Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[JohnDonne]

I find I rarely have all the information or expertise required to make meaningful, life altering decisions for myself, much less other people, so the fence is really the place to be.

Nope.

Whether or not a child is being murdered is in question.

This is not solely philosophical debate.
The data is available.

staying on fence is a depraved place to be.

Well, if this is about 'whether or not a child is being murdered,' then I would say that is a philosophical question, and I don't think that letting a brain dead child die is the same as murdering a child. Not on the fence there.

I am on the fence about whether or not the doctors who have been caring for the child are the best arbiters of when or where that child should be allowed to die.

If the parents made the decision the judge made, on the advice of doctors, there would be no talk of this being murder. But if a person off the street grabbed the baby and took its life support away, it would likely be considered something like murder. I don’t know what it would be, but there seems to be a strong sense that anyone other than the parents making this decision is a violation of something sacred, in the absence of proof that the parents are unfit to make the decision, which as far as I can tell, has not been established.

[Montegriffo]

So from where I stand, the “child’s best interests” side of the debate has to make an extraordinary argument to justify the extraordinary action of removing parental custody in order to kill their child for “The child’s best interests.” The burden of proof is on the doctors and the state, if they want something short of public outrage. And having failed to do that they cannot be surprised that they are called tyrannical.

But the doctors didn't fail to prove that, their decision was upheld by the courts.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Nope.

Whether or not a child is being murdered is in question.

This is not solely philosophical debate.
The data is available.

staying on fence is a depraved place to be.

Well, if this is about 'whether or not a child is being murdered,' then I would say that is a philosophical question, and I don't think that letting a brain dead child die is the same as murdering a child. Not on the fence there.

I am on the fence about whether or not the doctors who have been caring for the child are the best arbiters of when or where that child should be allowed to die.

If the parents made the decision the judge made, on the advice of doctors, there would be no talk of this being murder. But if a person off the street grabbed the baby and took its life support away, it would likely be considered something like murder. I don’t know what it would be, but there seems to be a strong sense that anyone other than the parents making this decision is a violation of something sacred, in the absence of proof that the parents are unfit to make the decision, which as far as I can tell, has not been established.

The parents aren't doctors, which pretty well establishes that they aren't in the best position to make medical decisions.

As to which acts we would consider murder, it isn't so much who is agreeing with the court, but that they agree with the court. If we aren't using that as the guide, then 'murder' is just a term of art for killing I want to moralize about, eg. 'meat is murder.'

[JohnDonne]

So from where I stand, the “child’s best interests” side of the debate has to make an extraordinary argument to justify the extraordinary action of removing parental custody in order to kill their child for “The child’s best interests.” The burden of proof is on the doctors and the state, if they want something short of public outrage. And having failed to do that they cannot be surprised that they are called tyrannical.

But the doctors didn't fail to prove that, their decision was upheld by the courts.

Alternately I can argue that because there is widespread outrage they have evidently failed to provide satisfactory extraordinary arguments. Both are circular reasoning. Lets cut to the meat of it. What is the extraordinary argument which justifies taking the child away, where is the proof the parents are unfit, what is the evidence the child is suffering and needs immediate death to remedy it?

[JohnDonne]

Well, if this is about 'whether or not a child is being murdered,' then I would say that is a philosophical question, and I don't think that letting a brain dead child die is the same as murdering a child. Not on the fence there.

I am on the fence about whether or not the doctors who have been caring for the child are the best arbiters of when or where that child should be allowed to die.

If the parents made the decision the judge made, on the advice of doctors, there would be no talk of this being murder. But if a person off the street grabbed the baby and took its life support away, it would likely be considered something like murder. I don’t know what it would be, but there seems to be a strong sense that anyone other than the parents making this decision is a violation of something sacred, in the absence of proof that the parents are unfit to make the decision, which as far as I can tell, has not been established.

The parents aren't doctors, which pretty well establishes that they aren't in the best position to make medical decisions.

As to which acts we would consider murder, it isn't so much who is agreeing with the court, but that they agree with the court. If we aren't using that as the guide, then 'murder' is just a term of art for killing I want to moralize about, eg. 'meat is murder.'

I’m not a doctor, yet I am able to make medical decisions, parents aren’t doctors, yet on behalf of their children they are able to make medical decisions. Only when it is established that parents are unfit to make medical decisions does the state take over. Not sure what makes them unfit, it is not obviously unreasonable that these parents insist their child be given life support.

[BjornP]

Seriously, some of you guys could benefit from simply doing a google search on "alfie evans" + "cure" or "legality" or whatever else you're in doubt about. Some of you are making assumptions about the case that clearly indicate you haven't bothered reading more than maybe a single headline.

Do a minimal bit of research, then make your arguments.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I hate being in the majority opinion in any argument, but the state allows terminally Ill children to consciously suffer much greater pain than a brain-destroyed baby trapped in a peaceful coma. What little reason there is to suppose that being on life support is causing mental distress to a mind they already claim is gone forever can be ameliorated with the same pain killers they would use on the baby in the event they decide to starve or suffocate it to death. And if they don’t want to take part in keeping it alive because it wastes resources, then they can let the parents and the Italian government do what they think is best for the baby, which happens to be exactly what the U.K. government was doing until recently.

So from where I stand, the “child’s best interests” side of the debate has to make an extraordinary argument to justify the extraordinary action of removing parental custody in order to kill their child for “The child’s best interests.” The burden of proof is on the doctors and the state, if they want something short of public outrage. And having failed to do that they cannot be surprised that they are called tyrannical.

This is an excellent point. They wouldn’t remove life support, or even allow termination of a cancer patient in agony. Yet they’ll intentionally end the life of this kid. Why?

[nmoore63]

The parents aren't doctors, which pretty well establishes that they aren't in the best position to make medical decisions.

A pregnant woman isn't a doctor so that pretty well establishes that she isn't in the best position to make a medical decision concerning the fetus.

[Speaker to Animals]

Ouch.

[nmoore63]

Seriously, some of you guys could benefit from simply doing a google search on "alfie evans" + "cure" or "legality" or whatever else you're in doubt about. Some of you are making assumptions about the case that clearly indicate you haven't bothered reading more than maybe a single headline.

Do a minimal bit of research, then make your arguments.

No expense to Britain to let Italy take the baby.
If the child is indeed under stress... it is made worse by the method the British are currently using.