Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

I don't really understand the Italy deal, to be honest.

Were they saying, "Yeah guys, we can't cure this kid, but we could keep it technically alive indefinitely" as an offer to actually do that, or just a statement of fact?

It's a Papist plot to undermine Parliamentary law. I'm off to the cellars to check for gunpowder.

[nmoore63]

Look, Monte, it is simple.

If a child dies because its parents can't afford care, that child dies free. Which is good.

If a child dies in a country with socialized medicine, that child is a slave that has been murdered by Fascists. Which is bad.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Now here we go.

Do you actually check the box, or are you just aiding Monte because this has been such a one sided shit show?

I don't really understand the Italy deal, to be honest.

Were they saying, "Yeah guys, we can't cure this kid, but we could keep it technically alive indefinitely" as an offer to actually do that, or just a statement of fact?

Either way, why bother trapping that poor kids soul in a body crippled with a mind that doesn't work instead of releasing it on to the care of Jesus?

Simple version.

England shut off the support.
Italy would take turn it back on.
At no expense to England.
This is the wish of the parents.

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

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't really understand the Italy deal, to be honest.

Were they saying, "Yeah guys, we can't cure this kid, but we could keep it technically alive indefinitely" as an offer to actually do that, or just a statement of fact?

It's a Papist plot to undermine Parliamentary law. I'm off to the cellars to check for gunpowder.

Obviously.

[nmoore63]

I don't really understand the Italy deal, to be honest.

Were they saying, "Yeah guys, we can't cure this kid, but we could keep it technically alive indefinitely" as an offer to actually do that, or just a statement of fact?

It's a Papist plot to undermine Parliamentary law. I'm off to the cellars to check for gunpowder.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Now here we go.

Do you actually check the box, or are you just aiding Monte because this has been such a one sided shit show?

I don't really understand the Italy deal, to be honest.

Were they saying, "Yeah guys, we can't cure this kid, but we could keep it technically alive indefinitely" as an offer to actually do that, or just a statement of fact?

Either way, why bother trapping that poor kids soul in a body crippled with a mind that doesn't work instead of releasing it on to the care of Jesus?

Simple version.

England shut off the support.
Italy would take turn it back on.
At no expense to England.
This is the wish of the parents.

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

If it is really that simple, then fine, but I suspect it isn't.

However, I think most on this board would agree that what the parents wish for a child is not necessarily in the child's best interest. For instance, when parents want to start their toddlers on hormone therapy for gender reassignment. The moral argument for parents to have absolute freedom to make decisions for their children is specious at best.

In this case, the consensus on the total lack of brain activity and chance for any sort of recovery is pretty clear, and the doctors who have been treating the child might have a better insight into what the most compassionate path is than the Italian doctors.

[BjornP]

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/en ... e-says.cfm

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- People who are dying must be accompanied with the love of family members and the care of medical professionals, but there is no requirement that every means available must be used to prolong their lives, Pope Francis said.

"Even if we know that we cannot always guarantee healing or a cure, we can and must always care for the living, without ourselves shortening their life, but also without futilely resisting their death," the pope said in a message to the European members of the World Medical Association.

"This approach is reflected in palliative care, which is proving most important in our culture, as it opposes what makes death most terrifying and unwelcome: pain and loneliness," the pope said.

(...)

Even 60 years ago, he said, Pope Pius XII told anesthesiologists and intensive care specialists that "there is no obligation to have recourse in all circumstances to every possible remedy and that, in some specific cases, it is permissible to refrain from their use."

[Speaker to Animals]

Who has the right to decide what is in the child's best interest?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Who has the right to decide what is in the child's best interest?

That is a very good question.

I would say nobody, but there are, sometimes, very unfortunate circumstances where a decision is required, and the child isn't capable of making it themselves. There are issues of expertise, or even emotional distance, that make parents less than ideal candidates for making that decision.

[nmoore63]

If it is really that simple, then fine, but I suspect it isn't.

However, I think most on this board would agree that what the parents wish for a child is not necessarily in the child's best interest. For instance, when parents want to start their toddlers on hormone therapy for gender reassignment. The moral argument for parents to have absolute freedom to make decisions for their children is specious at best.

In this case, the consensus on the total lack of brain activity and chance for any sort of recovery is pretty clear, and the doctors who have been treating the child might have a better insight into what the most compassionate path is than the Italian doctors.

You really really want to stay on that fence don’t you.

[Speaker to Animals]

Who has the right to decide what is in the child's best interest?

That is a very good question.

I would say nobody, but there are, sometimes, very unfortunate circumstances where a decision is required, and the child isn't capable of making it themselves. There are issues of expertise, or even emotional distance, that make parents less than ideal candidates for making that decision.

Who are you to insert yourself into the decisions of other families?

If the child is objectively harmed by child abuse, the harm of you interfering with their autonomy could very well become an unfortunate side-effect of you doing what is good for the child.

But here you have no obvious abuse. Indeed, most of the world disagrees with the British government. A good portion of Britons are disgusted by this as well.

You cannot make the argument that, because sometimes abuse is so grave that the state must interfere with the parents in the best interests of the child that the state ALWAYS has that right, even when substantial disagreement about the justification for that action exists.