Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Kath]

2. Because that is not in the best interest of the child.

I reject the state's right to make those decisions for me, unless they can prove negligence on my part.

"Government knows best." Fuck. That.

[Montegriffo]

Why is the Government insisting the death of the child is the only humane way forward?
Why in the fuck would you not allow Italy to take on the issue if they want to take it on?

1. Because that is the opinion of the doctors who have been treating this child since Dec 2016 and are therefore the most qualified to make that decision.

2. Because that is not in the best interest of the child.

So the state decides what is in the child's best interest. Can they decide what's in your best interest too? Doctors say you're going to die sometime in the future, and they're well qualified to make that decision, so obviously it's in your best interest for the state to cut you off from all state resources... You're going to die someday anyways, why prolong it? Heck, the economy might collapse and you could suffer, it's in your best interest!

And what chance do you think that scenario has of getting through the highest court in the land?
Its a serious subject please treat it as such.

[BjornP]

Wasn't/isn't part of the controversy that the doctors couldn't actually come up with a diagnosis, and therefore also no way of treatment? If doctors at the hospital refuse on ethical grounds to keep the child alive in what they consider to be insufferable pain, I consider that on par with the right of doctors here in public health care to refuse to perform abortions, no matter the wishes and desperation of the patient. Doctors swear to "above all, do no harm", not "above all, prevent people from dying at all costs".

But... if there are doctors out there who are willing to try an experimental treatment on an unknown disease, and they believe that they can accomplish that without causing insufferable pain and with at least some degree of possible success... why deny the parents that choice?

If there was absolute certainty that the child was only heading for death with no chance of treatment, then the doctors are right to stop keeping the child alive. But how can they tell, if they don't even have a diagnosis?

[Ph64]

"why deny the parents that choice?"

Monte believes the Nanny State are the "parents" of all citizens, with superior rights to the actual biological parents.

[Montegriffo]

2. Because that is not in the best interest of the child.

I reject the state's right to make those decisions for me, unless they can prove negligence on my part.

"Government knows best." Fuck. That.

The doctors who have been treating the child know best.
Most parents accept this if they really have their child's best interest at heart.
Occasionally one or both parents don't accept this and eventually they get their day in court and can bring in other expert witnesses to state their case.
So you have both sides represented by expert witnesses at the top of their fields in the highest court of the land.

It's a fairer system for the child than just saying ''it's up to the parents'' IMO.

[nmoore63]

Wasn't/isn't part of the controversy that the doctors couldn't actually come up with a diagnosis, and therefore also no way of treatment? If doctors at the hospital refuse on ethical grounds to keep the child alive in what they consider to be insufferable pain, I consider that on par with the right of doctors here in public health care to refuse to perform abortions, no matter the wishes and desperation of the patient. Doctors swear to "above all, do no harm", not "above all, prevent people from dying at all costs".

But... if there are doctors out there who are willing to try an experimental treatment on an unknown disease, and they believe that they can accomplish that without causing insufferable pain and with at least some degree of possible success... why deny the parents that choice?

If there was absolute certainty that the child was only heading for death with no chance of treatment, then the doctors are right to stop keeping the child alive. But how can they tell, if they don't even have a diagnosis?

Because.
Because god has made his opinion known
Because you cannot appeal the word of god.
Because the very idea of wanting to appeal the word of god is a heresy of the highest order.
Because heresy is a threat to the very fabric of god’s social order.

And now, god must show you that he controls life and death itself.

God, in this case, is manifested in the final worship of Statism.

[Montegriffo]

But... if there are doctors out there who are willing to try an experimental treatment on an unknown disease, and they believe that they can accomplish that without causing insufferable pain and with at least some degree of possible success... why deny the parents that choice?

Because it is illegal to carry out medical experiments on live patients in the UK.
In the Charlie Gard case there was no recognised treatment for the condition and the private American clinic offering to treat him [at a cost] never even claimed to have one or any experience of sucessfully treating the condition.
This is thought to be a similar condition so it is likely that the Italian hospital cannot provide any treatment other than life support.
In the end the child is kept alive on life support with no chance of any quality of life for financial/religous motives because the poor parent can't accept the horrible truth of it all.

[BjornP]

"why deny the parents that choice?"

Monte believes the Nanny State are the "parents" of all citizens, with superior rights to the actual biological parents.

Can't say I'm in the "let parents do whatever to their child/let parents seek out any sort of treatment they deem fit" column, but Italy and the US aren't excatly medical third world countries, so there should be room for some more flexibility. I'm as opposed to torturing dying children simply to console grieving parents, as I'm opposed to not being open to other countries in some cases being able to come up with a treatment your own country couldn't.

[nmoore63]

There can be no legitimate motivations outside of the State-god’s Will.

To even protest that such other motivations, religious or otherwise, may exist is treason.

[Montegriffo]

"why deny the parents that choice?"

Monte believes the Nanny State are the "parents" of all citizens, with superior rights to the actual biological parents.

Can't say I'm in the "let parents do whatever to their child/let parents seek out any sort of treatment they deem fit" column, but Italy and the US aren't excatly medical third world countries, so there should be room for some more flexibility. I'm as opposed to torturing dying children simply to console grieving parents, as I'm opposed to not being open to other countries in some cases being able to come up with a treatment your own country couldn't.

If there was a treatment available which worked there would have been no problem with the child going abroad. Don't get sucked into StA's conspiracy theories about the NHS not wanting to be shown up by non-socialised medicine.