How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Montegriffo]

The doctors have said that despite the serious brain damage they can not rule out Charlie being in pain. He has been on morphine all along and his dose has been increased. Un-necesarily extending his life with no possible chance of a cure is inhumane and that is the harm that both the doctors who have been treating him and the courts have decided exists.
Again, the courts have Charlie's best interests in mind where as the parents understandably didn't want to admit there was no hope.

At this point... yes. When this originally started... no, that was not the case.

Not according to the doctors actually treating the child, they have repeated their opinion that this was never a viable option at any point in time.
The clinic offering the treatment at a price of over a million pounds have tried to persuade the parents differently. They are the real bad guys here, not the parents or the GOSH doctors.

[Okeefenokee]

Only a nanny stater could argue that a court blocking treatment for a child is an example of them having the best interests of the child in mind, more so than the parents who are seeking treatment.

The court wants your kid to die, and you want him to live, and it's the court that has the best interests of the child in mind.

The court wants to prohibit further suffering, the parents want to prolong suffering indefinately. The courts have the best interests of the child in mind.
Parent's rights do not outrank the childs rights.

This has now been pointed out numerous times in at least two different threads so I'm assuming this has derailed into anti-single payer talking points rather than addressing the actual issues.
I'm out.......

fucking retard thinks anyone but commie kat is buying this justification that the parents want to hurt their child and the state is stepping in to protect the child, by letting him die.

fucking 1984 up in this bitch.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Which was?

122 pages and counting.

Let's work out something here, point out where he is wrong and then let's see what the results are, I'm not going through 122 pages to figure out a myopic view of something that you have an issue with.

The stance was taken that this treatment would have "saved" the kid. Debunked.

The absolute was thrown about that parents should have absolute sovereignty over their kids. I pointed out Munchausens and abuse cases that would conflict with that.

[Okeefenokee]

Out of the tens of thousands that die every day in the U.K., I have one case that looks questionable.

Perhaps for some, JUST ONE TIME is enough to change their entire view on medical care, but I'll be the weird one here and wait for more.

This is not a matter centered on the issue of medical care, since you're so damn dense you haven't figured that out yet.

This is about the state usurping parental authority, and of course you nanny state libshits are all for it.

This is why you want to convince people that evil is just a religious concept, nothing more. If good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are simply concepts in the mind, subjective opinions which can fluidly change from person to person, depending on the circumstances, then you can find a justification for anything.

You can say, yeah I think killing is wrong, but

yeah I think theft is wrong, but

yeah I think violence is wrong, but

and then you come up with whatever justification suits you to explain why murder, theft, and violence are okay in the scenarios you deem righteous.

Murder is wrong, but we gotta do something about these Jews.

Theft is wrong, but we need to redistribute this wealth.

Violence is wrong, but you shouldn't have been wearing that hat.

Murder is wrong, but those damn Nazis/Commies/terrorists.

Theft is wrong, but we need oil/bananas/slaves.

Violence is wrong, but these goddamn Muslims are going to a mosque.

Your feathers are a little dirty.

This is the part where I set your strawman on fire, and you try to find where I said any of that before it burns down.

YOU defended Antifa over and over again for their rampant violence, not me.

YOU defended violent Muslims attacking protesters with bricks, not me.

YOU defended a gang of Muslim rapists, and blamed the victim for what happened to her, not me.

[Montegriffo]

Only a nanny stater could argue that a court blocking treatment for a child is an example of them having the best interests of the child in mind, more so than the parents who are seeking treatment.

The court wants your kid to die, and you want him to live, and it's the court that has the best interests of the child in mind.

The court wants to prohibit further suffering, the parents want to prolong suffering indefinately. The courts have the best interests of the child in mind.
Parent's rights do not outrank the childs rights.

This has now been pointed out numerous times in at least two different threads so I'm assuming this has derailed into anti-single payer talking points rather than addressing the actual issues.
I'm out.......

fucking retard thinks anyone but commie kat is buying this justification that the parents want to hurt their child and the state is stepping in to protect the child, by letting him die.

fucking 1984 up in this bitch.

Insults and a refusal to accept the facts of the case. If you have nothing but ignorance to bring to the conversation you would be better to say nothing and let doubt remain about you being a fool. As it is you have chosen to speak and removed all doubt....

[Okeefenokee]

122 pages and counting.

Let's work out something here, point out where he is wrong and then let's see what the results are, I'm not going through 122 pages to figure out a myopic view of something that you have an issue with.

