Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

We need to take Ireland first and Liberate them and we can use the that as a base of operations.

Mistake.

We'd never leave Ireland if we start there.

[SuburbanFarmer]

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.

The parents can take their dying child home, neither the hospital nor the courts are objecting to that.
They can seek as many opinions as they want, it won't change the fact that the Italian hospital can do nothing to improve his condition.

Can they? Seems the Italian government offered them a ride, and was turned back by the UK military.

That kid is a prisoner. In a hospital. Being starved.

[Montegriffo]

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.

The parents can take their dying child home, neither the hospital nor the courts are objecting to that.
They can seek as many opinions as they want, it won't change the fact that the Italian hospital can do nothing to improve his condition.

Can they? Seems the Italian government offered them a ride, and was turned back by the UK military.

That kid is a prisoner. In a hospital. Being starved.

It was turned down by the court of appeal, there was no cure offered only keeping him alive on life support. Papal interference in British legal matters was ended by Henry VIII.

[BjornP]

The parents can take their dying child home, neither the hospital nor the courts are objecting to that.
They can seek as many opinions as they want, it won't change the fact that the Italian hospital can do nothing to improve his condition.

Can they? Seems the Italian government offered them a ride, and was turned back by the UK military.

That kid is a prisoner. In a hospital. Being starved.

It was turned down by the court of appeal, there was no cure offered only keeping him alive on life support. Papal interference in British legal matters was ended by Henry VIII.

Courts should be able to prevents parents or others groups from causing harm to a child, even when it comes deciding treatments. The Italians aren't offering a cure, true, but there's also no evidence that they'd be causing harm. Courts should be able to support the medical ethical oath of "first, do no harm". Part of that, though, ought to involve rational and medical assesment of wether or not the Italian hospital will be causing harm to the child by keeping him breathing for a few more days or weeks. If there is no harm to the child by giving the parents more time to come to grips with their child never waking up... then the legal authorities should let the parents travel to Italy with their child.

[Montegriffo]

The best interest of the parents is not the prime concern of the courts, the best interests of the child are. The parents have had over a year to get to grips with the condition of their child.

[Heraclius]

I feel like the duty of the government in these situations is to create the most utility. When you're taking kids away from an abusive home, you would need to weigh whether the damage the parent's are causing to their child is so extreme that it ends up harming society as a whole in the long term. That could be because the child will have a much higher predisposition to becoming abusive and violent while also stunting his development as a person. All of this ends up costing society more later on as the kid has a higher chance of becoming someone who is a net loss as a citizen and takes up public funds through prison/social services. You need to weigh whether that damage is greater than the damage caused by forcibly taking a kid from his parents and putting him with another relative or potentially a foster home.

With that outlook the UK government's position makes zero sense. The parents are offering to take the kid to another healthcare system (without having the UK pay for the trip) which means that the kid will move from being a net loss to a net zero on public funds. The utility of the kid's future is totally unaffected as his future in the current situation is death. That's assuming you view his current life as providing 0 utility, which would probably be the equivalent of death. Unless you feel that him being alive provides some negative utility but if that's the case why not just give the kid a lethal injection as others have said. It would make his death way quicker than starving so the negative utility of living would be resolved in a more efficient manner.

I also find it quite funny in a morbid sense to see death row inmates last on average 15 years through the court system but this child had his fate decided in a single year.

[BjornP]

The best interest of the parents is not the prime concern of the courts, the best interests of the child are. The parents have had over a year to get to grips with the condition of their child.

You're being a robot now. I did not say or at all indicate that the prime concern of the courts was anything but the child's welfare. The courts abide by laws. Laws are created by lawmakers. Lawmakers are elected by people. People are stupid and emotional. Ergo, laws can be wrong and decisions of the courts not truly be in the "best interest" of a child. Do you understand that, Monte? Are you, conceptually speaking at least, capable of imagining that a law can be created that does NOT lead to properly determining what's in a child's "best interest"? That there needs to be some way to determine what "best interest" at all, means?

