The tragic case of Charlie Gard?

Rotation Advertisements

We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.

If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.

Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk

If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Pages:
1
2

The tragic case of Charlie Gard?
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 9 2017, 06:06 PM (771 Views)
Political Piper	Jul 9 2017, 06:06 PM Post #1
Posts: 449 Group: Member Member #13,465 Joined: August 23, 2016 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime Dragonball Z What Browser do you use? Chrome	I would like to hear the opinions of others regarding this, especially since there are universal healthcare advocates here and people who support the NHI. I don't live in the UK, so I don't know the insides and out of it. But essentially, a baby named Charlie Gard has a rare illness and brain damage. A specialist in the US said he would take the case. There are two patients with the same illness as Charlie in the US and they are currently alive, one is 15 years old and the other is around 5 I believe? I may have to double check that. The parents have raised over a million dollars to take their child to the US but a judge said Charlie must stay in the UK and die. People on the far right say this is synonymous with death panels, and they claim it's egregious that a panel of people get to decide who lives and dies. People on the far left say this is for the greater good, that it's important to help out everyone the best way you can, and not focus on each individual patient. What do you guys think should happen? I know some people are angry that the parents fundraised the money themselves and yet they are still not allowed to do everything you they can to save their child, and the health system is not spending more money on Charlie compared to others. So what do you guys think? Should a judge be allowed to force Charlie to die in the UK? Should the parents be allowed to do whatever they can to save their child? Will this help the perception of universal healthcare or hurt it? What would you do if you were a parent in the same situation. Parents still fighting for treatment Parents appeal court ruling Mother pleads for US treatment The parents also claim Twitter is censoring their posts to help Charlie
	My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT:


* Mitas	Jul 9 2017, 07:15 PM Post #2
It truly was a Shawshank redemption Posts: 12,129 Group: Retired Staff Member #2,993 Joined: December 16, 2007 Gender Male Favourite Anime DBZ What Browser do you use? Google Chrome Favourite Manga DBZ, Full Metal Alchemist	Political Piper Jul 9 2017, 06:06 PM But essentially, a baby named Charlie Gard has a rare illness and brain damage. A specialist in the US said he would take the case. There are two patients with the same illness as Charlie in the US and they are currently alive, one is 15 years old and the other is around 5 I believe? I may have to double check that. I read somewhere that the particular strain of the illness that Charlie Gard has has never been treated with the proposed treatment before. It really boils down to experimentation, success and failure rates, and if we can't trust our health professionals to make that call, who can we trust? It's a sad case, sure, but of course the parents are going to be distraught that the outcome of the multiple hearings about this case didn't go the way they wanted it to. People like Donald Trump and the Pope are most likely using this as an opportunity to carry favour, or push their agendas, and aren't really helping the matter. It's a tough call, but it's still a call that has to be made. If medical experts believe that the proposed treatment plans carry a much higher chance of more pain and suffering than recovery, then they need to be believed. It's not like it hasn't been challenged, but multiple courts have given the same ruling. It's hard to say what I'd do if I were in the parents' shoes. For one, I'm not a parent, so I don't know what it's like to have that attachment. But the parents can't be trusted with a decision like this. They aren't going to weigh the possibilities of harm to the child; all they'll focus on is they don't want it to die. Which is obviously completely understandable, but not exactly helpful in a situation like this. Also, maybe I'm missing something, but what does universal healthcare have to do with this in terms of it looking bad?
	"Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."


