Charlie Gard

Gern Blansten

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

I don't care if it takes 100 opinions, it should be the decision of the parents to cease treatment, not the courts.

Disagree....if the medical experts believe the well being of the child is being abused (which is the case here) then the courts should step in and stop it.

This isn't a money issue...that's obvious.  The "government" in this case is protecting one of its citizens.

Hmmm...this is a very difficult case for me to consider.  Emotionally I want the parents to decide for their child.  I have a hard time with someone telling the parents that their child must die.   But I get the medical prognosis.  Such a sad thing all around.

But to call the parents selfish is way the hell out of line.

It works in reverse too....i.e. Terry Schiavo

unsung

I have said all that I am going to on this subject.  Have a good day.

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

I have said all that I am going to on this subject.  Have a good day.

walking away when challenged. 

cincybearcat

Gern Blansten said:

cincybearcat said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

I don't care if it takes 100 opinions, it should be the decision of the parents to cease treatment, not the courts.

Disagree....if the medical experts believe the well being of the child is being abused (which is the case here) then the courts should step in and stop it.

This isn't a money issue...that's obvious.  The "government" in this case is protecting one of its citizens.

Hmmm...this is a very difficult case for me to consider.  Emotionally I want the parents to decide for their child.  I have a hard time with someone telling the parents that their child must die.   But I get the medical prognosis.  Such a sad thing all around.

But to call the parents selfish is way the hell out of line.

It works in reverse too....i.e. Terry Schiavo

Yup none if these are easy choices.

benjs

unsung said:

This is the future of the medical system in the US, where a family can raise the funds for treatment but a court can sentence the child to death.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40206045

unsung said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Yah Unsung... I'm struggling to find your spin on this situation as well.

There is no spin.  I am being upfront.

These parents raised the money to have their child treated in the States, but a government goon is telling them the better option is death.  This is exactly the Death Trials or whatever that idiot Sarah Palin was talking about.

Parents know what is best for their children, not some bureaucrat. 

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Yah Unsung... I'm struggling to find your spin on this situation as well.

There is no spin.  I am being upfront.

These parents raised the money to have their child treated in the States, but a government goon is telling them the better option is death.  This is exactly the Death Trials or whatever that idiot Sarah Palin was talking about.

Parents know what is best for their children, not some bureaucrat. 

It's not "some bureaucrat", it's the child's doctors and hospital staff.
Quite a distinction.

People get second opinions all of the time.  People also go to places that are willing to treat conditions that others places will not.

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Yah Unsung... I'm struggling to find your spin on this situation as well.

There is no spin.  I am being upfront.

These parents raised the money to have their child treated in the States, but a government goon is telling them the better option is death.  This is exactly the Death Trials or whatever that idiot Sarah Palin was talking about.

Parents know what is best for their children, not some bureaucrat. 

Not true.

Some parents are completely unfit to parent.

Some are, but not in this case.

unsung said:

I don't care if it takes 100 opinions, it should be the decision of the parents to cease treatment, not the courts.

unsung said:

I have said all that I am going to on this subject.  Have a good day.

Looking through your thoughts here, your core belief seems to be that one's money should dictate one's future, and a government shouldn't have any place to say what a person can or can't do. What about when parents send their child (unwillingly) for an "experimental" treatment in NGL (No-Government Land) in Bob's Mobile Surgery Truck Co., which goes awry. Who is liable? There were no restrictions, so Bob's was allowed to cut a person open and draw toothpaste circles on his stomach lining, claiming it would work wonders ("it's experimental"). The parents then shot Bob. They had a contract, but without a lawyer to validate it or a police agent to enforce a penalty, this was just easier.

You spend days and days on here shitting on the government's role in day-to-day life, but the unregulated, unenforced, voluntary firefighting, vigilante justice is a bat-shit crazy notion that literally could not exist in the world. Your vision has gaping holes in it which you refuse to debate. If your vision could exist, I wouldn't leave my house - I'd just kill myself, knowing I had a matter of days anyways until someone with a gun bigger than mine declared my land their own.

But I have said all that I am going to on this subject. Have a good day.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

I have said all that I am going to on this subject.  Have a good day.

Hey I'd actually like to hear your response to Often's question.

I'm not trying to agitate, but given your stance on these boards... I'd be curious to know where you stand there?

tbergs

benjs said:

unsung said:

This is the future of the medical system in the US, where a family can raise the funds for treatment but a court can sentence the child to death.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40206045

unsung said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Yah Unsung... I'm struggling to find your spin on this situation as well.

There is no spin.  I am being upfront.

These parents raised the money to have their child treated in the States, but a government goon is telling them the better option is death.  This is exactly the Death Trials or whatever that idiot Sarah Palin was talking about.

Parents know what is best for their children, not some bureaucrat. 

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Yah Unsung... I'm struggling to find your spin on this situation as well.

There is no spin.  I am being upfront.

These parents raised the money to have their child treated in the States, but a government goon is telling them the better option is death.  This is exactly the Death Trials or whatever that idiot Sarah Palin was talking about.

Parents know what is best for their children, not some bureaucrat. 

It's not "some bureaucrat", it's the child's doctors and hospital staff.
Quite a distinction.

People get second opinions all of the time.  People also go to places that are willing to treat conditions that others places will not.

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Yah Unsung... I'm struggling to find your spin on this situation as well.

There is no spin.  I am being upfront.

These parents raised the money to have their child treated in the States, but a government goon is telling them the better option is death.  This is exactly the Death Trials or whatever that idiot Sarah Palin was talking about.

Parents know what is best for their children, not some bureaucrat. 

Not true.

Some parents are completely unfit to parent.

