Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[C-Mag]

Take this as a Troll remark if you like............

Not much else I can do with it...

OK........................ Enjoy your future

[Speaker to Animals]

One wonders if Prince George's newborn baby would be allowed to travel to Italy under similar circumstances..

[Kath]

No they are afraid it won't work and will needlessly subject the child to suffering.

Lol - no suffering in starvation, though, right? This is straight up murder.

[BjornP]

To be clear, I am not advocating The United States invade Britain and force them to change their laws.
Nor do I challenge that there can be difficult decisions. Ones to end life support.
Nor do I challenge that there can be difficult decisions to override parents to SAVE LIVES.

But no, I reject the idea that parents will can be overridden to kill children.

The idea that the State can advocate euthanasia OVER the consent of the parents is simply murder. It is only good death if you accept that state as your god.


Yes, of course I could tone it down, but it is not hyperbole when I say that I would be prepared to kill people if they tried to do this to my son.

Do doctors "murder" children, when children under their care die of terminal illnesses and they declare that they cannot do anything more, Nick? Is that euthanasia? If doctors have exhausted all treatment options they know of, if there is no cure, are doctors "murdering" the infant patient by deciding they can no longer provide any care for the child beyond being eternally hooked up to a breathing-assist system?

Do I believe in "The State" having the right to do anything to citizens? Or that in this case in particular, the State is in the right? No...because I'm not a cartoon character badly stereotyping Statism Uber Alles. Do I believe that parents should have an absolute right to keep a child with no chance of cure or recovery artificially alive for as long as they feel? No, it is very extensive, but not absolute and certainly not simply because the child is "theirs". Got fuck all to do with "The State", anymore than you're a zombie supporter of the State-God by supporting the very existence of laws, prison, possibly even death penalty against murder and other serious crimes.

If doctors agree that the act of keeping someone without any chance of cure or recovery artificially alive is inflicting more and more pain upon them, then the parents right to torture their own child is, and should be, non-existent. The child is not property, or the parent's emotional support animal, but a person. Some decency should be afforded to the child.

[nmoore63]

Do doctors "murder" children, when children under their care die of terminal illnesses and they declare that they cannot do anything more, Nick? Is that euthanasia? If doctors have exhausted all treatment options they know of, if there is no cure, are doctors "murdering" the infant patient by deciding they can no longer provide any care for the child beyond being eternally hooked up to a breathing-assist system?

Treatment or release.
Imprisoning someone they admit they can't treat is evil.

Do I believe that parents should have an absolute right to keep a child with no chance of cure or recovery artificially alive for as long as they feel? No, it is very extensive, but not absolute and certainly not simply because the child is "theirs". Got fuck all to do with "The State", anymore than you're a zombie supporter of the State-God by supporting the very existence of laws, prison, possibly even death penalty against murder and other serious crimes.

No Chance of a cure isn't thing. We all die. Each moment is precious.

If doctors agree that the act of keeping someone without any chance of cure or recovery artificially alive is inflicting more and more pain upon them, then the parents right to torture their own child is, and should be, non-existent. The child is not property, or the parent's emotional support animal, but a person. Some decency should be afforded to the child.

Saving a child over parents wishes is a thing.
Withdrawing support is nature of the world we live in.
Killing a child over parents wishes is evil.


Edit: Withdrawing support and then preventing others from supporting is killing.

[Speaker to Animals]

It escalated to attempted murder yesterday when they removed the oxygen and then decided to starve him to death because he won't just die.

[BjornP]

Treatment or release.
Imprisoning someone they admit they can't treat is evil.

Agree on the imprisonment part being wrong.

No Chance of a cure isn't thing. We all die. Each moment is precious.

It is a thing. In 200 years someone may cure cancer, but someone dying right now of an advanced cancerous brain tumor, won't be around to be cured by then. So we'll have to relate to the present level of medicine tech level. Yes, we all die... doctors curing you is not a right when they can't cure you. You should have a right to find other treatment, but the idea that subjecting your child to ANY form of treatment the parent wish the child to undergo, Nick... I hope you don't support that being a right. If you accept that the State is not the perfect arbitrator of what is best for a child, you have to accept that neither are the parents. A mentally disturbed parent thinking feeding hemlock to his kid will cure him of leukemia, doesn't know what's best for his child, for example.

Saving a child over parents wishes is a thing.
Withdrawing support is nature of the world we live in.
Killing a child over parents wishes is evil.

Killing a child, yes. Not being able to cure a child, isn't.

[nmoore63]

It is a thing. In 200 years someone may cure cancer, but someone dying right now of an advanced cancerous brain tumor, won't be around to be cured by then. So we'll have to relate to the present level of medicine tech level. Yes, we all die... doctors curing you is not a right when they can't cure you. You should have a right to find other treatment, but the idea that subjecting your child to ANY form of treatment the parent wish the child to undergo, Nick... I hope you don't support that being a right. If you accept that the State is not the perfect arbitrator of what is best for a child, you have to accept that neither are the parents. A mentally disturbed parent thinking feeding hemlock to his kid will cure him of leukemia, doesn't know what's best for his child, for example.

I understand where you are going with this.

Child dying of cancer, parents want the child to drink arsenic to see if it will help.

One western hospital to another is so far from that as to not even worth discussing as a distraction.

Sorry bro, you can't use the idea that I support taking children away from shit parents because they beat them to justify not letting parents take home their dying child, or seek a second opinion from a different western hospital.

Evil is Evil.

[Speaker to Animals]

Quick question:

If the family with a cancer-stricken child decide the best course of medical action is to withhold food from the child until he dies, should the state step in and rescue the child from child abuse and potentially murder??

[C-Mag]

Since the government has decided to kill the child, why are they making the child and the parents suffer ?
They should just do a lethal injection and get it over with. I'm serious.

This is stupid. The Government has taken total responsibility for this childs life, they have said the parents have Zero say in it. And they have chosen one of the most cruel ways to kill a person.