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

No, you said I agreed with it, i ignored you, you were trying to deflect.. Now stop deflecting and give the evidence of this connection, this considerable connection.

 

I have already and you've admitted it's existence to boot. You don't like the answer, that doesn't make it not an answer

 

You claim there is, but do not want to give evidence of this connection.

 

Then answer the question if you claim you haven't. Is there nothing more to you than the facts on your chart? Are you simply symbols on a page? Is nothing further required to understand you?

And it's not deflection, it's called the Socratic method.

 

Ok, so you cannot give evidence of this connection, then the judge lacks nothing to make the decision.

 

Sure put words in my mouth and assume things that aren't true because you don't like the answer.

 

No it is deflection, the socratic method is to ask question to obtain the answer. You have already made the claim of a considerable connection, and yet refuse to provide it.

 

No I do so because you have provided no evidence of this connection despite repeated attempts to get you to do so.

 

It's not deflection.
No **** Sherlock, Socratic method is asking a question or series thereof to arrive at an answer. Think ye I might have a ****ing point I'm driving at that I want to get you to arrive at on your own because you are so adversarial with me at this point I could say ripe oranges are generally orange and you'd call me a liar?

 

Again I've answered, you just don't like the answer.

 

Ok, just repeat the answer, simple enough, What is the connection, the considerable connection?

 

All I am asking is for you to tell me what this connection, this considerable connection. What is so hard about that?

 

Excuse me for interjecting but I think the poster means being personally involved with the child as only his parents can be. Now IMO, his parents are selfish for holding on to the hope of keeping him alive as his life quality will suck big time and I believe I read that a physician told them that he was suffering to some degree, but that is the subject for another thread.

 

You tell me, you're the one who won't answer the questions which are posed in Socratic style to arrive at the answer.

 

That could be a sufficient though not necessary condition, though not in all cases.

Since you want to answer:
Are you more than the symbols on a medical chart? Is there more to your existence than those bare facts?

 

If the doctors determine that one is brain dead or in a vegetative or degenerative state...not so much.

 

Which is not the case here, damaged is not dead.
So I say again, are you only those things on your chart?

 

There is absolutly no reason to believe that parents are capable of making the best decision for their child. Endless examples of poor parenting prove the point. The concept that somehow shared genetics makes for more intelligent decisions is truely idiotic.

 

If one believes in a spiritual afterlife and it sounds as if you believe in some type of life-force/energy/soul... then that would be the time to move on towards it or allow a loved one the same consideration and opportunity.

 

Don't take statements out of context, the bold should give you a clue but to make it perfectly clear: THESE parents are in the best position as there is no showing of incompetency, abuse, or negligence.
Moreover, as shown earlier, they are attempting to uphold their duty to protect and preserve the life they created.
There is no reason to bring the state in at all.

 

I've said nor implied absolutely nothing about that. Don't ask what I believe, just answer the question. Are you more than the sum of facts on a medical chart? Is there more to life than clinical facts about you as if you were a horse at market? Is blue, as RR stated so pithily earlier, merely 6500 K? Is there no further nuance to the concept of blue or you? To life?

 

My common sense and instincts tells me you wish to argue this regardless of what you hear from others based upon their opinions. I told posted very clearly and honestly how I perceive the situation. I see no reason to further debate with you on this issue. End of life matters are a very personal thing based upon each person's own feelings and sentiments and that is the bottom line. I'm done here.

 

Why would you think I am taking your statements out of context. You have not and cannot prove that the parents are in the best position to make the decisions for the child. Your statement about abuse, incompetance etc. is just a red herring and does in no way demonstrate they are the most competant to make a decision.

And the state was brought in long ago as the state has been providing the money for the care for the baby and probably made most if not all the decisions about the baby's medical care.

 

End of life decisions should be a personal decision in a rational world but in ours a whole lot of religious tradition seems to imply that decisions about life are really not your own and that somehow you have a duty to God to live as long a possible despite the degree of suffering required. The same people that think that the government in Britain should have no say about Charlie are perfectly comfortable in saying that people in America cannot ever opt for suicide and that it is a crime gor a doctor to help a person fulfill their wish to die.

 

Probably not since you have absolutly no idea of the costs that will be involved should Charlie actually come to America for treatment which seems at best to be capable of making some slight inprovement in his muscular system but which will do nothing to make him an independently viable being. The money raised at best may pay for the experimental proceedures and perhaps a year or two of full time hospital care afterward.