Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[C-Mag]

The doctors who have been treating the child know best. .

It's simply stunning that you believe the state should have the right to prevent the parents from seeking other treatment. They are literally holding the child prisoner. Are they afraid the experimental treatment may work? They are worried they might be proven wrong?

Who, exactly, is being helped here? Certainly not the child, nor the parents. The only winner here is the state. You should not be okay with that.

+1

[C-Mag]

Take this as a Troll remark if you like............

So, if say 10 years from now the Royal Family converts to Islam and the Government tells you it is your best interest and the best interest of society to submit to Allah, including all the fun of Sharia Law will you ?

[BjornP]

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.

Try and take it down a notch, Nick. Pretending that law in any given society exist ONLY because "the State wills it" is hyperbolic and you know it is. If someone is convicted of drunk driving, or more apropos, "lovingly" serving their child some overdose of what they regard as "alternative medicine" that turns out to be peyote and hemlock... is that just about their existing no legit motivation outside this "State-God", too?

Unless you oppose taking sons and daughters away from abusive parents, you already accept the moral premise that society - or The State-God if you prefer - has a moral right to decide what's best for the children, regardless of what their biological parents think. Are pedo and violent parents a different issue than these parents? Of course, but what's relevant is that it will be the State taking them away... so don't pretend that there's something wrong with that in principle, unless you really are prepared to defend that.

The laws of Britain exist because the Brits accept those laws, they affirm them, they validate them. They elect leaders to represent them and what sort of society they want. Just like you how you got all your laws. Trying to make this into a "People vs. the State" argument, takes away the civic responsibility of the British people. They elect their own leaders, they WANT the society they have, they WANT the laws they have.

"The State" can be a wonderful foil for the utter lack of an individual or collective taking responsibility for its own government, its own laws.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, a homestead deep in the mountains is looking great right about now. Maybe let the joy of the "Enlightenment" play itself out without me.

[C-Mag]

Yeah, a homestead deep in the mountains is looking great right about now. Maybe let the joy of the "Enlightenment" play itself out without me.

Negative.

Now's the time to rise up and push back. We have more momentum right now than we've had in 30+ years. If you don't do it now, you can just wait for the drones to find you and take you out at your homestead.

[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.

Then your laws should be changed, because that's profoundly idiotic. Medical experiments on live patients at the initial stages, sure, I can understand that... but a definitive ban? Idiotic law.

If the only "hope" the child has, is legitimately only Italians hooking up the infant to permanent life-support, with no chance of the child never waking up, then that is more legitimate, sure. That's not about "The State", anymore than the reason ANY society that outlaws certain behaviors outlaws these things simply for the exclusive consideration of The State.

Still, "thought to be a similar condition", and "likely to be"...? Gonna need more than that before denying parents seeking treatment in other countries, especially if you cannot prove that their alternative treatment will be harmful to the child. If they're going to be abused by foreign medical professionals, that's partially their own responsibility, partially your country's justice ministry's and foreign ministry's in relation to seeking justice against foreign countries' exploitation of your citizens.

Well it's not a blanket ban, you have to satisfy certain criteria before you go trying things on patients though, you can't just try things out. Is there evidence of a high enough chance of success to merit any possible side effects or suffering?
The Vatican hospital offering to treat the child didn't come along until after the SC hearing. They have been back to court of appeal to consider the treatment offered in Italy and ruled that it offered no chance of improving the condition.

[nmoore63]

The Fatal Conceit

The problem with the Statist Faith is that the State tries to be the sole purveyor of Truth in all things.

It runs into its greatest road block when it attempts to answer definitively that which is unanswerable except by the individual.

If you asked the State Bureaucracy to come up with the 100 books that everyone must read. They would come up with a list.
Everyone must be made to read them.

The problem of course is that there is no best 100.

Forcing people to read The Old Man and the Sea over Of Mice and Men is not the answer. Free Will is.

Most religions solve this problem by requiring the individual to consciously choose the faith.

Such is not the case with the State.

The Fatal Conceit then becomes all the more destructive when the Faith becomes so powerful that it feels the need to subjugate all other institutions.

The Abolition of Man may come, but not till I am dead.

[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.

Try and take it down a notch, Nick. Pretending that law in any given society exist ONLY because "the State wills it" is hyperbolic and you know it is. If someone is convicted of drunk driving, or more apropos, "lovingly" serving their child some overdose of what they regard as "alternative medicine" that turns out to be peyote and hemlock... is that just about their existing no legit motivation outside this "State-God", too?

Unless you oppose taking sons and daughters away from abusive parents, you already accept the moral premise that society - or The State-God if you prefer - has a moral right to decide what's best for the children, regardless of what their biological parents think. Are pedo and violent parents a different issue than these parents? Of course, but what's relevant is that it will be the State taking them away... so don't pretend that there's something wrong with that in principle, unless you really are prepared to defend that.

The laws of Britain exist because the Brits accept those laws, they affirm them, they validate them. They elect leaders to represent them and what sort of society they want. Just like you how you got all your laws. Trying to make this into a "People vs. the State" argument, takes away the civic responsibility of the British people. They elect their own leaders, they WANT the society they have, they WANT the laws they have.

"The State" can be a wonderful foil for the utter lack of an individual or collective taking responsibility for its own government, its own laws.

To be clear, I am not advocating The United States invade Britain and force them to change their laws.
Nor do I challenge that there can be difficult decisions. Ones to end life support.
Nor do I challenge that there can be difficult decisions to override parents to SAVE LIVES.

But no, I reject the idea that parents will can be overridden to kill children.

The idea that the State can advocate euthanasia OVER the consent of the parents is simply murder. It is only good death if you accept that state as your god.


Yes, of course I could tone it down, but it is not hyperbole when I say that I would be prepared to kill people if they tried to do this to my son.

[Montegriffo]

Take this as a Troll remark if you like............

Not much else I can do with it...

[Speaker to Animals]

If the NHS were to say that they believe that trying to treat the boy (whose illness they can't even diagnose, by the way) is too risky and expensive to be worthwhile, then this wouldn't be a story. The parents could take their child to a medical system that actually will treat their child. End of story. It's a cost and risk assessment on the part of the NHS.

But that's not what happened. The NHS kidnapped the child. They ordered he be taken off life support to die lest this other medical system that desperately wants to treat him actually get that opportunity and make the NHS look bad.

But it's even worse than that. The boy won't die for them. So now they are starving this boy they kidnapped from the parents in the hopes that he dies from starvation before the Italian hospital gets the opportunity to treat him and make them look like assholes (which, honestly, they are very adept at doing all by themselves).