Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

You're basically a Nazi, Monty. You think the state is greater than the individual, and individual lives only matter if the state deems them worthwhile.

That's literally national socialism.

[BjornP]

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

I don't support denying them change of hospital, true, but I'm also not going to call this child euthanasia or murder because it's not. My argument for letting the Italian hospital keep the child alive, is not because I believe they can treat the child - the Italian doctors from the papal hospital have said it's impossible, remember? No, the reason I want them to travel there, is for the sake of the hope of the parents accepting that their child is beyond saving, and they need to say goodbye on their terms. To accept that it is not their fault, that they owe no one to fight anymore, indeed that there are no one left TO fight. They cannot say goodbye when the media and the public keep telling them to fight, and they will instinctively WANT to fight when the courts try to take charge of their kids life. They need peace. Serenity, if you will. No one is giving them peace, and it would take so little, and cause no harm to the dying child to let them travel to Italy. The father is religious. The father needs a priest then, a man to tell him that keeping the child on life support when there is no hope, no possibility, no way, of the child being anything but braindead... that he can let go. People are turning their pain into a struggle, but really it is only pain, only tragedy.

I accept that taking the child to Italy is simply prolonging the inevitable, but I disagree that giving the parents a little more time to say goodbye in Italy would cause the child anymore harm than letting him die in Britain. And while the child's rights comes first, it should not mean completely bulldozing over the harm done to and pain felt by the parents, either...which I feel this is an example of.

[Speaker to Animals]

And if he doesn't cooperate and die on his own??

[BjornP]

And if he doesn't cooperate and die on his own??

What do you mean? He's already "dying on his own".

Anyway...just now:

[Fife]

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.

Appeal to drtrech; an informal fallacy. *Very* informal.

(I, for one, would enjoy hearing trech defend this UK monster-show first-hand).

:goteam: :drunk:

[Montegriffo]

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

I don't support denying them change of hospital, true, but I'm also not going to call this child euthanasia or murder because it's not. My argument for letting the Italian hospital keep the child alive, is not because I believe they can treat the child - the Italian doctors from the papal hospital have said it's impossible, remember? No, the reason I want them to travel there, is for the sake of the hope of the parents accepting that their child is beyond saving, and they need to say goodbye on their terms. To accept that it is not their fault, that they owe no one to fight anymore, indeed that there are no one left TO fight. They cannot say goodbye when the media and the public keep telling them to fight, and they will instinctively WANT to fight when the courts try to take charge of their kids life. They need peace. Serenity, if you will. No one is giving them peace, and it would take so little, and cause no harm to the dying child to let them travel to Italy. The father is religious. The father needs a priest then, a man to tell him that keeping the child on life support when there is no hope, no possibility, no way, of the child being anything but braindead... that he can let go. People are turning their pain into a struggle, but really it is only pain, only tragedy.

I accept that taking the child to Italy is simply prolonging the inevitable, but I disagree that giving the parents a little more time to say goodbye in Italy would cause the child anymore harm than letting him die in Britain. And while the child's rights comes first, it should not mean completely bulldozing over the harm done to and pain felt by the parents, either...which I feel this is an example of.

If you accept the level of brain damage look at it with truly cold unemotional logic you could make a case for it not mattering to the child how where or why it died since it won't know the difference, in that case you could say let the parent decide for the sake of the parents. That is not in any way in the CBI though.

[nmoore63]

I don't support denying them change of hospital, true, but I'm also not going to call this child euthanasia or murder because it's not. My argument for letting the Italian hospital keep the child alive, is not because I believe they can treat the child - the Italian doctors from the papal hospital have said it's impossible, remember? No, the reason I want them to travel there, is for the sake of the hope of the parents accepting that their child is beyond saving, and they need to say goodbye on their terms. To accept that it is not their fault, that they owe no one to fight anymore, indeed that there are no one left TO fight. They cannot say goodbye when the media and the public keep telling them to fight, and they will instinctively WANT to fight when the courts try to take charge of their kids life. They need peace. Serenity, if you will. No one is giving them peace, and it would take so little, and cause no harm to the dying child to let them travel to Italy. The father is religious. The father needs a priest then, a man to tell him that keeping the child on life support when there is no hope, no possibility, no way, of the child being anything but braindead... that he can let go. People are turning their pain into a struggle, but really it is only pain, only tragedy.

I accept that taking the child to Italy is simply prolonging the inevitable, but I disagree that giving the parents a little more time to say goodbye in Italy would cause the child anymore harm than letting him die in Britain. And while the child's rights comes first, it should not mean completely bulldozing over the harm done to and pain felt by the parents, either...which I feel this is an example of.

Understood, was not intending to gloss over your nuance, but ultimately:

Should Britain allow the child to go to the Italian Hospital?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No


Monte and a few British folks in general, are the only people I have seen that check the "no" box.

[Montegriffo]

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.

Appeal to drtrech; an informal fallacy. *Very* informal.

(I, for one, would enjoy hearing trech defend this UK monster-show first-hand).

:goteam: :drunk:

So would I but he still refers to us as ''that dumpster fire''.
Astute as ever...

However, If I'd felt it appropriate I would have named the source but I didn't so I won't.

[nmoore63]

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.

Appeal to drtrech; an informal fallacy. *Very* informal.

(I, for one, would enjoy hearing trech defend this UK monster-show first-hand).

:goteam: :drunk:

So would I but he still refers to us as ''that dumpster fire''.
Astute as ever...

Hey now, why he gotta hate on dumpsters....

[nmoore63]

On a COMPLETELY different angle, I think Britain's actions here has set back US national health care implementation a decade.
(which I think is inevitable)

Every single politician that supports it is going to be forced to discuss this event.