Political Piper	Jul 9 2017, 09:43 PM Post #3
Posts: 449 Group: Member Member #13,465 Joined: August 23, 2016 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime Dragonball Z What Browser do you use? Chrome	The argument regarding Universal healthcare is kind of a circle, but I will try to explain what that argument is. The argument is that the state is determining when the child, or any child, should die, and taking that right away from the child and the parents. In the US, it is up to the parents or next of kin to determine when to remove someone from life support. The doctors can make suggestions, but they don't have the right to kill anyone, or rather, to let their patients die without consent. In contrast, in this situation it is the state determining when and where Charlie will die, taking that right away from the parents. The argument becomes why can't the parents do whatever they can to save their child? The state sees no chance for the child to live, so they are automatically stopping treatment on the child on a certain day. A big reason for this is also due to not having the necessary funds to give Charlie experimental treatment. Those on the right say life is sacred, and that they should be able to try to save themselves or their family members at all costs. Whereas the state, they argue, is selective on who it will treat and who it won't treat based on who they determine has the best chance of survival. In essence, which life has more inherent worth? So hardcore people on the right compare this to what Hitler did, where if you were born with a certain disease you were automatically killed so you don't ruin the purity of the people, since the state is saying they refuse to treat Charlie. Hardcore people on the left say that Charlie should not be treated because his chances are next to none, and resources shouldn't be wasted on someone who is going to die anyway, but rather, those resources should be saved so others who get sick can be helped. That's the whole argument regarding Universal healthcare vs patient-choice healthcare. But From my research into it, the big battle over this isn't about selective healthcare, it's about the UK not letting the parents take Charlie to the US because they say it is Charlies right to die in the UK. I have to admit that I strongly disagree with your statement of, Quote: But the parents can't be trusted with a decision like this. but you did write after that that you understand the parents wanting to fight for their child. Now, the parents said they saw improvement in Charlie recently; they are probably fooling themselves with hope though, but the parents and only the parents should have the right to decide when Charlie should die - this is because Charlie is an infant. If Charlie was a teenager then I would say Charlie and the parents should decide, and I think most parents would listen to the wishes of their kid in that scenario. I think when it comes to death, it should be the person who is dying that decides when he is going to die, or his close family if he is too young to comprehend anything, such as Charlie. If the parents want to take Charlie to the US for experimental treatment then they should have that right, in my opinion. I think Trump should fight to bring Charlie here. I think he should do whatever he can to get Charlie here so Charlie can at least fight, but I really, really hope Trump doesn't turn this political. If he does get Charlie here I really, really don't want him to brag about how he got him here when no one else could. That would actually piss me off, Trump should do all he can to bring Charlie over, but he cannot use this for political means... at all..
	My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT:


* Yu Narukami	Jul 9 2017, 09:51 PM Post #4
Izanagi! Posts: 12,330 Group: Retired Staff Member #6,446 Joined: July 3, 2011 Gender Not Specified Country None	The boy can't breathe on his own, he's suffered catastrophic brain damage. The parents refuse to accept the judgement of the healthcare professionals in the hospital. I don't blame them, they're talking about their son, but there comes a point where the most humane thing to do is to just let go. He isn't a guinea pig that can be subjected to experimental medical procedures that have never been tested on someone with his condition, and then you've got to consider the quality of life he would have if, by some miracle, the treatment worked. It's not a nice subject, but in my honest opinion, his parents are simply prolonging his suffering because they can't accept the reality of the situation.



Political Piper	Jul 9 2017, 10:09 PM Post #5
Posts: 449 Group: Member Member #13,465 Joined: August 23, 2016 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime Dragonball Z What Browser do you use? Chrome	Yu Narukami Jul 9 2017, 09:51 PM The boy can't breathe on his own, he's suffered catastrophic brain damage. The parents refuse to accept the judgement of the healthcare professionals in the hospital. I don't blame them, they're talking about their son, but there comes a point where the most humane thing to do is to just let go. He isn't a guinea pig that can be subjected to experimental medical procedures that have never been tested on someone with his condition, and then you've got to consider the quality of life he would have if, by some miracle, the treatment worked. It's not a nice subject, but in my honest opinion, his parents are simply prolonging his suffering because they can't accept the reality of the situation. I'm sure I'll be playing devil's advocate in this thread, but regardless of what suggestions the healthcare professionals make does the state have the right to say we are going to let your child die on this day at this time and the only way for that not to happen is for you to sue us and win your lawsuit? I'm sure many people feel it would be best to let Charlie die so he doesn't suffer, either in short term or long term, but do we have the right to decide that for the family, or should the family have that right? Who gets to determine that? Doctors in the UK say let him die, some doctors in the US say let him try to survive by doing experimental treatment. There are two children in the US currently living with the same disease, but as Mitas said Charlie may have a different strand? I don't know if that's true or not, either way, some people see hope. But it's important to also say that many pregnant mothers know ahead of time if their unborn baby will have some kind of mental defect, and many people believe it would be better for the child to not be born because he may have a hard life, but then you hear mothers who let their baby live despite them having Downs, Celebral Palsy, etc, and they are extremely grateful that they gave heir child a chance, even though his or her life would be hard. Maybe Charlie survives but he has to live with the effects and symptoms of his illness, but maybe he also ends up loving life and loving who he is, like many handicap people do. I don't think a group of people should be able to force you to watch your child die because they feel his chance of life his futile, or if he does survive his life will be hell. I don't think they should make that call. We shouldn't be allowed to play God
	My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT:


