British socialist death panel to "allow" baby to die, despite parents' wishes

[glassjester]

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.

Ease up, Arthur. You're on the attack.

What has been reported about the treatment the parents are seeking?

 

[kmoney]

Hardly a case of 'leftist death panels' then. It's a tragic case and shouldn't be used for asinine political 'point scoring'.

I'd avoid the 'death panel' stuff but I do question what's being done in this case. The chances may be slim but shouldn't we err on the side of preserving life rather than letting someone die? Also, talk of 'allowing' Charlie to die with dignity rubs me the wrong way. Why do they get to decide what is dignified? And talk of 'allowing' makes it seem as if Charalie has a will in this and that the parents are going against it and the doctors are upholding Charlie's desires. This is a baby so all that we have is the parents and the doctors.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'd avoid the 'death panel' stuff but I do question what's being done in this case. The chances may be slim but shouldn't we err on the side of preserving life rather than letting someone die? Also, talk of 'allowing' Charlie to die with dignity rubs me the wrong way. Why do they get to decide what is dignified? And talk of 'allowing' makes it seem as if Charalie has a will in this and that the parents are going against it and the doctors are upholding Charlie's desires. This is a baby so all that we have is the parents and the doctors.

From my perspective it would depend on the amount of suffering the child would experience in the process of what appears to be a very long shot at the treatment even working. By accounts given, that would likely seem to be all it would do, cause suffering. Given that money isn't the issue here there's no gain to prevent Charlie from receiving treatment if it could help but the ruling here is based on the likelihood it isn't and will only cause him pain. It's debatable sure, and in the parents position I can hardly blame them for fighting this as vehemently as they are, it's their child and it's tragic that he even has this condition. But whichever position you take on the issue, the OP is nothing but asinine bunk. Conservatives and liberals alike take no satisfaction in the ruling, not the human ones anyway.

 

[musterion]

From my perspective it would depend on the amount of suffering the child would experience in the process of what appears to be a very long shot at the treatment even working. By accounts given, that would likely seem to be all it would do, cause suffering. Given that money isn't the issue here there's no gain to prevent Charlie from receiving treatment if it could help but the ruling here is based on the likelihood it isn't and will only cause him pain. It's debatable sure, and in the parents position I can hardly blame them for fighting this as vehemently as they are, it's their child and it's tragic that he even has this condition. But whichever position you take on the issue, the OP is nothing but asinine bunk. Conservatives and liberals alike take no satisfaction in the ruling, not the human ones anyway.

Not one word of that is relevant. It is the parents' call, alone.

Flip it around. Had she/they chosen to END his life before birth, NO PROBLEM because ENDING his life is a wonderful right granted by the state.

But let them defy the state on the chance of extending his life? Oh, NOW you have your doubts.

 

[musterion]

Just look at this depraved ***...he has the gall to say parents' rights over their children are "PROBABLY sacrosanct."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-winston-criticises-vatican-trumps-unhelpful/

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not one word of that is relevant. It is the parents' call, alone.

Flip it around. Had she/they chosen to END his life before birth, NO PROBLEM because ENDING his life is a wonderful right granted by the state.

But let them defy the state on the chance of extending his life? Oh, NOW you have your doubts.

Oh drop the act. Your covers as blown as you maintain aCW's is. None of your above crap represents my position on this whatsoever and all you care about is spewing out your stupid leftist mantras. You don't care about this case at all otherwise you'd take the effort to discuss it objectively and reasonably but ain't much chance of that with you is there?

Oh, and it is not always, and nor should it be the parents say that gets given the pass, else welcome the JW parents who deny their kids a blood transfusion even though it could save their life to flip it around in turn you muppet.

 

[fool]

Trump should send in a SEAL Team to snatch the kid.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The Washington post headline hit me wrong (or maybe right) yesterday when I saw it, because it is one of the most evil things I have ever read:

"Against his parents' wishes, this terminally ill infant will be allowed to die."

Carefully take that sentence apart word by word and think about what it's actually saying.

What it's about...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4644268/Charlie-Gard-s-parents-lose-final-appeal.html

Do not believe the spin the Left is putting out on this. This has nothing to do with the chance that the treatment may fail to keep the baby alive -- that is irrelevant since the parents have raised money to pay for the treatment themselves.

What the Left fears is the chance that it could succeed in extending this baby's life. The Left just can't allow something that to become common knowledge, and then in demand, then people demanding consideration of other alternative treatments that bureaucrats won't or can't pay for...so the child must die.

Single payer = single denier with no appeal.

