ClimateSanity
New member
Explain how it would happen.
British socialist death panel to "allow" baby to die, despite parents' wishes
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
The parents want a shot at extending their baby's life, but the State has declared itself lord and master of both parents and child.
1. "Allowed" implies the authority and power to grant or to deny something.
2. This case proves that the State has assumed the power of life and death over all British citizens.
3. The State thereby allows -- GRANTS PERMISSION -- for the baby to die, when it could just as easily have granted him permission to possibly live longer at no further expense to the State.
4. Reversed but put just as correctly, the State is DENYING this baby a chance - however slim - to live longer than he will under State care.
This decision has NOTHING to do with the welfare or interests of the baby, even though that's the only way the Left has to spin it.
Sorry to be going off today but the news hasn't made me this mad in a very long time.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Just as 1 Samuel 8 clearly shows...
He warned us about this, and it has been happening for centuries...
Nothing new about this kind of thing....no matter what it is.
Sad.
drbrumley
Well-known member
To be angry righteously is a good thing..:up:
Burn
The example I thought of is when parents are refusing care, which is the opposite of what's happening in this case.
:idunno: I agree it doesn't look good.
The government has no authority to give care. If the parent is in the act of hurting the child, that is different. That is the authority. If the parent stops treatment as some do, and the child dies, that is negligent homicide, and they should be executed.
By the way, that is a good time. See, even an Obama/Hillary voter like you can be right twice a day.
You are confused. That is about redistribution of income. We use a legislature to do it. They are using a legislature to murder that child. Give up your retardation already.
drbrumley
Well-known member
RoTfL Ok, Nick
drbrumley
Well-known member
No kidding Sherlock.....
The monarchy thread has new replies. I have made another post.
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ers-help-for-terminally-ill-baby-charlie-gard Donald Trump has offered to help the parents of a terminally ill baby who have lost a legal fight to take him to the United States for treatment. The US president said he would be delighted to help Charlie Gard, whose parents wanted him to undergo a therapy trial in the US to treat a rare genetic condition. Members of the Trump administration have talked to the 10-month-old’s family, a White House spokeswoman said on Monday. “Our goal is not to pressure but simply to be helpful if possible in this very difficult and heartbreaking situation,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the Guardian. |
musterion
Well-known member
Good on Trump.
If anything goes sideways on that offer, for any reason, the Alinsky Left now will scream, "“WHY DIDN’T TRUMP USING HIS BILLIONS TO FLY THEM HERE PERSONALLY?? TRUMP LET THE BABY DIE!!!!!” even though neither Obama, Clinton nor any Hollywood millionaire celebrity has offered to lift a finger.
If anything goes sideways on that offer, for any reason, the Alinsky Left now will scream, "“WHY DIDN’T TRUMP USING HIS BILLIONS TO FLY THEM HERE PERSONALLY?? TRUMP LET THE BABY DIE!!!!!” even though neither Obama, Clinton nor any Hollywood millionaire celebrity has offered to lift a finger.
| https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...fers-little-has-changed-for-baby-charlie-gard British Baby at End of Life Support Draws in Pope, Trump A terminally ill British child has attracted the attention of both the president of the United States and the pope. More than 1.3 million pounds ($1.68 million) has been raised to help 11-month-old Charlie Gard travel to America for treatment. But little has changed for baby Charlie, who suffers from a rare genetic disease that has left him brain damaged and unable to breathe unaided. The life support he is receiving at a London hospital soon will be turned off over the objections of his parents, who want to take him to the United States for experimental therapy they believe could prolong his life. .... By wading into the case in recent days, President Donald Trump and Pope Francis have given Gard and Yates new hope and shined an international spotlight on an ethical debate that pits the rights of parents to decide what's best for their children against the authorities with responsibility for ensuring that people who can't speak for themselves receive the most appropriate care. "The world is watching," reads the headline across the top of charliesfight.org, the website dedicated to Charlie's cause. "Two of the most powerful men in the world want to give Charlie Gard his chance." Great Ormond Street Hospital said Tuesday there were no new updates in Charlie's care. Trump tweeted Monday that he would be "delighted" to help Charlie, who is suffering from mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which causes progressive muscle weakness. The president's comment came after Pope Francis issued a statement saying the parents' rights to treat their son "until the end" should be respected. The Vatican children's hospital studied whether it was possible for Great Ormond Street to transfer Charlie to Rome. But Bambino Gesu hospital President Mariella Enoc said she was informed that the board of the London hospital said Charlie cannot be moved for legal reasons. However, the matter was still being examined Tuesday. "I was contacted by the mother, who is a very determined and decisive person and doesn't want to be stopped by anything," Enoc told reporters. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin has said the Holy See will do everything it can to overcome legal obstacles to bringing Charlie to Bambino Gesu for treatment. "Overcome these problems? If we can do it, we will do it," Parolin said. The fight over keeping Charlie alive is not about money. Charlie's parents have used a crowdfunding website to raise the money needed to pay for his treatment in the U.S. Instead, it revolves around an ethical debate about what's best for the child. Under British law, it is normal for courts to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the treatment of a child — such as cases where a parent's religious beliefs prohibit blood transfusions. The rights of the child take primacy, rather than the rights of parents to make the call. It is a principle that applies even in cases where parents have an alternative point of view, according to Britain's Court of Appeal. And Britain's courts have been consistent in this case. Three courts agreed that the experimental treatment would be futile and may "well cause pain, suffering and distress to Charlie." The parents then took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, which refused to intervene and endorsed the British judges' decision. "This was a decision about what is best for this child," said Claire Fenton-Glynn, an academic at the University of Cambridge who studies children's rights. "This is an incredibly difficult decision for the court, and it's not one that the doctors or the court have taken lightly." "It's this terrible, terrible situation," she said. "It's a horrible thing to have to decide." In the United States, such disputes are normally negotiated between parents and doctors, according to Arthur Caplan, head of the division of bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City. A family's ability to afford endless care usually poses a bigger obstacle than ethical disagreements. Even the Vatican had difficulty with Charlie's case, as was clear in the conflicting messages that at first came from the Holy See. The pope's top bioethics official initially suggested that while the parents' wishes should be respected, they must also be helped to accept the limits of medicine. After an outcry from conservatives, Pope Francis issued a statement of his own, insisting on the need to respect the wishes of the parents to "accompany and treat" their son to the very end. Caplan said Charlie's situation is a reminder that medicine and technology can't fix everything, even in wealthy countries with cutting-edge technology. "It is a strong belief in the U.S and U.K. that medicine has one more trick up its sleeve," Caplan said. "It's like an article of faith. But it's almost never true at the end of life." |
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hardly a case of 'leftist death panels' then. It's a tragic case and shouldn't be used for asinine political 'point scoring'.
glassjester
Well-known member
There are two tragedies, here: The very likely death of a baby, and the immoral demand by the British government that the child die with what they consider dignity.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If you seriously think that all of the separate court rulings here are 'immoral' then you're only compounding the asininity of the OP. Nobody is taking this lightly and I suggest you reread Kmo's transcript. Money is not an issue here so try and be a bit objective for a change. If it were to transpire that in all likelihood such treatment would only cause suffering to the child and do no good in the 'long term' then is that worth it for you? To prolong a condition that effectively only causes the child to undergo unnecessary suffering? It's a horrific situation and I can understand the parents desire to fight this absolutely, so unlike the hyperbole of the OP I can see more than just feeble political point scoring here.