Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 96

Thread: Charlie Gard: We are no longer Great Britain

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 5:47 AM
    Posts
    7,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    I still don't see how it's any more maddening than putting the right to dictate life or death in the hands of an insurance corporation's board of directors who count on profit more than keeping people alive.

    All the competition from the so-called free(ish) market has done wonders for getting people fast and effective treatment, but it has done nothing to control costs or streamline the billing process that is often more painful than whatever issue people had to have treated in the first place.
    Anybody who thinks single payer is equivalent to insurance is just flat ignorant. With insurance we have a means to address grievances and we can vote with our dollars. That's not possible when there is one single option and it's the government.
    "What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer."

    link

    Time will tell.

  2. Likes 80zephyr, Michele liked this post
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 4:54 PM
    Posts
    7,049
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    I figure unless and until the courts decide to declare that the government has greater rights over the care of children than parents, this sort of situation could never happen under an American single-payer type system.
    Government already does. Gubmint in the form of child protective services can take children away from their parents anytime they want to, using whatever excuse they drum up.

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 6:20 PM
    Posts
    3,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    The Schiavo case was the rights of the spouse versus the rights of the parent, as I recall. And, actually, I think it's a repulsive idea that if Schiavo had been in a condition where she would be better off staying alive, it would be okay to let her die in order to save the taxpayers some money. But that was not the crux of that case outside of your head.

    But, anyway, my point is that the person Lanie quoted was saying that there can be a conflict between the rights of the patient (child, as they said) and the rights of the parents, and that they take this into consideration. The instinctive reaction is that keeping the patient alive is always in the patient's best interest, and usually that's true. But not always.

    Charlie isn't brain dead. He can still survive this. There are two conflicting ideologies going around.

    The first one is that life should always be protected no matter what. It's literally the radical concept that all lives matter.

    The other ideology says we should allow death or even cause it if there is too much suffering. There's a question as to how much suffering there needs to be first. I think a person should be brain dead. Some people think they should have a terminal illness with no hope. Some think they should have a terminal illness with just a little bit of hope. Some people think the person should be severely handicapped. Some people think they should have severe mental illness. Some think they should be blind.

    Look this up. There are crazy cases being made for euthanasia. And for the record, I understand this isn't euthanasia, but in all honesty it might as well be.

    When I show my support for the "rights of the child," what's going through my head are the children I knew growing up who got beaten. One was taken a year before she died of heart problems. Others had depression, got suicidal, ran away, and even planned on getting married just to escape the abuse. What's going through my head when I support the "rights of the child" are children being inappropriately touched by their uncle and not being believed by their parents. What's going through my head is a child who is severely ill and their parents think that God doesn't want them to use the help of a doctor. What's going through my head are the multiple articles this week I've come across on facebook where somebody killed their child. In some cases, they won't even be charged with murder or even manslaughter. They'll be charged with aggravated child abuse (and yes Philly, I remember and understand the reasoning for that).

    What's also running through my head lately is how the rights of every adult matters more than the rights of the child. The latest I know of is a child who just lost her mother to a heroin overdose. Her grandfather and boyfriend have already been raising her and want to continue to raise her. But now this father (who the child doesn't know at all) just got to rip her away from the only parents she's ever known outside of her mother all for father's rights. I'm not saying the man shouldn't have custody, but he should at least be eased into her life instead of ripping her away from her grandparents when she needs them the most. That man never cared to know his daughter at all until now.

    So anyway, stuff like the above is what I'm thinking of when I show support for the "rights of the child." It's not about fighting tooth and nail for a child's death. That's plain wrong.
    Last edited by Lanie; Monday, July 17th, 2017 at 6:27 PM. Reason: I can't spell. lol.

  5. Thanks Michele thanked for this post
    Likes 80zephyr, Newman liked this post
  6. #64
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 4:09 PM
    Posts
    3,004
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are crazy cases being made for euthanasia. And for the record, I understand this isn't euthanasia, but in all honesty it might as well be.
    Euthanasia by any other name would smell as sweet. Giving a government bureaucracy the authority to decide when euthanasia is best "for all concerned" is the stuff of Rod Serling's Twilight Zone.

    As the poet said, Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Good luck raging against the benevolent experts.

  7. #65
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 4:54 PM
    Posts
    7,049
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Charlie isn't brain dead. He can still survive this. There are two conflicting ideologies going around.
    With what quality pf life? And at what cost to taxpayers who keep going to work everyday to pay for this?

    The first one is that life should always be protected no matter what. It's literally the radical concept that all lives matter.
    Then you're ok with cops killing people to protect their life which must be protected no matter what? "Always" always has exceptions.
    Look this up. There are crazy cases being made for euthanasia. And for the record, I understand this isn't euthanasia, but in all honesty it might as well be.
    nobody should ever be allowed to die?

    So anyway, stuff like the above is what I'm thinking of when I show support for the "rights of the child." It's not about fighting tooth and nail for a child's death. That's plain wrong.
    In parts of the world, the rest of society which has to pay for all of this, has "rights" too.

  8. #66
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 6:35 PM
    Posts
    5,657
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Marva View Post
    With what quality pf life? And at what cost to taxpayers who keep going to work everyday to pay for this?

    Then you're ok with cops killing people to protect their life which must be protected no matter what? "Always" always has exceptions.
    nobody should ever be allowed to die?

    In parts of the world, the rest of society which has to pay for all of this, has "rights" too.
    For medicine to advance, no one should be allowed to die.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  9. #67
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 4:54 PM
    Posts
    7,049
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    For medicine to advance, no one should be allowed to die.

    Mark
    Well, see there is an alternative. Don't put a body on "life support" machines in the first place. Then the plug never has to be pulled.

  10. #68
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 6:35 PM
    Posts
    5,657
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Marva View Post
    Well, see there is an alternative. Don't put a body on "life support" machines in the first place. Then the plug never has to be pulled.
    We have to keep learning. Extending life is one of the ways we do that.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  11. #69
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 4:54 PM
    Posts
    7,049
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    We have to keep learning. Extending life is one of the ways we do that.

    Mark
    Well, don't think "extending life" by artificial means learns much of anything. Maybe you're being tongue-in-cheek.

  12. #70
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 4:08 PM
    Posts
    7,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    For medicine to advance, no one should be allowed to die.

    Mark
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    We have to keep learning. Extending life is one of the ways we do that.

    Mark
    You've touched on an interesting ethical issue here. As an experimental subject, I don't doubt that doctors could glean invaluable information from treating Charlie with nucleoside therapy. And framing the issue that way pits the best interest of collective humanity against the best interests of Charlie. The UK High Court mentions this in its ruling:

    There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside
    therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science
    may benefit objectively from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in
    Charlie’s best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
    And this instrument of faceless bureaucracy comes down firmly on the side of the individual's rights over the best interests of the collective.

    "What we have is something that is very, very, incredibly well-crafted."
    -President Donald J. Trump

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •