How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Montegriffo]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't think that the court should have had jurisdiction over what is done to a body without a functioning brain and you do. Nowhere else to go with it really.

It's not about having jurisdiction over rather it's about representing his interests.

[Viktorthepirate]

They are governed by an independant organisation known as the GMC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Medical_Council

Interesting

[Viktorthepirate]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't think that the court should have had jurisdiction over what is done to a body without a functioning brain and you do. Nowhere else to go with it really.

It's not about having jurisdiction over rather it's about representing his interests.

I don't believe he had any interests that would oppose that treatment. He could suffer no pain.

Unless you believe his soul was trapped in that body or something.

Again, we are hitting bedrock beliefs here, I don't think we have anywhere productive or interesting to go from here. Much how an abortion debate swiftly becomes dull when you reach the same point.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't think that the court should have had jurisdiction over what is done to a body without a functioning brain and you do. Nowhere else to go with it really.

It's not about having jurisdiction over rather it's about representing his interests.

I don't believe he had any interests that would oppose that treatment. He could suffer no pain.

Unless you believe his soul was trapped in that body or something.

Again, we are hitting bedrock beliefs here, I don't think we have anywhere productive or interesting to go from here. Much how an abortion debate swiftly becomes dull when you reach the same point.

We don't know that he can't feel pain. We do know that he's blind, deaf, and unconscious. Partially-brain-dead does not mean that the whole thing is gone.

[Viktorthepirate]

It's not about having jurisdiction over rather it's about representing his interests.

I don't believe he had any interests that would oppose that treatment. He could suffer no pain.

Unless you believe his soul was trapped in that body or something.

Again, we are hitting bedrock beliefs here, I don't think we have anywhere productive or interesting to go from here. Much how an abortion debate swiftly becomes dull when you reach the same point.

We don't know that he can't feel pain. We do know that he's blind, deaf, and unconscious. Partially-brain-dead does not mean that the whole thing is gone.

You are correct, I made an assumption that could be incorrect.

However it is possible to tell if he is capable of feeling pain with a brain scan. Nothing in the article addressed that though.... so I can't say with certainty he feels no pain.

[Montegriffo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charl ... al-battle/

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street's legal team, suggested that further treatment would leave Charlie in a "condition of existence".

She said therapy proposed in the USA was "experimental" and would not help Charlie.

"There is significant harm if what the parents want for Charlie comes into effect," she told appeal judges. "The significant harm is a condition of existence which is offering the child no benefit."

She added: "It is inhuman to permit that condition to continue."Ms Gollop said nobody knew whether Charlie was in pain.

"Nobody knows because it is so very difficult because of the ravages of Charlie's condition," she said.

"He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot make a noise, he cannot move."

[Viktorthepirate]

If it can't be proven one way or the other that he is capable or incapable of feeling pain than the doctors have a point.

My understanding was that it's pretty easy to tell these things. But if the doctors say it's not possible to tell, I suppose I would have to defer to their judgement on the matter.

I'm against the government deciding what is in someone's interests most of the time. But if the above is true, than it is one of the few cases of speaking for someone's interests who can't communicate them himself.

[Montegriffo]

If it can't be proven one way or the other that he is capable or incapable of feeling pain than the doctors have a point.

My understanding was that it's pretty easy to tell these things. But if the doctors say it's not possible to tell, I suppose I would have to defer to their judgement on the matter.

I'm against the government deciding what is in someone's interests most of the time. But if the above is true, than it is one of the few cases of speaking for someone's interests who can't communicate them himself.

Try looking at it the other way round, if parents were refusing treatment for a child which would improve the quality of life and possibly cure it would the doctors have the right to intervene on behalf of the child?
eg Jehova's witnesses refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds.

[Viktorthepirate]

If it can't be proven one way or the other that he is capable or incapable of feeling pain than the doctors have a point.

My understanding was that it's pretty easy to tell these things. But if the doctors say it's not possible to tell, I suppose I would have to defer to their judgement on the matter.

I'm against the government deciding what is in someone's interests most of the time. But if the above is true, than it is one of the few cases of speaking for someone's interests who can't communicate them himself.

Try looking at it the other way round, if parents were refusing treatment for a child which would improve the quality of life and possibly cure it would the doctors have the right to intervene on behalf of the child?
eg Jehova's witnesses refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds.

That's also a case where I think the government should step in.

I'm just very wary of it.

[Montegriffo]

Doctors backed by courts. Forget governments it is nothing to do with them.