Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[doc_loliday]

They wouldn't, in this case they are trying to represent the CBI as it clearly can't speak for itself. Parents don't have ultimate authority nor do doctors.
If I want to go abroad for treatment no one can stop me. What you can't do though is send me in a coma off abroad for treatment just because my Mother wants it. You will have to show to my doctors that it has a chance of improving my condition. No treatment other than continued life support was offered by the Vatican's hospital.

I still don't understand why they just won't let them leave the country. What do they care if he goes to live on life support in another country?

Yall are summoning the spectre of Sarah Palin.

[C-Mag]

They wouldn't, in this case they are trying to represent the CBI as it clearly can't speak for itself. Parents don't have ultimate authority nor do doctors.
If I want to go abroad for treatment no one can stop me. What you can't do though is send me in a coma off abroad for treatment just because my Mother wants it. You will have to show to my doctors that it has a chance of improving my condition. No treatment other than continued life support was offered by the Vatican's hospital.

I still don't understand why they can't let them leave the country. What do they care if he goes to live on life support in another country?

No Shit !

[Montegriffo]

If you dethatched yourself from the actual situation, it is interesting that this issue is turning out to be everyone against Britain.

Source?

Ps I was dethatchered around the time of the miners strike.

Was not intended as some sort of scientific claim.

Can you point to one board member that fully supports Britain's decision other than yourself?

As I see it there is only really Bjorn who is even trying to see both sides of this argument.
All I'm seeing is knee jerk responses to the idea of the State having the right to decide.

I'm going to lift this straight out of an Email from a former DCFer who only lurks here.

There's general agreement that giving birth to a child doesn't impart special wisdom.
There's general agreement that there are limits to the medical decisions parents can make on behalf of their children.
Thus, there's general agreement that there is an authority higher than the parents when it comes to making medical decisions for a child's wellbeing.
That authority resides in the government, as representative of the collective will of the people.
There must be criteria to be used as the basis for the decision to exercise that government authority.
That criteria should reasonably be based on evidence rather than emotion--in this case, evidence-based medicine rather than the desire to preserve a child's life at any cost when the evidence shows that the brain is nearly destroyed.

So if you count lurkers that's 3 who are at least prepared to discuss it without shouting NANNY STATE MURDER.

[nmoore63]

Source?

Ps I was dethatchered around the time of the miners strike.

Was not intended as some sort of scientific claim.

Can you point to one board member that fully supports Britain's decision other than yourself?

As I see it there is only really Bjorn who is even trying to see both sides of this argument.
All I'm seeing is knee jerk responses to the idea of the State having the right to decide.

I'm going to lift this straight out of an Email from a former DCFer who only lurks here.

There's general agreement that giving birth to a child doesn't impart special wisdom.
There's general agreement that there are limits to the medical decisions parents can make on behalf of their children.
Thus, there's general agreement that there is an authority higher than the parents when it comes to making medical decisions for a child's wellbeing.
That authority resides in the government, as representative of the collective will of the people.
There must be criteria to be used as the basis for the decision to exercise that government authority.
That criteria should reasonably be based on evidence rather than emotion--in this case, evidence-based medicine rather than the desire to preserve a child's life at any cost when the evidence shows that the brain is nearly destroyed.

So if you count lurkers that's 3 who are at least prepared to discuss it without shouting NANNY STATE MURDER.

As far as I can tell, Bjorn does not support denial of changing hospitals

[Heraclius]

All the decent men care only what is best for Alfie.
You can keep your Catholic dogma and your rigid adherance to it out of this. You have ignored all the nuances regarding Alfie's medical condition and continue to just shout murder and sperg up the thread without addressing the points brought up by this case.

Well, the child is not dying, so you support making sure he does by starving him to death. Murder!

The child is dying, he has a terminal disease with no chance of recovery, he is being given oxygen to help him breath or he would already be dead. He will die long before he actually starves to death, most likely from organ failure or some other symptom of his condition.
Allowing a brain dead child with no prospect of any quality of life the right to die is not murder.

How can there be a right to die in a nation without euthanasia? Doesn’t that mean the only thing that controls your “right to die” is the government? That’s not a right.

[Montegriffo]

They wouldn't, in this case they are trying to represent the CBI as it clearly can't speak for itself. Parents don't have ultimate authority nor do doctors.
If I want to go abroad for treatment no one can stop me. What you can't do though is send me in a coma off abroad for treatment just because my Mother wants it. You will have to show to my doctors that it has a chance of improving my condition. No treatment other than continued life support was offered by the Vatican's hospital.

I still don't understand why they just won't let them leave the country. What do they care if he goes to live on life support in another country?

Yall are summoning the spectre of Sarah Palin.

The court hearings, especially the most recent ones, are reported as concentrating on the quality of life issue. Since it was found that he has zero quality of life and no expectation of ever having any they ruled that it was not in the CBI to needlessly prolong his life. That was the original hearing's decision at the SC when it was decided to cut off life support and nothing in the Italian offer altered that decision.

[C-Mag]

A more humane way to kill Alfie

[Montegriffo]

Was not intended as some sort of scientific claim.

Can you point to one board member that fully supports Britain's decision other than yourself?

As I see it there is only really Bjorn who is even trying to see both sides of this argument.
All I'm seeing is knee jerk responses to the idea of the State having the right to decide.

I'm going to lift this straight out of an Email from a former DCFer who only lurks here.

There's general agreement that giving birth to a child doesn't impart special wisdom.
There's general agreement that there are limits to the medical decisions parents can make on behalf of their children.
Thus, there's general agreement that there is an authority higher than the parents when it comes to making medical decisions for a child's wellbeing.
That authority resides in the government, as representative of the collective will of the people.
There must be criteria to be used as the basis for the decision to exercise that government authority.
That criteria should reasonably be based on evidence rather than emotion--in this case, evidence-based medicine rather than the desire to preserve a child's life at any cost when the evidence shows that the brain is nearly destroyed.

So if you count lurkers that's 3 who are at least prepared to discuss it without shouting NANNY STATE MURDER.

As far as I can tell, Bjorn does not support denial of changing hospitals

No but he does at least recognise that the parents have no ultimate right to decide and that British law is an acceptable if not perfect arbiter of the situation.

[nmoore63]

As I see it there is only really Bjorn who is even trying to see both sides of this argument.
All I'm seeing is knee jerk responses to the idea of the State having the right to decide.

I'm going to lift this straight out of an Email from a former DCFer who only lurks here.


So if you count lurkers that's 3 who are at least prepared to discuss it without shouting NANNY STATE MURDER.

As far as I can tell, Bjorn does not support denial of changing hospitals

No but he does at least recognise that the parents have no ultimate right to decide and that British law is an acceptable if not perfect arbiter of the situation.

Yes, but that was not my point.

Is your phone-a-friend british?

[Montegriffo]

As far as I can tell, Bjorn does not support denial of changing hospitals

No but he does at least recognise that the parents have no ultimate right to decide and that British law is an acceptable if not perfect arbiter of the situation.

Yes, but that was not my point.

Is your phone-a-friend british?

American but I can't say that he fully supports the British position only that he thinks there is a discussion beyond Nanny State murder to be had.