If the baby is suffering and has no hope at living beyond a month or so then I support the panel's decision. Who is being helped by not letting a child that is in agony and has no hope for survival live a few more days?

Certainly not the baby. If it cannot be saved, quit making it suffer

 

[glassjester]

If the baby is suffering and has no hope at living beyond a month or so then I support the panel's decision. Who is being helped by not letting a child that is in agony and has no hope for survival live a few more days?

Certainly not the baby. If it cannot be saved, quit making it suffer

What details are known about the treatment the parents are seeking?

 

[Greg Jennings]

What details are known about the treatment the parents are seeking?

I know no details

 

[glassjester]

I know no details

Me neither. I believe the specifics of the procedure are kept confidential, because it is still experimental.

But whatever entity in the US is offering this treatment must at least be claiming that there's a chance it will help the child live (and not just for a few more days). Otherwise, why would the parents even bother raising money for the treatment? Why would they fight legal battles for it?

If whatever information the parents have, makes them think it's worth trying, then I am compelled to agree with them. They have more information about the treatment than the public does.

 

[patrick jane]

If the baby is suffering and has no hope at living beyond a month or so then I support the panel's decision. Who is being helped by not letting a child that is in agony and has no hope for survival live a few more days?

Certainly not the baby. If it cannot be saved, quit making it suffer

Because you remember feeling pain and feeling hungry when you were a baby?

 

[kmoney]

Me neither. I believe the specifics of the procedure are kept confidential, because it is still experimental.

But whatever entity in the US is offering this treatment must at least be claiming that there's a chance it will help the child live (and not just for a few more days). Otherwise, why would the parents even bother raising money for the treatment? Why would they fight legal battles for it?

If whatever information the parents have, makes them think it's worth trying, then I am compelled to agree with them. They have more information about the treatment than the public does.

I just read something that said even the US doctor doesn't believe the treatment will improve Charlie's situation. I don't know when he said that though, or what the parents reaction to it was.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/6/15923758/charlie-gard-global-controversy-trump-francis

I also heard on the radio today that the treatment was originally for a case that had a different underlying mutation so it may not work the same in Charlie.

 

[glassjester]

I just read something that said even the US doctor doesn't believe the treatment will improve Charlie's situation.

I wonder how and why it was offered to them, then. :think:

 

[musterion]

Aspie Boy is back.

 

[kmoney]

I wonder how and why it was offered to them, then. :think:

It said he got additional information. Maybe he only had general details initially.

 

[glassjester]

It said he got additional information. Maybe he only had general details initially.

The solution should be simple then (though sad). The doctor recants and tells the parents there is no available treatment for Charlie's condition. The parents should be allowed to take him home then, and await the inevitable.

This would at least resolve the tension between the parents and the courts and hospital.

 

[glassjester]

Conservatives- so inclined to guns and lethal injections, but so worried about the declaration of a pope over 600 years ago who stated that life begins before the 1st breath of open air..

There's several things I could outright rail on, particularly toward Protestants, but what's the point? The Bible puts precedence over the women to their wombs, and people just make up their own interpretation of it

Crucible?

 

[Lon]

Conservatives- so inclined to guns and lethal injections, but so worried about the declaration of a pope over 600 years ago who stated that life begins before the 1st breath of open air..

There's several things I could outright rail on, particularly toward Protestants, but what's the point? The Bible puts precedence over the women to their wombs, and people just make up their own interpretation of it

Because it is antichristian, Crucible. It is death. When you have the right of life or death over another, let me know. Until God gives it to you, it is against Him. You lost before you even started. Even your fellow Catholics and Orthodox think you are goofy on this :noway:

 

[Lon]

I don't find abortion to be okay if that's what you think- I've never tried to perpetuate an idea that abortion is acceptable even though it might seem like it. For real, I've just wanted to tackle a very difficult theological issue concerning life and when it's merited by God.

I don't believe that it is as simple as a sperm cell and an egg coming together- that is a biological process and where growth begins, but what do we really define as life?
Is it a biological process, or is it an exoerience?

Mosaic Law, and no doubt Jewish law even today, doesn't share the Pope's idea from 600 years ago that life is conceived at the womb.

I've read that particular passage in Exodus over and over in several different contexts- and I'm telling you, it is not a pro-life passage lain:

I'm convinced it is. "IF" no harm is done' is the way those passages go, including to the child within ELSE it is tooth for tooth, eye for eye. I can come to no other conclusion or conviction over those two OT passages. "Therefore what God has joined together, let NO man put asunder..." It is scripture.