* Yu Narukami	Jul 9 2017, 10:19 PM Post #6
Izanagi! Posts: 12,330 Group: Retired Staff Member #6,446 Joined: July 3, 2011 Gender Not Specified Country None	He won't grow up like that, though. He needs assistance breathing, he's deaf, he likely won't develop any kind of eyesight. He won't 'experience' anything aside from what he can touch, and that's if the catastrophic brain damage doesn't impair his ability to think and register things. The doctors have the right to argue that to prolong Charlie's life when he's in that condition is inhumane, and they're trained to be able to know and identify how serious different conditions are. How far should parents be allowed to go when the evidence is this stacked against them. His mother went on the news the other day and provided an account that completely contradicted what the doctors said, so his parents are obviously ignoring what the doctors are telling them about his condition. Again, they're going through an unimaginable amount of pain and grief, but just because they're his parents doesn't mean that they can put him through prolonged pain and suffering just for the mere chance of something working to stabilise him (the brain damage and the resulting conditions are all irreversible).



Political Piper	Jul 9 2017, 10:37 PM Post #7
Posts: 449 Group: Member Member #13,465 Joined: August 23, 2016 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime Dragonball Z What Browser do you use? Chrome	Yu Narukami Jul 9 2017, 10:19 PM He won't grow up like that, though. He needs assistance breathing, he's deaf, he likely won't develop any kind of eyesight. He won't 'experience' anything aside from what he can touch, and that's if the catastrophic brain damage doesn't impair his ability to think and register things. The doctors have the right to argue that to prolong Charlie's life when he's in that condition is inhumane, and they're trained to be able to know and identify how serious different conditions are. How far should parents be allowed to go when the evidence is this stacked against them. His mother went on the news the other day and provided an account that completely contradicted what the doctors said, so his parents are obviously ignoring what the doctors are telling them about his condition. Again, they're going through an unimaginable amount of pain and grief, but just because they're his parents doesn't mean that they can put him through prolonged pain and suffering just for the mere chance of something working to stabilise him (the brain damage and the resulting conditions are all irreversible). The doctors aren't just arguing against prolonging Charlie's life though. They are proactively ending his life regardless what the parents think. The parents have to take the case to court so they can remove their child from a hospital. They have to go to court to get an "okay" on whether or not they can take their child to another doctor. Both the Pope and Trump said they would take the baby and try to help him, despite him most likely dying, and the state is saying no to that. I can understand the doctors stopping the treatment, I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. What I don't understand is why they insist that the child must die at all costs. Regardless of how naive the parents are, or how they are just running on hope and nothing else, a Government entity is restricting a child from leaving a hospital to go seek other care. Again, regardless on what may be right morally or ethically, whether Charlie should die peacefully or try to survive with treatment, what right does the Government have to determine the life of your own child?
	My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT:


