Alfie Evans

my2hands

Go Beavers said:

Maybe we didn’t want to use a dead kid for our own political taking point. But since you started the thread, compare infant mortality rates in the countries with single payer healthcare vs the US and we’ll make that the discussion. Because your concern is really about chilren’s healthcare, right?

Unsung getting totally owned again... doesn't matter,  he just digs in deeper

my2hands

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

Maybe the English Government should not have prevented the parents from seeking further treatment with people willing to help.

But those Palin death squads, well she was right on that one.

What relevance do you believe an English case has to the American legal and medical systems that would justify your second sentence?

Socialism fails.  Over and over.

Pretty broad and unsubstantiated claim to make, based on one case that doesn't involve "socialism", but rather the British legal system. 

You do know that the American courts could make the same decision, right? And you do know that the infant mortality rate in the US is almost twice as high as that in the UK, right?

The "socialist" UK does a far better job at keeping children health and alive than the USA. 

And again

my2hands

oftenreading said:

How spectacular that the OP has chosen health care as the topic to try to prove that “socialism” fails, when all data shows that the capitalistic American health care system provides poorer outcomes for much higher cost than any of the socialist European or Canadian health care systems. 

Are you aware that american life expectancy is dropping? 

And again

LOL

my2hands

(Waiting for a meme)

PJ_Soul

unsung said:

Big shocker, no discussion here.

What a weird way to start a thread.

PJ_Soul

This is a tough issue. I do fully support doctor assisted suicide, and I also generally support a parent's right to make decisions on behalf of their child when it comes to medical care for that child. BUT, there are exceptions. When prolonging a child's life is properly deemed by doctors to only put the child through extended pain and suffering, without any hope of a meaningful recovery, I do support the courts stepping in to end that suffering, even when the parents are unable to let go. At the end of the day, what's in the child's best interests are the most important thing, and parental love and hope unfortunately doesn't always result in protecting those interests. That said, I still empathize with the other side of the argument.... it must just be horrible for any parents who want to keep trying but are forced to give up like this. That doesn't mean that it still isn't the best thing to do though. No child should have to live in a permanent state of suffering like that, even when the parents care too much to end it. To put it roughly, love and prayers/hope are no excuse to subject someone to an existence worse than death. We all know that parents do not always know what is best for their children, unfortunately. I understand that they often do, and also that even when they don't they usually think they do... But it isn't a black and white thing. It would be a mistake to assume that it is. This would also be true in those cases where the parents refuse medical treatments that will save a child's life... Philosophically, I don't think there is any difference between the two scenarios, really. And I find that people tend to really get behind the government when they rule against parents in such situations.

I think this issue has nothing to do with universal healthcare systems, so I'm not even going to bother addressing that.