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.
I like a debate. The state doesn’t own your child. The courts made a decision when the doctors and parents couldn’t decide. Both parties willingly went to the court to make a decision. Would you honestly think if your child was in that position , as a parent you could be objective, I couldn’t. Neither could they. But I would like to think I would know when it was time to let someone pass I love, but would I if it happened who knows.
Sadly this happens everyday and in most cases both sides are in agreement. It’s the few where there is a disagreement that hits the press. It worth reading through the judgements online as it’s explained far better than I can possibly try to.
At what point do you say enough? Ventilating him for an indefinite period until there was nothing left of him seems cruel too. All the money and time in the world wouldn’t change the end result. We simply can’t stop brain degeneration or reverse it yet medically.
I really appreciate the intelligent debate, And if I’m honest am I 100% certain? No. From the outside it’s so different. Forgetting the legal side, that boys poor dad looked broken by the end of it. And who can watch a child die, willingly, to have it taken out your hand must be terrifying. I don’t want you to think that I’m certain. I’m not :)
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.
I like a debate. The state doesn’t own your child. The courts made a decision when the doctors and parents couldn’t decide. Both parties willingly went to the court to make a decision. Would you honestly think if your child was in that position , as a parent you could be objective, I couldn’t. Neither could they. But I would like to think I would know when it was time to let someone pass I love, but would I if it happened who knows.
Sadly this happens everyday and in most cases both sides are in agreement. It’s the few where there is a disagreement that hits the press. It worth reading through the judgements online as it’s explained far better than I can possibly try to.
At what point do you say enough? Ventilating him for an indefinite period until there was nothing left of him seems cruel too. All the money and time in the world wouldn’t change the end result. We simply can’t stop brain degeneration or reverse it yet medically.
I really appreciate the intelligent debate, And if I’m honest am I 100% certain? No. From the outside it’s so different. Forgetting the legal side, that boys poor dad looked broken by the end of it. And who can watch a child die, willingly, to have it taken out your hand must be terrifying. I don’t want you to think that I’m certain. I’m not :)