Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

I feel like the duty of the government in these situations is to create the most utility. When you're taking kids away from an abusive home, you would need to weigh whether the damage the parent's are causing to their child is so extreme that it ends up harming society as a whole in the long term. That could be because the child will have a much higher predisposition to becoming abusive and violent while also stunting his development as a person. All of this ends up costing society more later on as the kid has a higher chance of becoming someone who is a net loss as a citizen and takes up public funds through prison/social services. You need to weigh whether that damage is greater than the damage caused by forcibly taking a kid from his parents and putting him with another relative or potentially a foster home.

With that outlook the UK government's position makes zero sense. The parents are offering to take the kid to another healthcare system (without having the UK pay for the trip) which means that the kid will move from being a net loss to a net zero on public funds. The utility of the kid's future is totally unaffected as his future in the current situation is death. That's assuming you view his current life as providing 0 utility, which would probably be the equivalent of death. Unless you feel that him being alive provides some negative utility but if that's the case why not just give the kid a lethal injection as others have said. It would make his death way quicker than starving so the negative utility of living would be resolved in a more efficient manner.

I also find it quite funny in a morbid sense to see death row inmates last on average 15 years through the court system but this child had his fate decided in a single year.

A lethal injection would be more humane but euthanasia is not legal in the UK.

[Montegriffo]

You're being a robot now. I did not say or at all indicate that the prime concern of the courts was anything but the child's welfare. The courts abide by laws. Laws are created by lawmakers. Lawmakers are elected by people. People are stupid and emotional. Ergo, laws can be wrong and decisions of the courts not truly be in the "best interest" of a child. Do you understand that, Monte? Are you, conceptually speaking at least, capable of imagining that a law can be created that does NOT lead to properly determining what's in a child's "best interest"? That there needs to be some way to determine what "best interest" at all, means?

When society legislates in matters of MEDICINE, the primary purpose of such law should reflect the primary purpose of medicine: First, do no harm. "Best interest of the child" thus equals the ethical medical directive of "first, do no harm". Any law legislating the medical profession that does NOT take that imperative into account, is also not going to be a law concerned with the "best interest" of the child.

Look I'm going to keep on repeating "best interests of the child" until it gets through to people that this is what the legal system is focusing on.
The wishes of the parents, their American Christian Law firm, the Vatican hospital and even the Pope himself all take second place to the best interest of the child.
The medical team and the courts have come to the conclusion that keeping a brain dead, terminally ill child artificially alive for the sake of his father's feelings is not in the child's best interest. I have no problem supporting this decision and all the gnashing and wailing of the knee jerk, God bothering crowd unable to get past shouting "Murder" is not going to change a thing.

It is not in the child's best interest to be kept alive with no prospect of any quality of life. It is the action of an understandably distraught but selfish parent and moralising from the Christian right in the US and Italy.

That is not a governmental decision. I'm more than a little shocked that you're backing this.

You shared my opinion last year during the Charlie Gard case. What is so different about this one?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Look I'm going to keep on repeating "best interests of the child" until it gets through to people that this is what the legal system is focusing on.
The wishes of the parents, their American Christian Law firm, the Vatican hospital and even the Pope himself all take second place to the best interest of the child.
The medical team and the courts have come to the conclusion that keeping a brain dead, terminally ill child artificially alive for the sake of his father's feelings is not in the child's best interest. I have no problem supporting this decision and all the gnashing and wailing of the knee jerk, God bothering crowd unable to get past shouting "Murder" is not going to change a thing.

It is not in the child's best interest to be kept alive with no prospect of any quality of life. It is the action of an understandably distraught but selfish parent and moralising from the Christian right in the US and Italy.

That is not a governmental decision. I'm more than a little shocked that you're backing this.

You shared my opinion last year during the Charlie Gard case. What is so different about this one?

I shared your opinion that there’s no sense in the UK government paying for the care. But Charlie Gard was allowed to leave and be evaluated by other doctors. This kid is literally imprisoned and being starved. That’s a very different thing.

