Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Apr 2017, 9:37 am

Yeah, this way to the Gulag, The Terror, the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge....
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Apr 2017, 12:27 pm

bbauska
Should the State have a final say of the best interest in the child if the parents have not been found to be unfit?

Generally no.
But in this case, the specific decision the child's parents have taken, will not be in the best interests of the child.
And yes, medical authorities, acting in the interests of the child, and the courts have the right to intercede on the child's behalf.

Fate
Now, with all due respect, I could hope to wring more compassion out of an insurance company executive than this sentence demonstrates. This is the cold, utilitarian thinking leftists accuse corporations of employing.

There doesn't seem to be much compassion for the child demonstrated in this conversation.
For most posters all seems to be about the grief of the parents only.
The courts and the medical authorities in UK only considered the child's welfare in their decision, well recognizing the parents grief.

I brought in the ethical challenge of end of life decisions and medical costs because it hadn't been raised. And it should be a valid concern. When profit is a motivation in medical treatment .... medical authorities don't always have the best interests of the patient in mind. And they have a particularly vulnerable target with loving parents.

freeman3
Yeah, this way to the Gulag, The Terror, the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge....

BS.
End of life decisions are made every day in your town. And yes, one of them does involve gauging the cost of interceding versus the benefit to the patient. You have the Khmer Rouge in your town?
Gain some perspective.

If I were going to make a purely emotional argument I'd ask why the parents should be allowed to continue to torment the baby, when it has nothing to look forward to but a few additional weeks of pain... It seems to me a particularly selfish behaviour from parents unable to accept that their role is now to help their child pass as comfortably as possible, with dignity.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Apr 2017, 1:05 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Now, with all due respect, I could hope to wring more compassion out of an insurance company executive than this sentence demonstrates. This is the cold, utilitarian thinking leftists accuse corporations of employing.

There doesn't seem to be much compassion for the child demonstrated in this conversation.
For most posters all seems to be about the grief of the parents only.
The courts and the medical authorities in UK only considered the child's welfare in their decision, well recognizing the parents grief.

I brought in the ethical challenge of end of life decisions and medical costs because it hadn't been raised. And it should be a valid concern. When profit is a motivation in medical treatment .... medical authorities don't always have the best interests of the patient in mind. And they have a particularly vulnerable target with loving parents.


Yeah, I certainly can tell you have someone's "best interests" in line: the "shareholders." In this case, they happen to be taxpayers.

You are as cold as ice.

Why not just offer to shoot the kid?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 8:29 am

Fate
Why not just offer to shoot the kid?


Did you bother to read the judges ruling? Do you really think, having read the following, that the baby should be put through a painful procedure that, even from the US doctor,
I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.

The ruling ...
"It seemed, at the outset of this hearing, that there might have been a lone voice in the USA that was offering what has been described in some reports as "pioneering treatment". Understandably, Charlie's parents have grasped that possibility, they have done all that they could possibly have done, they have very publicly raised funds. What parents would not do the same? But I have to say, having heard the evidence, that this case has never been about affordability, but about whether there is anything to be done for Charlie. At one stage GOSH got as far as deciding to apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy, a treatment that has never been used on patients with this form of MDDS. But by the time that decision had been made, Charlie's condition had greatly worsened and the view of all here was that his epileptic encephalopathy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible, that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him.
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:
'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely....
There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
'

To my mind, when the doctor admits that the therapy isn't likely to help, and certainly won't see Charlie grow to become a healthy child with a quality of life,
then continuing treatment is cruel.
And its pretty clear that when the US doctor says this ...

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it.


The doctor seems more motivated by making a profit and experimenting on Charlie, then advocating for Charlie.
Which seems pretty cold to me.
You?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Apr 2017, 9:08 am

You are arguing like a caricature from Hard Times, Ricky. "Now what I want is Facts...Facts alone are wanted in life." "A man of realities. A man of Facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four...and nothing over." These quotes are from Thomas Gradgring and then when he realizes the limitation of his philosophy: "Some persons hold that there is a wisdom of the Head and of the Heart. I have not supposed so, but as I said I must mistrust myself. I have supposed the head to be all-sufficient. It may not be all-sufficent; how can I venture this morning to say that it is!"

