Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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.

It isn't obviously unreasonable, which is, presumably, why it went to the courts. I am not sure that a court decision being unpopular, or counter intuitive means it is illegitimate, though.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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.

I had the exact same thought, and would have used it as an example of a situation where we don't like parents making decisions for children, but I didn't want to totally derail the conversation by bringing up the 'A' word.

[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.

I had the exact same thought, and would have used it as an example of a situation where we don't like parents making decisions for children, but I didn't want to totally derail the conversation by bringing up the 'A' word.

?
So you think the government should have the authority to require abortion?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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.

I had the exact same thought, and would have used it as an example of a situation where we don't like parents making decisions for children, but I didn't want to totally derail the conversation by bringing up the 'A' word.

?
So you think the government should have the authority to require abortion?

No, I think that there are instances where the wishes of parents (expecting or otherwise) conflict with the best interests of children, and that creates a lot of ethical problems that we don't have extremely cleat answers to.

[nmoore63]

I had the exact same thought, and would have used it as an example of a situation where we don't like parents making decisions for children, but I didn't want to totally derail the conversation by bringing up the 'A' word.

?
So you think the government should have the authority to require abortion?

No, I think that there are instances where the wishes of parents (expecting or otherwise) conflict with the best interests of children, and that creates a lot of ethical problems that we don't have extremely cleat answers to.

Such as, the child is in pain. Best starve it?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

?
So you think the government should have the authority to require abortion?

No, I think that there are instances where the wishes of parents (expecting or otherwise) conflict with the best interests of children, and that creates a lot of ethical problems that we don't have extremely cleat answers to.

Such as, the child is in pain. Best starve it?

Exactly like that.

[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.

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.

It's not about expense, Nick, even if that black/white, good/evil story might sound righteously comforting. In the US it's considered "natural" that parents have the right to, indefinitely if they wish, keep a braindead child with no hope of cure, on life support. How anyone can think that moral is beyond me. That is taking the right of the child entirely away. It's a view of children that likens them to property. To things that one owns. Treating this case as if a case of the sniffles leads to the British State euthanizing little Timmy or whatever slippery slope fallacies some of you have lined up, is not something anyone should take seriously.

[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.

It's not about expense, Nick, even if that black/white, good/evil story might sound righteously comforting. In the US it's considered "natural" that parents have the right to, indefinitely if they wish, keep a braindead child with no hope of cure, on life support. How anyone can think that moral is beyond me. That is taking the right of the child entirely away. It's a view of children that likens them to property. To things that one owns. Treating this case as if a case of the sniffles leads to the British State euthanizing little Timmy or whatever slippery slope fallacies some of you have lined up, is not something anyone should take seriously.

if there is no child left, how does keeping it alive hurt it?

[Fife]

[BjornP]

if there is no child left, how does keeping it alive hurt it?

You mean because the child is braindead, there "is no child left"? Well, I don't know, Nick.... Do you think it should be legal for the parents to hammer nails into the child's flesh, and use it an inanimate meat doll to re-live and replay moments of the child's history while it's kept alive by a machine? After all, if that's the parent's choice and it doesn't hurt the child... Both living, dying and DEAD children ought to have a right to be treated with dignity. They are persons, not things.