Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I was concerned that we were wasting Nick's valuable time, so I am pleased that being an irredeemable moral monster made it all worthwhile.

[nmoore63]

I was concerned that we were wasting Nick's valuable time, so I am pleased that being an irredeemable moral monster made it all worthwhile.

I am always willing to hear out any position.

The folks overriding the parents, contradict themselves, and seem to think the burden is on the parents to prove they should have a say in the death of their sun.

As I said, it always troubles me when I see governments take actions that would result in my death. Particularly England, which I see as alternate time line America.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I agree, but contradictions cut both ways.

[nmoore63]

I agree, but contradictions cut both ways.

I don’t see it.

Unless of course they state is one’s religion that defines morality and so is correct by definition.

I have yet to see a secular utilitarian argument that explains why keeping a brain dead shell alive some how causes a societal issues requiring governmental interference.

But of course i also operate from a position that government action requires justification. Rather than the parents having the burden of proving themselves to the state deity.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

We aren't likely to find a satisfactory utilitarian argument either way. A secular utilitarian would probably suggest a brain dead shell is little more than a rotten piece of produce, and it should be trimmed from the vine and tossed in the compost.

Everyone arguing here with a shred of human decency wants to view this child as a human in desperate need of an advocate. The disagreement is over who the best advocate might be.

[Hastur]

Someone who is brain-dead can't breathe. That's a fact. If the child breathes on its own, at the worst it's in a Vegetative state. That is not the same thing as being legally dead.

Just saying.

[Montegriffo]

Everyone arguing here with a shred of human decency wants to view this child as a human in desperate need of an advocate. The disagreement is over who the best advocate might be.

I agree but If not the legal system then who?
Imperfect as it may be, who better to make a detached decision in the childs best interest?
When doctors and parents disagree who should decide if not the law of the land?

God is not an acceptable answer.

[Heraclius]

We aren't likely to find a satisfactory utilitarian argument either way. A secular utilitarian would probably suggest a brain dead shell is little more than a rotten piece of produce, and it should be trimmed from the vine and tossed in the compost.

Everyone arguing here with a shred of human decency wants to view this child as a human in desperate need of an advocate. The disagreement is over who the best advocate might be.

Considering the only utility that matters here for the UK is the tax dollars going towards keeping the kid alive, it seems pretty obvious what the utilitarian decision is. Keeping the kid alive or dead in another country is totally irrelevant, not like the UK cares about whether some kid in Syria dies. Why would they care once the kid is Italy's problem rather than theirs?

Looking at it from a utilitarian perspective makes you realize that the UK's decision makes no sense. What is gained from refusing to transport the child? Can someone prove that the current state the child is in is worse than death? If not, one could argue that his current state provides the same utility as death, in which case the UK is interfering for the sake of interfering.

Honestly it's a net positive for the UK to send the kid somewhere else; they are going against their own interests here.

[Montegriffo]

Can someone prove that the current state the child is in is worse than death? If not, one could argue that his current state provides the same utility as death,

I think they are saying that his condition is equal to death and that prolonging his zombie teddy bear existence is not in Alfie's best interest.
I don't think you need to prove that prolonging his life artificially is worse than letting him die if you have proved that there is absolutely no benefit to Alfie in a few more months on life support.

[Heraclius]

Why does the UK government care if he will be on life support in a foreign nation? They aren't paying for it. The only logical reason for them TO care is if him being on life support is somehow worse than death and they wish to prevent the suffering of being alive. Until someone proves that, it's just the government creating an unnecessary headache for itself.