Daemon Keido	Jul 9 2017, 10:58 PM Post #8
Warmaster of Chaos Posts: 3,915 Group: RP Moderator Member #6,491 Joined: July 16, 2011 Gender Male Country Canada Favourite Anime Dragonball Z, of course Favourite Manga Currently Toriko	The doctors are acting according to the oath they took: "First, Do No Harm." If it was statistically feasible that Charlie could not only survive but thrive, there would be no discussion on this matter because they would not be in disagreement. Not enough doctors agree that the risk is worth it, especially for a variant that has never been tested for this treatment. There are simply too many variables and not enough time to explore them all.
	A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig! The Emperor Protects


* Mitas	Jul 9 2017, 11:10 PM Post #9
It truly was a Shawshank redemption Posts: 12,129 Group: Retired Staff Member #2,993 Joined: December 16, 2007 Gender Male Favourite Anime DBZ What Browser do you use? Google Chrome Favourite Manga DBZ, Full Metal Alchemist	You are focusing too heavily on the 'death' part. It's not that the state want him to die, or that they're deciding that he has to die. It's that they believe going through with the proposed treatment would potentially (and I imagine the potential is high, if they ruled against it) cause the child extra pain and suffering. It's a key difference that you're completely overlooking. It's not about saving the state money or resources or time, it's because the state are making the decision in what they feel is the child's best interests. Quote: Maybe Charlie survives but he has to live with the effects and symptoms of his illness, but maybe he also ends up loving life and loving who he is, like many handicap people do. I don't think a group of people should be able to force you to watch your child die because they feel his chance of life his futile, or if he does survive his life will be hell. I don't think they should make that call. We shouldn't be allowed to play God Maybe it works. That's a slim chance though, otherwise there would be no issues. Or maybe it doesn't work and along the way Charlie Gard is subjected to great, unnecessary pain and suffering. The people arguing against the state's ruling in this case seem to be overlooking the reason for the ruling. The chances of survival are slim; the chances for increased pain and suffering higher. Also, playing God has nothing to do with it. We're 'playing God' by giving him treatment in the first place. Quote: Again, regardless on what may be right morally or ethically, whether Charlie should die peacefully or try to survive with treatment, what right does the Government have to determine the life of your own child? Because they are acting in the best interests of the child, and not the parents. Again, key difference. Edit: You also keep bring up that they're deciding that he should die because his quality of life after survival won't be good. This is not the case. Edited by Mitas, Jul 9 2017, 11:14 PM.
	"Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."


