Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Fife]

[Fife]

[TheReal_ND]

THE UK DOESNT HAVE FREE SP-

[nmoore63]

Having now read the court documents.

The government is clinging to

“Lack is of ability to benefit”

They seem to require the parents to prove a benefit to override the doctors recommendation.


——-


It is necessary here to root my own conclusions in the framework of the Law and within the available guidance. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has produced guidance, published March 2015: Making Decisions to Limit Treatment in Life-limiting and Life- threatening Conditions in Children: A Framework for Practice'. The following is relevant:
The RCPCH believes that there are three sets of circumstances when treatment limitation can be considered because it is no longer in the child's best interests to continue, because treatments cannot provide overall benefit:
II When life is limited in quality This includes situations where treatment may be able to prolong life significantly but will not alleviate the burdens associated with illness or treatment itself. These comprise:
3 .Lack of ability to benefit; the severity of the child's condition is such that it is difficult or impossible for them to derive benefit from continued life.....In other children the nature and severity of the child's underlying condition may make it difficult or impossible for them to enjoy the benefits that continued life brings. Examples include children in Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), Minimally Conscious State, or those with such severe cognitive impairment that they lack demonstrable or recorded awareness of themselves or their surroundings and have no meaningful interaction with them, as determined by rigorous and prolonged observations. Even in the absence of demonstrable pain or suffering, continuation of LST may not be in their best interests because it cannot provide overall benefit to them. Individuals and families may differ in their perception of benefit to the child and some may view even severely limited awareness in a child as sufficient grounds to continue LST. It is important, here as elsewhere, that due account of parental views wishes and preferences is taken and due regard given to the acute clinical situation in the context of the child's overall situation.

[nmoore63]

The idea that life has the burden to prove why it shouldn’t be killed... what a morally bankrupt religion Britain has adopted.

[Fife]

That's at least a not-totally weaselly-way of explaining to parents that their opinion don't mean shit.

Under single-payer/socialism, he who pays the fiddler calls the tune.

Same story every time you hear it told, regardless of the micro context.


David French: Alfie Evans Foreshadows a Dark American Future

Applying the philosophy of the founding to a case like Alfie Evans’s yields a clear result. The state exists to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. Both are in play here: Alfie’s life and the liberty of his parents to in good faith and with due consideration make health-care decisions on behalf of their sick child. Raised against the backdrop of American liberty, there are millions of Americans who understand this reality almost instinctively, without knowing an ounce of constitutional law. Their very spirit rebels against Great Britain’s actions.

But there are now millions of secularized Americans who have a quite different worldview, as well. The religious element of the founding rings false and hollow to them. They find that the very concept of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” should be subordinate to human-defined morality, which — when stripped of its theistic elements — places even the right to life up for debate. While there are many secularists who revere life and treasure the founding values, there is nothing inherent in secularism itself that protects individual liberty.

With no God over the state, the state then becomes not the defender of liberty but the definer of liberty. You have no freedoms except those bestowed by the state, and those freedoms are defined entirely by the various branches of government. There is no inherent parental authority. There is no inherent right to life. There is only the justice the state gives according to the standards the state dictates.

. . .

If you don’t want America to become Britain — if you don’t want to wake up one morning to find the American state defying loving and prudent parents to declare that death is in a child’s “best interests” — I would suggest that you not wait until America is secularized, centralized, and authoritarian. I’d suggest that you not wait until the moment when the state has seized the power to act like Britain, and you’re reduced to arguing, “I know the government can do this, but it shouldn’t.”

Because if you wait until then, you’ve already lost.

[Speaker to Animals]

They are basically at the stage where they really need to replace their government. It's frightening when you consider the ramifications of how evil that government has become.

It certainly will put our Independence Day celebrations into context..

[Ex-California]

I don't think there is a religious morality quotient in here whatsoever, its simply the difference between a collective statist worldview and one of individual liberty.

Despite our years of being allies and our shared history, we're once again seeing the differences here that have existed since we decided to leave the Empire.

[Ex-California]

They are basically at the stage where they really need to replace their government. It's frightening when you consider the ramifications of how evil that government has become.

It certainly will put our Independence Day celebrations into context..

It will for the people like us that "get it"

Unfortunately there are literally millions of Americans who want the same kind of statism here

[TheReal_ND]