When society legislates in matters of MEDICINE, the primary purpose of such law should reflect the primary purpose of medicine: First, do no harm. "Best interest of the child" thus equals the ethical medical directive of "first, do no harm". Any law legislating the medical profession that does NOT take that imperative into account, is also not going to be a law concerned with the "best interest" of the child.

[Hastur]

Here is article 24 from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Kingdom ratified the Convention on 16 December 1991.

Article 24

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:
   1. To diminish infant and child mortality;
   2. To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;
   3. To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;
   4. To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers;
   5. To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents;
   6. To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services.
3. States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.
4. States Parties undertake to promote and encourage international co-operation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

[Montegriffo]

The best interest of the parents is not the prime concern of the courts, the best interests of the child are. The parents have had over a year to get to grips with the condition of their child.

You're being a robot now. I did not say or at all indicate that the prime concern of the courts was anything but the child's welfare. The courts abide by laws. Laws are created by lawmakers. Lawmakers are elected by people. People are stupid and emotional. Ergo, laws can be wrong and decisions of the courts not truly be in the "best interest" of a child. Do you understand that, Monte? Are you, conceptually speaking at least, capable of imagining that a law can be created that does NOT lead to properly determining what's in a child's "best interest"? That there needs to be some way to determine what "best interest" at all, means?

When society legislates in matters of MEDICINE, the primary purpose of such law should reflect the primary purpose of medicine: First, do no harm. "Best interest of the child" thus equals the ethical medical directive of "first, do no harm". Any law legislating the medical profession that does NOT take that imperative into account, is also not going to be a law concerned with the "best interest" of the child.

Look I'm going to keep on repeating "best interests of the child" until it gets through to people that this is what the legal system is focusing on.
The wishes of the parents, their American Christian Law firm, the Vatican hospital and even the Pope himself all take second place to the best interest of the child.
The medical team and the courts have come to the conclusion that keeping a brain dead, terminally ill child artificially alive for the sake of his father's feelings is not in the child's best interest. I have no problem supporting this decision and all the gnashing and wailing of the knee jerk, God bothering crowd unable to get past shouting "Murder" is not going to change a thing.

It is not in the child's best interest to be kept alive with no prospect of any quality of life. It is the action of an understandably distraught but selfish parent and moralising from the Christian right in the US and Italy.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The best interest of the parents is not the prime concern of the courts, the best interests of the child are. The parents have had over a year to get to grips with the condition of their child.

You're being a robot now. I did not say or at all indicate that the prime concern of the courts was anything but the child's welfare. The courts abide by laws. Laws are created by lawmakers. Lawmakers are elected by people. People are stupid and emotional. Ergo, laws can be wrong and decisions of the courts not truly be in the "best interest" of a child. Do you understand that, Monte? Are you, conceptually speaking at least, capable of imagining that a law can be created that does NOT lead to properly determining what's in a child's "best interest"? That there needs to be some way to determine what "best interest" at all, means?

When society legislates in matters of MEDICINE, the primary purpose of such law should reflect the primary purpose of medicine: First, do no harm. "Best interest of the child" thus equals the ethical medical directive of "first, do no harm". Any law legislating the medical profession that does NOT take that imperative into account, is also not going to be a law concerned with the "best interest" of the child.

Look I'm going to keep on repeating "best interests of the child" until it gets through to people that this is what the legal system is focusing on.
The wishes of the parents, their American Christian Law firm, the Vatican hospital and even the Pope himself all take second place to the best interest of the child.
The medical team and the courts have come to the conclusion that keeping a brain dead, terminally ill child artificially alive for the sake of his father's feelings is not in the child's best interest. I have no problem supporting this decision and all the gnashing and wailing of the knee jerk, God bothering crowd unable to get past shouting "Murder" is not going to change a thing.

It is not in the child's best interest to be kept alive with no prospect of any quality of life. It is the action of an understandably distraught but selfish parent and moralising from the Christian right in the US and Italy.

That is not a governmental decision. I'm more than a little shocked that you're backing this.