- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: UPDATE 4/26 -Just In Case the OT Didn't Know - The UK is murdering a little baby right now
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:35 am to lsupride87
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:35 am to lsupride87
quote:They took him off.
What if the UK believed here the life support is causing pain and suffering to Alfie?
He's still alive.
Do they think taking him off life support has alleviated his pain?
3
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:35 am to lsupride87
quote:
That precedent has already been set
The govt here in america is even allowed to remove children from their parents care and decisions.....
I get your argument and where you are coming from, but I don't think the issues are the same.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:35 am to LNCHBOX
quote:It is a simple argument and logical follow through
So now we're comparing keeping him alive to a child abuse case. Nah, not playing in this one.
I already said it does not go with this specific case
But it is a fact the govt is allowed to remove children from parents who are thought to cause harm to their child
So, lets say a case comes along where the medical treatment keeping a child in a vegetative state is causing harm. Then that is where this gets extremely tricky
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:35 am to GetCocky11
quote:
The judge isn't making the decision willy-nilly, the judge is making the decision in consultation with multiple experts.
I'm an attorney. I understand how a judge makes decisions based on expert opinions.
My issue is that the the judge is getting to make this decision at all.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:35 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:If the child has no cognition of existence, letting him pass doesn’t harm him either, IMO.
It isn't going to harm the child. It may not improve his condition, but it's not making him worse either.
If there is zero mental functioning, is there really a life terminate? Another philosophical argument for you.
quote:It isn’t, and we frequently do. Denying future treatment happens in oncology patients. End of life therapy is usually for palliative purposes.
Again, how is this distinguishable from keeping a cancer patient alive for another year? Should we deny treatment for that too?
quote:Agreed.
The illness is terminal, the condition can't be improved, but kept the same or worsen at a slower rate. The only thing changing is the time line.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:36 am to lsupride87
quote:
It is a simple argument and logical follow through
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:36 am to Ross
quote:Not in this specific case because it doesnt seem "harm" is being done to the child by keeping him alive. Or at least the govt never made that argument
but I don't think the issues are the same.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:36 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:I don’t think he has any cognitive ability to comprehend pain.
Do they think taking him off life support has alleviated his pain?
How would that change your stance?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:36 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:he's on so many pain meds he prob cant feel anything
Do they think taking him off life support has alleviated his pain?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:37 am to lsupride87
quote:
So, lets say a case comes along where the medical treatment keeping a child in a vegetative state is causing harm. Then that is where this gets extremely tricky
it's a horrible issue to talk about because it comes down to the fact that there are no good answers to these hard questions
but one thing I feel confident in is that the state should not be able to step in at their own discretion (which will be subject some of the time, which is why the precedent is dangerous) and take the right to search for health care away from parents.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:37 am to LSUBoo
There simply is no argument here, although I know the contrarians on the OT just feel they MUST.
But there isn't one.
The UK government does not want to pay for his care anymore.
The parents have means to get care elsewhere.
The UK is denying them that right.
That's it. The UK should not have that power. If they don't want to pay anymore, fine. But it is the parent's right to continue the care if they have other means. Not the government deciding who lives and who dies.
There's simply no argument against it unless you just love totalitarian power.
But there isn't one.
The UK government does not want to pay for his care anymore.
The parents have means to get care elsewhere.
The UK is denying them that right.
That's it. The UK should not have that power. If they don't want to pay anymore, fine. But it is the parent's right to continue the care if they have other means. Not the government deciding who lives and who dies.
There's simply no argument against it unless you just love totalitarian power.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:38 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE ANYMORE
Do they think taking him off life support has alleviated his pain?
Everyone has agreed already the government should not have the right to keep an individual form their choice of care
I actually havent seen one person disagree on this actual case, just a bunch of sidebar disagreements
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:38 am to Scruffy
quote:
If the child has no cognition of existence, letting him pass doesn’t harm him either, IMO.
Personally that's what I would do, my point is its an ethical debate for the parents not the government.
quote:
If there is zero mental functioning, is there really a life terminate? Another philosophical argument for you
I don't have a strong enough opinion or knowledge either way, but again I don't think there should be public policy on it. It's a personal ethical and moral matter.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:39 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
But it is the parent's right to continue the care if they have other means.
I think everyone here is agreeing with you.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:39 am to Fun Bunch
quote:Exactly. People can argue over withdrawal of care until they are blue in the face, but the true issue is whether the government has the right to make that call and overrule the parents’ stance. I disagree with that.
The UK government does not want to pay for his care anymore.
The parents have means to get care elsewhere.
The UK is denying them that right.
That's it. The UK should not have that power. If they don't want to pay anymore, fine. But it is the parent's right to continue the care if they have other means. Not the government deciding who lives and who dies.
There's simply no argument against it unless you just love totalitarian power.
This post was edited on 4/25/18 at 11:40 am
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:40 am to Scruffy
It seems this board has actually come to a rare unanimous consensus on an issue.
Never thought I'd see the day.
Never thought I'd see the day.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:40 am to Fun Bunch
I don't disagree with you but I always think it's funny when someone comes in and acts like their opinion is so infallible that anyone disagreeing is just playing contrarian.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:40 am to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
quote:
The UK has actually forced them at gunpoint to stay at the hospital in the UK.
How’s that even possible? There aren’t any guns in the UK.
Oh wait, only the government has the guns so they can act like thugs.
Let our left wing friends have their way and America will look like the UK.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:41 am to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
I'm an Evans.
Must be my kin?
Must be my kin?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 11:41 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Don't think the britbongs have the 2nd amendment, baw.
Page 15 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News