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

I would ask if you were born yesterday, but that might be a death sentence.
Judges are arms of the state. This is not controversial - it is a fact.

 

This isn't a case where the kid can have a fulfilling life with his disease. He's so severely braindamaged that even if he doesn't die in infancy, he's never going to know anything outside of a hospital hooked up to machines, assuming he's even aware of that.

It's torturous to force someone to have that "life".

 

Take it easy on yourself - you are not a "Terminally ill child".

 

Again, the doctors are independent of the state, unless you know who they are they are most likely private doctors aswell. Do you know if the doctors are NHS, private or both?

 

Correct. Bad things happen to a people that "depend on the kindness of strangers".

 

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

Here's a clue...there is a difference between killing and letting a brain dead baby be taken off of unnatural life support.

 

Actually I am!

 

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

You remember that faq you posted earlier? Scroll to the bottom. NHS trust for children is GOSH. GOSH applied to the court. NHS dude.

The national healthcare service and the courts are both arms of the state.

 

That is not the states place to make that decision, that is my point.

There are people who make the same argument for drug addiction and even small deformities. I do not think you or "the state" should be the one to make a decision such as this.

 

A lesson I learned quite quickly once I started to really succeed.

People do not give help to anyone unless it positively effects them, this includes making that person "feel good" which is why a lot of people do charity.

Likewise, especially since becoming successful, I have really petered out of giving random people help whom do not deserve it.

I guess I am jaded but what goes around comes around

 

Again your lack of understanding of our system has let you down, just because it is an NHS hospital does not mean you are treated by an NHS doctor, old boy!

 

Did you miss the part where GOSH the hospital is the entity who applied to the courts for hospice care in the first place old bean? GOSH the NHS entity.

 

So what qualifies parents to make the decision?

 

It's the state's place to protect the rights of its citizens. Parents do not have an unlimited right to torture their children and when parents seek to force heir child into unnecessary suffering for no improvement, the state absolutely should step in and protect that child's rights.

 

Did you miss the point where you stated the doctors were kidnapping the child?

 

Who here believes parents should have the right to chose if there children should have sex at five years old?

 

Her daughter married a Brit commoner, guess he was too poor to do it.

 

If she makes bad life choices is it the British governments fault then?

 

You can appoint yourself Grand Moral Poobah if you need to, but your arguments are still feeble.

If the parents demanded that no experiments be performed on the child, despite his doctors insisting that they keep him for an unproved regimen with a reasonable chance of success, would you still accuse them of "kidnapping" him?

If the parents demanded that he be allowed to die despite doctors offering treatment that could prove efficacious, would you insist that parents must have ultimate control?

This is a complex moral dilemma, and simplistic nostrums are not helpful.

 

Then stay out of the US it could interfere with your end game.

 

Do y'all not have metaphors across the pond there? Do you not know what a comparison is?
Did you miss the point where we are discussing the hospital keeping hold of the child so it can die there instead of passing care to another physician? Do you suppose I missed you goal post change chief?

 

The kindness of strangers = Bernie Madoff - if you are lucky.

Madoff did not sentence anyone to death.

 

I actually enjoyed riding around the US, I do not recognise a lot of the animosity you show to each other on this forum, you just don't seem to travel well!

 

You're the one who wanted to discuss koalafications hoss, don't get huffy because I have them and you can't advance an argument from authority.

No, I'd accuse the parents of child abuse like I do Christian scientists who try to pray the easily removable metastasized cancer away, or JWs who refuse blood transfusions for their child.

Again no, because if it has a reasonable chance of success they are not upholding their duty to preserve the life they have created. In that instance their rights can be subsumed because they are not upholding their duty. In the absence of that however, since what were talking about is the reverse, their rights stand as their duty is upheld.

 

There were multiple physicians involved

See public health care you get a layering of care