Some are, but not in this case.

unsung said:

I don't care if it takes 100 opinions, it should be the decision of the parents to cease treatment, not the courts.

unsung said:

I have said all that I am going to on this subject.  Have a good day.

Looking through your thoughts here, your core belief seems to be that one's money should dictate one's future, and a government shouldn't have any place to say what a person can or can't do. What about when parents send their child (unwillingly) for an "experimental" treatment in NGL (No-Government Land) in Bob's Mobile Surgery Truck Co., which goes awry. Who is liable? There were no restrictions, so Bob's was allowed to cut a person open and draw toothpaste circles on his stomach lining, claiming it would work wonders ("it's experimental"). The parents then shot Bob. They had a contract, but without a lawyer to validate it or a police agent to enforce a penalty, this was just easier.

You spend days and days on here shitting on the government's role in day-to-day life, but the unregulated, unenforced, voluntary firefighting, vigilante justice is a bat-shit crazy notion that literally could not exist in the world. Your vision has gaping holes in it which you refuse to debate. If your vision could exist, I wouldn't leave my house - I'd just kill myself, knowing I had a matter of days anyways until someone with a gun bigger than mine declared my land their own.

But I have said all that I am going to on this subject. Have a good day.

:clap:

unsung

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

I have said all that I am going to on this subject.  Have a good day.

walking away when challenged. 

Yeah, because I am known to back down.

I gave my point, I have nothing else that I want to add.

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

I have said all that I am going to on this subject.  Have a good day.

walking away when challenged. 

Yeah, because I am known to back down.

I gave my point, I have nothing else that I want to add.

actually, you often do. someone asks you a direct question and you avoid it completely or come up with some nonsensical rebuttal that veers onto some other point. 

if you don't want to answer because you know that it will be hypocritical to your stance in this thread, fine, but don't make it out like you're "work here is done". 

cincybearcat

Honestly I don't think it's that hard to figure out that one could side with protecting life.

So - parents choice to keep child alive against all odds & government/courts stepping in to keep someone alive (especially an adult) if there is any medical option.  Now, if it were a child and the parents wanted to pull the plug and the medical backed it up, I'm not sure the government/court should have a say.  With an adult, it's a little trickier unless spelled out in a will cause who gets to make the call? Spouse? Parents? 

I hope these parents can find peace.

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

Honestly I don't think it's that hard to figure out that one could side with protecting life.

So - parents choice to keep child alive against all odds & government/courts stepping in to keep someone alive (especially an adult) if there is any medical option.  Now, if it were a child and the parents wanted to pull the plug and the medical backed it up, I'm not sure the government/court should have a say.  With an adult, it's a little trickier unless spelled out in a will cause who gets to make the call? Spouse? Parents? 

I hope these parents can find peace.

some want government to have zero impact in the decisions of daily life....unless of course it doesn't fit that particular agenda, in which case they won't talk about it. 

unsung

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

I have said all that I am going to on this subject.  Have a good day.

walking away when challenged. 

Yeah, because I am known to back down.

I gave my point, I have nothing else that I want to add.

actually, you often do. someone asks you a direct question and you avoid it completely or come up with some nonsensical rebuttal that veers onto some other point. 

if you don't want to answer because you know that it will be hypocritical to your stance in this thread, fine, but don't make it out like you're "work here is done". 

Whatever you say.  Start another topic, don't lecture me about life.

HughFreakingDillon

don't need another topic. it's along the same lines. but, you know that. 

unsung

I am not debating life with a group of people that think it doesn't begin until birth.

I hope Charlie's parents find the strength to deal with this.

rgambs

unsung said:

I am not debating life with a group of people that think it doesn't begin until birth.

I hope Charlie's parents find the strength to deal with this.

Hahaha an irrelevant straw man, no, you're not debating at all!

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

I am not debating life with a group of people that think it doesn't begin until birth.

I hope Charlie's parents find the strength to deal with this.

just as previously stated. abortion was never part of this discussion. 

benjs

unsung said:

I am not debating life with a group of people that think it doesn't begin until birth.

I hope Charlie's parents find the strength to deal with this.

If you won't debate with people who hold different premises than you, then your inconsequentially small group will remain inconsequentially small, and you'll have no one to blame but yourself; because you are only willing to preach, rather than to teach.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

I am not debating life with a group of people that think it doesn't begin until birth.

I hope Charlie's parents find the strength to deal with this.

You debating with people, many of whom want an individual to formulate their own beliefs as to when life begins. You want the government to decide. 

hedonist

Humaneness is what it comes down to for me.  Not anything dictated by any one or any entity, but by compassion and by being realistic - maybe unselfish too (get that that last part must be a huge fucking hurdle).  

When our kitty was failing at 17+ years, we had to do right by her.  We'd have done the same were she younger when our decision was made.  Doing the right thing can really fuck with you but doesn't take away from it being the right thing to do.

Pro euthenasia and pro quality of life.

........and know that I understand the difference between a "pet" and a child.  I'm talking about love, coming to terms, and knowing when to let go - for their sake.  Gotta take a backseat to ourselves sometimes.

Smellyman

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Honestly I don't think it's that hard to figure out that one could side with protecting life.

So - parents choice to keep child alive against all odds & government/courts stepping in to keep someone alive (especially an adult) if there is any medical option.  Now, if it were a child and the parents wanted to pull the plug and the medical backed it up, I'm not sure the government/court should have a say.  With an adult, it's a little trickier unless spelled out in a will cause who gets to make the call? Spouse? Parents? 

I hope these parents can find peace.

some want government to have zero impact in the decisions of daily life....unless of course it doesn't fit that particular agenda, in which case they won't talk about it. 

Zing!