Political Piper	Jul 9 2017, 11:44 PM Post #10
Posts: 449 Group: Member Member #13,465 Joined: August 23, 2016 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime Dragonball Z What Browser do you use? Chrome	Daemon Keido Jul 9 2017, 10:58 PM The doctors are acting according to the oath they took: "First, Do No Harm." If it was statistically feasible that Charlie could not only survive but thrive, there would be no discussion on this matter because they would not be in disagreement. Not enough doctors agree that the risk is worth it, especially for a variant that has never been tested for this treatment. There are simply too many variables and not enough time to explore them all. I think letting a person die is the ultimate harm. That's like when a convicted killer gets shot by police, it would be best to let him die since he is a killer, but it isn't up to the doctors to decide who lives and dies. It is their job to treat patients regardless of what they have. That is what it means when they say do no harm - leave emotions out and treat the patient despite how you feel about it. Euthanasia will result in them losing their medical license, receive sanctions or even get them arrested. If doctors can't do it why should the state be able to? Doctors can make suggestions; they can argue their point adamantly. But to decide who lives and dies regardless of what the family thinks is not "do no harm." I'm sure they are causing the family a lot of harm.. and yes I know they are not treating the families, but I wouldn't consider dictating when and how someone dies as doing no harm. Doctors have told the family that there is a 10% chance it will work. The mother made an interesting point as well. Euthanasia is illegal in the UK, but this isn't. This is euthanasia, forceful euthanasia. But if I understood your argument correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong here. Since a statistically majority of doctors say there is no hope for Charlie than that means the Government should have full control regarding when, where, and how Charlie dies? Regardless of whether or not there is an actual guarantee Charlie dies? Statistical majority doesn't mean it's right. Hell, look at the US election. Moreover, the problem I have with that argument is that if we just let someone die because there is a statistical majority of doctors who think he/she will die (not all doctors) but a statistical majority of doctors, should we even bother with experimental treatment at all? We need patients to experiment with. In the last stages of Huntington's disease, which has no cure, the patient is severely brain damaged and in a terrible state, should he or she just accept they are going to die and give up hope and not do any experimental treatments? If so, then why bother with experimental treatments to begin with? The reason we do experimental treatment is to make breakthroughs; to discover treatment that may have the potential to help the sick. Most of Huntington patients have no chance of survival, but if I had it I would make sure I fight. If I had stage-4 cancer I'd fight. I know some of you aren't like me. I know some of you would choose to die rather than do experimental treatment, but that is your choice, and this is my choice. This isn't the Governments choice... And that is the fundamental issue with the Charlie Gard case Also, what if Charlie is saved from this and lives a normal life? Or what if by experimenting with Charlie, pharmacologists are able to refine the treatment so it works in the future? The perception that there is no hope doesn't mean that there is actually no hope. You can use this argument for any condition that has no cure. When did we as a society start giving up? When did we lose our humanity and accept defeat when there is a chance for victory? A statistical majority doesn't mean those doctors are automatically correct, especially when you are talking about science. Doctor's are not perfect, they do make mistakes; lots of mistakes. That's why there is malpractice. It is not a fact that Charlie will die. There is no 100% consensus on that argument, so why does the Government get to act they know what's best for the child when that decision is disputed by medical doctors? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to fight for their life when they are told by doctors that a majority of them in their profession thinks he or she will die? I guess it still comes down to that basic question... Does the Government have the right to force someone to die against the families wishes? What if Charlie was 10 years old and suffered a rare, latent disease that was incurable? Would he be forced to die then as well? This is an actual serious question since I don't know about UK's healthcare. If Charlie was 13 would the doctor have to say, "we are stopping all treatment to let you die, but you can't leave this hospital. Regardless if there may be some hope at another hospital. You are going to die here no matter what, even though other doctors have offered to take up your case. Your family can sue the state, but that's the only way you're leaving." Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. Yes, I did quote Shawshank Redemption there. Lastly, Here's a thing to think about. Imagine what you would do in this situation if Charlie was your child. Whether you would let him die to spare him possible suffering, or let him try to live to enjoy life since some doctors said there is a chance, it doesn't matter. Think of what you would do.... Now think if someone told you they are going to do the opposite of what you wanted because some doctors said so, not all doctors, but some, and you have no say in the matter. It is their decision. Because that's what it comes down to Mitas - Regarding your post on the state trying to prevent the child from suffering pain. If the child was 13 years old in this exact situation and the doctor said we are going to stop the treatment because we think it's highly likely you will die and we don't to inflict pain on you, and then the child responds with, "No. I want to live. I will try to take the pain." Should the state still decide that the pain is too much for the child and stop treating him? Because that is what is happening here. You are taking away a choice to do what you perceive as the best option, regardless what the family or the patient thinks. When does the right of the patient to decide how they die no longer an option? If it can happen when they're a baby, doesn't that mean that it can happen when they are an adult? Edited by Political Piper, Jul 9 2017, 11:52 PM.
	My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT:


Daemon Keido	Jul 9 2017, 11:50 PM Post #11
Warmaster of Chaos Posts: 3,915 Group: RP Moderator Member #6,491 Joined: July 16, 2011 Gender Male Country Canada Favourite Anime Dragonball Z, of course Favourite Manga Currently Toriko	I personally believe a life filled with pain and suffering is not a life at all and is in fact a prolonged torture. To really understand my point of view on this: assume for a moment that this was you we spoke of. If you had no ability to hear, see and only a small chance to even touch the world outside your body, with an almost certainty of pain in the interim..........would you want to live? Yes, this is a child and therefore unable to consent one way or another. But if you would say you wouldn't want to live like that and would not accept the mathematical risk that you almost certainly would not be cured.......why would request this child be forced to?
	A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig! The Emperor Protects


