- Posts: 10616
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
The doctor offered hope. Hope for a child who is dying.
He never said the child would regain brain function lost.
What was he predicting or promising?
As for your claim that the parents are abusive...
Did the English court declare the parents unfit? No.
Did they declare the parents abusive? No.
Did they give them leave to conduct the experiments?
- Posts: 15814
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
bbauska wrote:The doctor offered hope. Hope for a child who is dying. Thank you for your compassion toward the grieving parents.
Alas, this is about the baby, and while I do have a lot of sympathy for the parents, I think that their grief could be clouding their judgement. Hope is all very well, but false hope can be damaging.
This has moved on. The European Court of Human Rights are now involved. The question now is whether to continue to intervene or to withdraw some of the care and allow him to die. Currently the court have said that he must me kept alive until they can rule.
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
Given the child's condition I don't think it is going to make any difference whether the State allows the parents to try the experimental treatment or not. I also don't think the child would be harmed (at least not significantly so) if the parents were allowed to get treatment for the child. But coming up with clear standards as to when the state can take that decision out of the parent's hands is important, because other cases may be closer. It seems to me you would want to give parents broad latitude in making these decisions. You wouldn't want a judge to decide well "I think this is the reasonable treatment for the child and if the parents don't do it then they lose the right to make the call." Reasonable minds are going to disagree. If the left side of the graph is clearly unreasonable medical treatment and the right side of the graph is clearly reasonable medical treatment...then parents get the middle gray area with varying degrees of reasonableness vs unreasonableness. It's not for a judge to decide what he/she thinks is the best course of action for the child (as long as the parents are fit parents), but only whether they find the parents' decision to be clearly unreasonable. Of course, what is clearly unreasonable medical treatment? No medical support for it, low probability of success, undue risk of harm, etc. Something like that.