The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Some judge should not be deciding the life or death of citizens. That is wrong and bad.

 

Your assumption that parents always make the best decision for their children is laughable.

 

No more laughable than yours that judges should make these decisions for families or individuals.

 

Unfortunately trying every means can be negligence, without the information and expertise available to the judge, we cannot know. Loving someone does not always mean you are in the best position to decide what is right for them. I cannot imagine what these poor people are going through, but the best decision must be made for the child.

 

Why that has to be explained is astonishing. Did anyone read that and take it to mean that the child has a 10% chance of some type of actual recovery? I cannot believe that. That 10% can boil own to some meager improvement that would hardly even be discernible.

 

So if your child was sick and someone said to you, I may be able to improve your child's quality of life at a chance of 10% with this technique, then you wouldn't try it?

 

Who says they wouldn't take that 10% chance if it was their child?

 

The parents will give up their hope in their own time, when THEY realize that it's hopeless, not when YOU tell them to.

 

But it is not about the parents, it is about Charlie, what is best for him.

 

And nobody knows better than his parents about what is best for him. Certainly no judge can say that who has absolutely no personal experience with the child. Government or judges should not be involved in forcing people to either seek medical help or to not seek it. That is just not right and crosses a line. I can only imagine how giving judges and government this kind of power could be abused. These kinds of decisions should be left up to parents/legal guardians of the patients with advice given and taken into consideration from medical professionals.

 

What don't you understand about the 10% being non "discernible"? Those odds in this situation are negligible. I do not believe in prolonging suffering and I certainy do not consider that to be loving...period! Let the parents do what they want and I have already said that, but I would not assist them in the endeavor of prolonging the life of a child in this critical and hopeless situation.

 

If the situation was reversed and the doctors believed they might be able to help but the parents said enough, would you be arguing to allow the child to die?

 

Well then that would be considered negligence on the part of the parents for NOT doing everything they can to help their child. And yes, it's kind of funny how liberals are for forcing people to accept medical care in certain situations but not others. People's medical decisions are not for you to decide.

 

And reich-wingers love to do the same for financial gain.

 

It has nothing to do with whether I am a liberal or not, this is not about the right of the individual to decide. Any individual should be allowed to decide for themselves assuming they have mental capacity to do so. We are completely in agreement on that. This is about a child who cannot make the decision for themselves, in the US it appears the parents have the ultimate say, from the comments made here. In Europe, where the parents and doctors cannot agree, then an independent judge can be appointed to make the decision.

 

[

They evaluate the evidence and make a decision based on the law.
Charlie's parents want to ignore medical evidence and put their son in harm's way.
the American doctors have argued that it would be helpful to experiment on Charlie for the advancement of medical science.
That is against UK law.

Having seen the medical evidence, they no longer claim there is a 10% chance Charlie could show some improvement.

 

So you are claiming that the parents are unfit to make these decisions for their child? Based on what? The parents are lacking mental capacity? Was the child ever taken from them for negligence? What did they do wrong besides seeking an alternative medical opinion?

 

So people should be prevented from seeking out other treatments because the chances of them being successful is very low? Because some judge somewhere determines that for them, there is no hope?

 

No, you can't try this alternative or experimental therapy. You must just accept that you are going to die. Says a judge.

 

Says the law.

Are you seriously claiming that any kind of treatment, no matter how harmful or futile, may legally be used on a terminally ill baby if his parents agree in the USA?

 

Harmful? Do you have evidence that the treatment would be harmful?

 

Where did I say that? Quote a post of mine that says that if a treatment is harmful that a patient's family should be able to use it. Harmful, for all intents and purposes, is the opposite of "treatment."

 

AND! . . .if they have the money to sustain it!

 

Glad to see you say that!

That means that you do not agree with a judge making the decision to force a woman to carry a foetus for 9 months against her will!

That means that you do not agree with a judge making the decision to keep a brain-dead person on life support for years.

That means that you do not agree that a judge should be able to condemn ANY ONE to death!

 

The specialists have determined that there is no hope. The 10% is not a 10% chance of a recovery or vast improvement. It's 10% chance of making any difference at all. For example...would a child's seizures going down to 3 a week from 4 be an acceptable and significant improvement in such an instance? That is the type of thing we are talking about here.