Political Piper	Jul 9 2017, 11:55 PM Post #12
Posts: 449 Group: Member Member #13,465 Joined: August 23, 2016 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime Dragonball Z What Browser do you use? Chrome	Daemon Keido Jul 9 2017, 11:50 PM I personally believe a life filled with pain and suffering is not a life at all and is in fact a prolonged torture. To really understand my point of view on this: assume for a moment that this was you we spoke of. If you had no ability to hear, see and only a small chance to even touch the world outside your body, with an almost certainty of pain in the interim..........would you want to live? Yes, this is a child and therefore unable to consent one way or another. But if you would say you wouldn't want to live like that and would not accept the mathematical risk that you almost certainly would not be cured.......why would request this child be forced to? I'll be honest. No, I wouldn't want to live, but that doesn't mean that my answer is correct. How you personally feel is irrelevant when you are talking about ending the life of someone you are not related too. Look at Helen Keller. I'm sure she wished she was dead when she was younger, I also wonder if she changed her mind about that later on in life? What we think the child would or would not want is irrelevant. We should not have the right to play God by deciding what we think the child would want. Life isn't like that. Some people would want to live, and some people would want to die. Either way, it's not our right to decide that enormous issue for them EDIT: And if Helen Keller was left to die to spare her pain and didn't exist, imagine how we would look at life now. Helen Keller is a prime example that regardless if you think a life would be too painful to endure and you wouldn't want to live, that doesn't mean that someone can't do something great. That doesn't mean someone can't influence and help others. Many blind and deaf people look up to Helen Keller. And I admit if I was her that I wouldn't want to live. But that's me. Great things can come from the most burdensome people. We just have to give them a chance Edited by Political Piper, Jul 10 2017, 12:02 AM.
	My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT:


Daemon Keido	Jul 10 2017, 12:10 AM Post #13
Warmaster of Chaos Posts: 3,915 Group: RP Moderator Member #6,491 Joined: July 16, 2011 Gender Male Country Canada Favourite Anime Dragonball Z, of course Favourite Manga Currently Toriko	Hellen Keller had the capability of a good life. This child does not have the same chance because he requires experimental care with no real marker of success to go by due to having a strain never tested, which still only brings him up to Hellen Keller's frame of life at best. You keep looking on the good side of probability. But the odds are far further in the negative. The odds are far better that this will fail, which will either kill him anyway or render him incapable of anything other than a painful and short life. 2 years ago, I lost my grandmother, as some know. What I didn't mention is that there was a probability of her getting medical care that might have kept her alive. However, the odds were low, less than 2% success rate for how far gone she was. Before we decided we asked: "If she gets this treatment, will she be given full command of her life like she had before she was brought in?" The answer was "no". And so, rather than leave my grandmother in an invalid state that she woud have been been abhored at......we let her pass by shutting off the machines keeping her alive. By dint of this, I suspect I know a bit about how this family feels, if in an inverted way. But I also know better than most that their hope is a fleeting one, one driven by grief of the child they lose by inches each hour and by the selfish desire to keep him alive beyond what even they would accept for their lives. Make no mistake, Piper.....what this family decides is not inherently any more correct than the various doctors nor is it more correct than our opinions here for these are simply opinions. It is simply the final choice made in a long list of decisions about a life screwed over by circumstance of fate.
	A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig! The Emperor Protects