You are talking about a parent's love for a child as if it could be quantified and measured and compared to other things. You may have thought my saying this kind of thinking is on the road to things like the Terror, The Gulag was over-the-top--and it was an exaggeration--but once you start thinking of people as abstractions to be quantified, as abstract entities instead of flesh and blood human beings with irreducible rights that cannot be infringed upon...it tends to lead to bad things. This is not a question over what was the best thing to be done for the child...the issue was who gets to make that decision? You apparently care not at all that parental rights are being infringed upon. The big step forward started by the Reformation where the individual did not need priests interceding between himself/herself and God but could read the Bible in the vernacular and have personal connection with God, to the Renaissance and belief in human beings developing their potential, to Enlightenment thinking about Natural Rights was the importance of the individual. The individual and their ability to lead their life, develop their abilities, worship their God--all without undue interference from the State unless they interfered with another's rights.

Now, you want to trod over the parents' rights because it will be better for society. But that question should not be asked because ultimately we have realized that it is much better that the State NOT be allowed to make such calculations.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 9:23 am

freeman3
Now, you want to trod over the parents' rights because it will be better for society.

Not at all.
In this case, the parents rights need to be curtailed in order to do what is right for the child.
Period.
When a child is being sexually abused by a parent, society does not stand idly by and say "Well a parent knows best". On a case by case basis, the state may intervene to protect the child.
When a child is not given the necessities of life by their parents, society no longer sits idly by and lets the parent act with impunity to the detriment of the child. On a case by case basis, the state may intervene to protect the child.

Every person has a right to die with dignity. Even a baby. Maybe especially a baby.
In this case, the state has intervened to allow the baby the right to not be tortured in a hopeless medical experiment.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Apr 2017, 9:36 am

Sorry, taking the child to the US to get medical treatment is not something that is significantly harmful to the child so as to justify state intervention. Period. The child is getting treatment now. A plane ride is worth the State overriding parental rights? Ridiculous. "Sorry, Mr and Mrs Smith you cannot take your terminally ill child to die at home with her family because she will die quicker and suffer less pain in the hospital." Where does your type of analysis end, Ricky? Answer: it doesn't.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 9:53 am

freeman3 wrote:Sorry, taking the child to the US to get medical treatment is not something that is significantly harmful to the child so as to justify state intervention. Period. The child is getting treatment now. A plane ride is worth the State overriding parental rights? Ridiculous. "Sorry, Mr and Mrs Smith you cannot take your terminally ill child to die at home with her family because she will die quicker and suffer less pain in the hospital." Where does your type of analysis end, Ricky? Answer: it doesn't.


You've got me and freeman3 united. Well done, rickyp!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Apr 2017, 10:01 am

It makes me want to drive to San Fran and give Freeman a big hug!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Apr 2017, 10:19 am

What! I took a wrong turn and am with the Girondins? Let me scramble back to the Montagnard side...even three blind mice see eye-to-eye occasionally...you'll have to keep going Brad--I live in Orange County...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Apr 2017, 10:42 am

California is all the same to me :grin: (kidding, of course)
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 11:52 am

freeman3
Sorry, taking the child to the US to get medical treatment is not something that is significantly harmful to the child so as to justify state intervention. Period. The child is getting treatment now. A plane ride is worth the State overriding parental rights? Ridiculous. "Sorry, Mr and Mrs Smith you cannot take your terminally ill child to die at home with her family because she will die quicker and suffer less pain in the hospital." Where does your type of analysis end, Ricky? Answer: it doesn't
.

Well, the UK judge disagrees with you after hearing from medical authorities. What exactly has the judge got wrong then?

"It seemed, at the outset of this hearing, that there might have been a lone voice in the USA that was offering what has been described in some reports as "pioneering treatment". Understandably, Charlie's parents have grasped that possibility, they have done all that they could possibly have done, they have very publicly raised funds. What parents would not do the same? But I have to say, having heard the evidence, that this case has never been about affordability, but about whether there is anything to be done for Charlie. At one stage GOSH got as far as deciding to apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy, a treatment that has never been used on patients with this form of MDDS. But by the time that decision had been made, Charlie's condition had greatly worsened and the view of all here was that his epileptic encephalopathy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible, that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him.I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him
.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Apr 2017, 12:02 pm

Ricky...it's not necessarily that the judge got it wrong...it's that it is not his decision to make.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 1:01 pm

freeman3 wrote:Ricky...it's not necessarily that the judge got it wrong...it's that it is not his decision to make.


Where's the 'like' button?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Apr 2017, 1:13 pm

freeman3 wrote:Ricky...it's not necessarily that the judge got it wrong...it's that it is not his decision to make.


My point from the beginning...

Like +1