[BjornP]

Look I'm going to keep on repeating "best interests of the child" until it gets through to people that this is what the legal system is focusing on.
The wishes of the parents, their American Christian Law firm, the Vatican hospital and even the Pope himself all take second place to the best interest of the child.
The medical team and the courts have come to the conclusion that keeping a brain dead, terminally ill child artificially alive for the sake of his father's feelings is not in the child's best interest. I have no problem supporting this decision and all the gnashing and wailing of the knee jerk, God bothering crowd unable to get past shouting "Murder" is not going to change a thing.

It is not in the child's best interest to be kept alive with no prospect of any quality of life. It is the action of an understandably distraught but selfish parent and moralising from the Christian right in the US and Italy.

Right. Only far-right Christian Americans and Italians could possibly see a problem in how the case's been handled.

A lethal injection would be more humane but euthanasia is not legal in the UK.

Nice to see you at least recognize the ethical concept that "the best interest of a child" might not be best served by existing law.

[Montegriffo]

@GCF
Not true. Charlie Gard was only able to leave the hospital in order to go home to die. Alfie can also go home but like Charlie he cannot travel abroad to be kept alive on life support for no reason other than the reluctance of his father to let go.

[BjornP]

But Charlie Gard was allowed to leave and be evaluated by other doctors. This kid is literally imprisoned and being starved. That’s a very different thing.

TBF, I did post the link to a British article saying the doctors from that Italian hospital had been allowed to examine and evaluate treatment options for the child. They had agreed with the British doctors that the child would never regain consciousness.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest ... ey-illness

Three experts from the Bambino Gesù hospital visited Alfie in Liverpool at the request of the parents, but they agreed with the doctors that further treatment would be “futile” in finding a cure.

[Montegriffo]

Look I'm going to keep on repeating "best interests of the child" until it gets through to people that this is what the legal system is focusing on.
The wishes of the parents, their American Christian Law firm, the Vatican hospital and even the Pope himself all take second place to the best interest of the child.
The medical team and the courts have come to the conclusion that keeping a brain dead, terminally ill child artificially alive for the sake of his father's feelings is not in the child's best interest. I have no problem supporting this decision and all the gnashing and wailing of the knee jerk, God bothering crowd unable to get past shouting "Murder" is not going to change a thing.

It is not in the child's best interest to be kept alive with no prospect of any quality of life. It is the action of an understandably distraught but selfish parent and moralising from the Christian right in the US and Italy.

Right. Only far-right Christian Americans and Italians could possibly see a problem in how the case's been handled.

A lethal injection would be more humane but euthanasia is not legal in the UK.

Nice to see you at least recognize the ethical concept that "the best interest of a child" might not be best served by existing law.

Not what I said.
My point was that Alfie's rights are greater than those of everyone else. Especially Christian groups providing free legal services in order to push their pro-life agenda.
Sure, the legal system could be better and if I had spent most of my life in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery I would hope that the law supported my right to die. Never going to see a law which allows euthanasia though so unfortunately in cases like this a slow death by starvation or other complications is the only way this brain dead infant can die.

[Heraclius]

"The State has decided to act in your best interests and decreed for you to starve to death. We pass this judgement with no hesitation."

It sounds like something out of a Kafka novel.

[SuburbanFarmer]

@GCF
Not true. Charlie Gard was only able to leave the hospital in order to go home to die. Alfie can also go home but like Charlie he cannot travel abroad to be kept alive on life support for no reason other than the reluctance of his father to let go.

Then it’s absurd. The UK government is prohibiting a citizen from travel, to seek medical care. There is no defense for this.

[C-Mag]

The best interest of the parents is not the prime concern of the courts, the best interests of the child are. The parents have had over a year to get to grips with the condition of their child.

Yeah, starving a kid to death is in the best interest of the kid......................... it would be more humane if you took a cricket bat to his head.