I pointed to the neurologist’s testimony. He does not claim this treatment gives Charlie a teeny fraction of a chance. He said there’s a small chance of some improved brain function. If a doctor says you are in the “terminal stage” of an illness and is offering “compassionate” treatment, it’s time to make funeral arrangments.
By contrast, I wouldn’t want my child to suffer unnecessarily. That is, if I was capable of thinking straight which I don’t think I would be - so I’d leave it to the professionals, the medical experts and the legal authorities.
A chance for what? That’s not answering the question I asked-that’s just restating the same vague thing you said before, So I ask again:
At best, what is it you think this experimental treatment can offer this dying child?
Well quite, if that were not bad enough that Vatican is also sticking their sticky little mitts into this as well. I suppose they are an expert on childhood suffering though.
(my bold in the above)
I’m not seeing how this is related to Trump and it seems like hijack and a way to get a shot in at other posters. In addition, you seem to be making your arguments personal, ‘behaving despicably’, ‘have some dignity’, etc. Knock it off.
[/moderating]
I assume you don’t live in the UK. You should know that here, if there’s one institution that we cherish and trust in, it is the NHS, and comments like this would be considered not only offensive but irrational.
Yesterday I brought my partner back from a minor operation at an NHS hospital.
It wasn’t perfect for her- there was a bit too much waiting around- but there is no doubt she got 1st-class care for free. She’s a senior nurse herself so she knows.
Perhaps you have some sort of bad feelings for UHC. Here we would be terrified of living without it. We don’t have the term ‘medical bankruptcy’ in the UK.
I find this case highlights a couple of dynamics. I have often wondered whether I believe medical technology has outpaced our ability to pay for it - at least to make it generally available. OTOH, there is the argument that cutting edge treatments pave the way for more affordable treatment later.
I’m very surprised that the parents do not have sufficient authority to decide to attempt alternative treatment, or even discontinue treatment, should they wish.
In this case, I really couldn’t care less about the kid. He’s a goner. Barely even a human in my mind. If the parents and their donors want to piss away millions to try to extend some low level of existence of some time, well, I suppose they should be allowed to. Not terribly concerned with the idea that their doing so will essentially torture their kid. Parent make crappy decisions all the time.
But even if this treatment is “successful,” how much more ought society (NHS or insurers/policy-holders) pay as this brain damaged kid slowly dies before reaching adulthood?
:rolleyes:
It’s a fair question. I mean, I would assume you think the therapy might save the boy’s life but the neurologist who would perform the therapy isn’t saying that. He says Charlie is in the “terminal stage” and the therapy gives a small chance of letting him smile and look at objects.
And I didn’t think it is possible to be vaguer and more non-responsive than your last post.
Or as I said before, a chance to properly express the amount of pain he is in.
I don’t see what it has to do with Trump either, but poster adaher does like to make his Trumpcare case by any means possible:
You’re happy with this crap, but not the poster being called on it?
As for you and me, I have tired of you on my back. Back off or ban me - to which I know the answer because you are just that kind of guy.
In fact, I’ll leave anyway because I have no respect for you, and I also feel uncomfortable with this weirdo attempt at bullying and intimidation.
Goodbye.
Wow, that escalated quickly :eek:
Questions or comments about moderation belong in ATMB. Feel free to open a thread in ATMB if you wish to discuss further. No more in this thread.
[/moderating]
No it doesn’t. It certainly hasn’t in any other case of modern euthanasia.
And the award for most bizarrely hyperbolic and nonsensical analogy goes to…
I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment of the situation. At all.
You know what? Let’s just go with your premise here, that the NHS and the fact that the government is paying for health care is a key factor here. It’s not, given that the key dispute has to do with whether the parents can spend their own money to further torture the child, but let’s just run with it.
The alternative you propose is a system in which health care is apportioned not by who needs it and where it will be effective, but rather by who can pay for it. The NHS may lead to this nonsense, but imagine Charlie Gard under your system if his parents weren’t loaded. How long of a hospital stay do you think he’d get? How many weeks could his parents afford the feeding tube before their funds ran out and the hospital had to wheel that dying child out like (fake) Mitch McConnell in a Batman costume? :rolleyes:
My apologies for assuming that people would understand that when I speak of euthanasia, I am referring to the modern euthanasia movement, and not the fucking nazis. Now that the well is thoroughly poisoned, would anyone like to see if they can figure out if there’s any real difference between “it should be possible to die with dignity instead of holding out for a deadly, incurable, painful disease to take its course” and “anyone who isn’t Aryan doesn’t really deserve to live”, and then hazard a guess which position I hold?
So how much suffering is worth how much chance of how much improvement of quality of life? Let’s say your odds of improvement are less than 1 in 100,000, and as a result, you’re being tortured constantly. In this context, “improvement” means maybe being even slightly aware of your surroundings. Would you take those odds? It’s not that simple. It’s easy to say, “We should always fight for life,” but it’s a lot harder to actually justify such an extreme position. Usually, we should. This is one of those fringe cases where that just isn’t true.
I’m a little confused here. When have the principles of the modern “right to death” movement ever slipped down into the kind of genocidal euthanasia practiced by the nazis? The problem with old-school euthanasia was not “We started allowing people to end their lives, and ending the lives of those who could not choose to do so due to the progress of their terminal diseases in order to prevent suffering, and slowly but surely our definition of what was worth killing crept up until we were just murdering everyone who wasn’t physically and mentally fit”. The problem with old-school euthanasia was that it started at “let’s kill everyone who isn’t physically and mentally fit”, and had some utterly grotesque definitions of what that might have meant. That’s not slipping down a slippery slope, that’s starting by rolling in the mud at the bottom of a hill.
Most animals are not self-aware, and they feel pain.
Why? The parents are less qualified than the doctors, and way less objective than either the doctors or the judges.
BREAKING NEWS (I think) –
Charlie Gard may have new hope: Hospital asks court to rehear case of terminally ill infant, Lindsey Bever and Alex Horton, Washington Post, July 7, 2017.
Article also names the American hospital that is making this offer (in contrast to up-thread post saying that the hospital’s name is withheld “for legal reasons”), but notes that it’s unclear if this is the same hospital.
Obviously, a lot of people here disagree with your view wrt ethics. And disagree with the sentence “hold the child hostage”.
And disagree also with the idea that doctors should do whatever the guardian (as opposed to the patient himself) says.
Do you have a cite that substantiates the amount of pain that would experienced if the parents pursue this alternative treatment? That is, compared to taking the child off life support and allowing him to die.
Honest question. I have not seen anything in the news that says the alternative treatment would cause the child to endure excessive pain and suffering.
The hospital has applied to the court for a re-hearing, based on new evidence recently received from other medical sources.
I’d just like to point out that a homeopathic therapy involving concentrated hydrochloric acid would require an Olympic-sized pool with, possibly, one HCl molecule in it.