* Mitas	Jul 10 2017, 04:27 PM Post #14
It truly was a Shawshank redemption Posts: 12,129 Group: Retired Staff Member #2,993 Joined: December 16, 2007 Gender Male Favourite Anime DBZ What Browser do you use? Google Chrome Favourite Manga DBZ, Full Metal Alchemist	Political Piper Jul 9 2017, 11:44 PM Mitas - Regarding your post on the state trying to prevent the child from suffering pain. If the child was 13 years old in this exact situation and the doctor said we are going to stop the treatment because we think it's highly likely you will die and we don't to inflict pain on you, and then the child responds with, "No. I want to live. I will try to take the pain." Should the state still decide that the pain is too much for the child and stop treating him? Because that is what is happening here. You are taking away a choice to do what you perceive as the best option, regardless what the family or the patient thinks. When does the right of the patient to decide how they die no longer an option? If it can happen when they're a baby, doesn't that mean that it can happen when they are an adult? That example has little relevance. This whole case is predicated on the idea that the patient in question is incapable of having any type of input on the decision and therefore needs to have somebody act on their behalf. The patient being able to say 'no, I want to try the treatment' would make this a completely different case (notice how I switched 'live' to 'try the treatment' because based on your language in this thread you seem to be working under the assumption that the treatment is a guarantee). This comes down to: should the parents or the doctors/state be given the responsibility to make this call? And in my opinion, the parents are not in the right frame of mind to make the choice. They are not as educated on the matter as the medical experts. They will ignore the information they don't want to hear (e.g. treatment has low success rate, possible harm etc) and cling to the small bits of hope (e.g. it has an extremely low chance of working, ignore 'low' and focus on 'of working'). They will focus on not letting their child die (which is a completely understandable frame of mind) rather than not letting it come to extra harm and suffering. In short, they are too emotionally invested to make the correct call. They are the parents, so of course they're going to be. There may also be a case where the exact same parents feel the exact same way about a case that has better chances with less risk and the courts rule in their favour. What doesn't change is that the decision should be entrusted to those more qualified to make the decision, and not the parents.
	"Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."


Political Piper	Jul 11 2017, 08:04 PM Post #15
Posts: 449 Group: Member Member #13,465 Joined: August 23, 2016 Gender Male Country United States Favourite Anime Dragonball Z What Browser do you use? Chrome	I guess I'm truly at a lost for words. At first I thought you guys were just arguing against me because it's, well... me. But it seems like you truly believe the Government should have control of your life and death. I truly hope this doesn't happen to any of you guys. I could argue with you Daemon and you Mitas about your above comments, and I could make my points and you could make your points and this could go on and on until the mods and others jump in and it's 1 vs 10 again, even the people who do agree with me won't post in this thread due to their fear of losing their popularity on this forum, so I'm not going to let it get that far. I will say this. If it can happen to a baby, it can happen to anyone of any age. The moment you say it's ok for the Government to decide your fate regardless how you feel about it is the moment you lose the sanctity and control of your own life. I fear that we have lost our humanity, and we lose it more and more every day. Nobody has the right to play God. I truly hope you guys don't find yourself in a situation where you get sick and you want to try to get treatment and the Government says no, you have to die. Your life isn't worth the money or the hassle of the doctors to try and treat you. The moment you give up control of your life is the moment you lose the ability to think and decide for yourself. It almost seems like we're heading toward 1984 by George Orwell =\ Please don't lose your humanity.. Please don't give up hope and let others dictate your life for you. We are individuals first, society next. We don't need to follow collectivism by ignoring individualism. P.S - Helen Keller was born in 1880, back then there was no hope that she would have a normal or good life. It's a perfect example of how people who are likely to have a horrible life end up leading and influencing millions of others. P.S.S - What I would do in this situation is my choice, what you would do in this situation is your choice. One thing is for certain, it is not the Government's choice. Humans aren't trash that are expendable because someone in Government thinks so. The sanctity of a life is above all others. I'm truly shocked at some of the comments here... It depresses me reading these comments, and no I'm not just saying that, I truly am depressed on how far our humanity has devolved that we think someone else can decide who lives our dies; that they are somehow qualified to determine life and death decisions even though they are a judge and not even a doctor, not to mention not every doctor agrees with the judge. That's why I stopped posting the other day. I had to go on a motorcycle ride to clear my head. I didn't think I would have read some of the things I've read. To be without strength is to be without hope; without hope is to die. And ignorance is not a facet for self-preservation, just like personal destiny is not a concept that should be dictated by others. But yeah, I guess I'm done with my soliloquy.
	My Youtube Channel With More Political and Breaking News Videos FOOD FOR THOUGHT:


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience. Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2