The stance was taken that this treatment would have "saved" the kid. Debunked.

The absolute was thrown about that parents should have absolute sovereignty over their kids. I pointed out Munchausens and abuse cases that would conflict with that.

and your horseshit justification rolls on and on.

/bonghit, hey man, sometimes the state takes people's kids away if they're like abusive and stuff. i mean, there was this lady that drowned her kids in a bathtub, i think. that's basically the same thing as this.

[Montegriffo]

This is not a matter centered on the issue of medical care, since you're so damn dense you haven't figured that out yet.

This is about the state usurping parental authority, and of course you nanny state libshits are all for it.

This is why you want to convince people that evil is just a religious concept, nothing more. If good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are simply concepts in the mind, subjective opinions which can fluidly change from person to person, depending on the circumstances, then you can find a justification for anything.

You can say, yeah I think killing is wrong, but

yeah I think theft is wrong, but

yeah I think violence is wrong, but

and then you come up with whatever justification suits you to explain why murder, theft, and violence are okay in the scenarios you deem righteous.

Murder is wrong, but we gotta do something about these Jews.

Theft is wrong, but we need to redistribute this wealth.

Violence is wrong, but you shouldn't have been wearing that hat.

Murder is wrong, but those damn Nazis/Commies/terrorists.

Theft is wrong, but we need oil/bananas/slaves.

Violence is wrong, but these goddamn Muslims are going to a mosque.

Your feathers are a little dirty.

This is the part where I set your strawman on fire, and you try to find where I said any of that before it burns down.

YOU defended Antifa over and over again for their rampant violence, not me.

YOU defended violent Muslims attacking protesters with bricks, not me.

YOU defended a gang of Muslim rapists, and blamed the victim for what happened to her, not me.

All irrelevant to the topic at hand and demonstrably false statements.

[Okeefenokee]

The court wants to prohibit further suffering, the parents want to prolong suffering indefinately. The courts have the best interests of the child in mind.
Parent's rights do not outrank the childs rights.

This has now been pointed out numerous times in at least two different threads so I'm assuming this has derailed into anti-single payer talking points rather than addressing the actual issues.
I'm out.......

fucking retard thinks anyone but commie kat is buying this justification that the parents want to hurt their child and the state is stepping in to protect the child, by letting him die.

fucking 1984 up in this bitch.

Insults and a refusal to accept the facts of the case. If you have nothing but ignorance to bring to the conversation you would be better to say nothing and let doubt remain about you being a fool. As it is you have chosen to speak and removed all doubt....

Tell us again how up is down, death is in the best interest of a child, seeking healthcare is inflicting harm, and we need the state tell us so. It's always worth a laugh.

[The Conservative]

122 pages and counting.

Let's work out something here, point out where he is wrong and then let's see what the results are, I'm not going through 122 pages to figure out a myopic view of something that you have an issue with.

The stance was taken that this treatment would have "saved" the kid. Debunked.

The absolute was thrown about that parents should have absolute sovereignty over their kids. I pointed out Munchausen and abuse cases that would conflict with that.

When the offer was first put into place, the option was there. They had the money to proceed, but the hospital and system that they were being treated under went against the parent's wishes and abilities at the time to do the treatment that may have saved their son... that is when the issue got sticky.

Because the point was that the state had no issue doing care for the child for years, but when the parents wanted to go elsewhere to try something else the state had a hissy fit and brought it to court... that is the problem.

[Okeefenokee]

Murder is wrong, but those damn Nazis/Commies/terrorists.

Theft is wrong, but we need oil/bananas/slaves.

Violence is wrong, but these goddamn Muslims are going to a mosque.

Your feathers are a little dirty.

This is the part where I set your strawman on fire, and you try to find where I said any of that before it burns down.

YOU defended Antifa over and over again for their rampant violence, not me.

YOU defended violent Muslims attacking protesters with bricks, not me.

YOU defended a gang of Muslim rapists, and blamed the victim for what happened to her, not me.

All irrelevant to the topic at hand and demonstrably false statements.

Look at my sig line, and then demonstrate yourself right off a fucking cliff, you limey wanker. You couldn't tell the truth to save your life. We were all there, over and over again, as this subjective morality of yours has been applied to justify any and everything from violence to rape to murder. Tell us again how the words we have all read, and are looking at right now, are just a fabrication.

Freedom is slavery, amiright?