandating he be kept there to die slowly.

Except they aren't alone, they have a doctor and a program willing to give it a go.

 

Your appeal to emotion sacrifices reason, and a balance is essential.

Do parents wield absolute control over doctors? No, nor should they.

Are you in a position to judge the pain and suffering occasioned by the seizures of this extremely ill child by looking at a picture of him? Why would you wish to fake that you possess such power?

 

They don't need ultimate control to kill the kid, only the duty to preserve and protect which I have shown you. You don't like the answer, I get that. You'll have to find a way to soldier on. Stiff upper lip and all that.

Remember its the state saying he should die, not the parents. The parents are trying to uphold their duty to preserve and protect the life they created. That is well within their power.

 

They chose disorders and problems with each human and decided when was a "compassionate" time to end a persons life.

I am definitely exaggerating so I apologize for that, just saying that I don't think anyone but the family should make the choice on ending a life.

Have you watched "The Man in the High Castle?"

The movie has got my head spinning and I have been itching to find a place to use the word Obergruppenführer

 

Once again did you ask Charlie?


.

 

LOL! You actually think "the people" are the state? What nonsense.

Even the communists knew better than that "people's republics" have nothing to do with ordinary human beings - other than exterminating them and taking away their liberty. Read your Lenin - it may help you understand the modern UK.

 

Thanks, but I would rather gain my understanding by living here.

 

Your hysterical resort to charges of kidnapping contribute nothing to the tragic matter - no more that claiming prolonging his existence constitutes child abuse because he is suffering.

It's better to allow moral ethicists to assess such matters and weigh the relative positives and negatives, rathe than allowing knee-jerk responses of either inclination to dictate.

 

Just sweeten up troops. I am sure the mods have enough headaches.

 

If you believe that Charlie is speaking to you and not to me, you are clearly not competent to make decisions for him. Nor am I.

 

Nature is the one who chose for this child to die. Keeping him alive artificially is torturous. Every doctor involved in this case has acknowledged that while he is severely brain damaged, he can and does still feel pain.

And the parents want to prolong that suffering and force him to feel more pain for a procedure that won't work but will make a doctor very rich.

 

Again the state is saying nothing, the best medical advice from both sides of the Atlantic is being reviewed by an independent judge, and a decision will be reached.

 

Probably a lot less that private insurers pay their adjusters who deny coverage at every turn. It is really funny to hear opponents of universal coverage disparage government run health care systems for deciding when and if a procedure is needed. All for profit healthcare insurers do exactly the same thing as a matter of process. What planet are they living on?

 

England isn't Thailand - yet. So, in all fairness, Brits should at least be at liberty to slander their own dead royals.
Soon that may be all they have left.

 

IOW, you do not understand your own system or the law. Google it.

 

I'm far from hysterical, I'm making a valid comparison based on fact and definition. Relax dude.

I hold a degree in philosophy, I'm qualified to discuss ethics. Not that your argument from authority is valid, but I am eligible to be an authority on the subject chief. As discussed the parents have the superior ethical claim, not the doctors and certainly not the state.

 

Ah, now you are falling back into the Nazi trap.

The same could be said for a kid with many diseases and I think it is wrong to put such power in the hands of anyone but the family.

"...Parents want to prolong that suffering"

The same could be said for disabled legs, retardation of the brain or for the crazy people even being gay.

This is not a decision "The State" should make and by doing so you really do sound like the Nazi's

 

The nhs doctors are part of the state apparatus, so is the judge. I realize you find that uncomfortable but it is a fact.