Alfie Evans - Ward of the State
Yes, because in both cases the child is the ward of the State, and since the State can do with their property as they choose, they cannot be brought up on charges. They're allowed to damage their property, but parents are not allowed to damage the State's property, because they're only custodians of the child (property), and not the owner.
The courts are bound by the human rights act 1998 to protect the rights of a child over the wishes of the parents.
And it was the child's right to die in this particular situation?
Yes. The child right to die with dignity was in consideration . Had there been a chance of treatment would have been a different story. He has been on life support for well over a year. I hear the little chap has passed now :(
Do you think it is ethical for the government to have a say over such things, or should it be the parent's right? Regardless of whether or not something is "legal", it may still be immoral and unethical, yes?
The government has No say it the courts decision. Only in the laws enacted. A parents right ethically can never override a child’s, again that would make abuse ethical. It would be unethical to keep a child on life support for an extended period, with no chance of recovery. Then your protecting the parents wishes not the child’s best interests.
In no way was the wrong decision made in my opinion.
So you are stating that allowing the infant to die was more ethical than allowing it to live, even though there was a hospital in waiting in another country that disagreed with the prognosis, or at the very least, was willing to give a second opinion on the matter? Is a child a beast that we can "euthanize" against the parents wishes?
The hospital in Italy were offering 14 days palliative care at a cost of 60,000. No new treatment , or diagnosis. So yes allowing him to die, when he had 30% of his brain left and deteriorating was far kinder than him being kept alive artificially. If you read the court judgement you can’t help but understand why the court upheld the little guys rights.
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue with me, but I still cannot get behind the notion of the State owning my children, and determining what care is best for my child. It really boils down to the spectrum between collectivism and individualism, also known as Statism and voluntaryism (anarchy - self-directed rulership). No matter how much "for the children" rationalization is given, it is not reasonable (there is a distinction between reason and rationalization, as the first determines the belief, while the latter explains away the belief). Thanks again, be well.
Congratulations @unityprocess! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP