Charlie Gard's suffering is over

Corazón said:
I seriously haven't a clue what you buggers are on about, Charlie had no hope of surviving without massive brain damage. Why can't you arseholes get that into your thick heads?
Click to expand...

I think its because that's not the important part.......the important part is that we have successfully stopped this doctor from making money.....all praise to god on high.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
quite frequently.....but not usually to your face.......
Click to expand...
It is patently obvious that you not in possession of the facts and prefer to believe the bullshit spouted by stupid American journalists. I felt sorry for you when the Cuckoos were taking the piss out of you but you've demonstrated here that maybe there was something in what they said. I suggest that you read this excellent article and become acquainted with the facts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/Voices...-life-support-pope-donald-trump-a7827276.html
 
Threedee said:
Yeah, because it's not what the parents want, Sid.
Click to expand...
From the article, which you obviously didn't read.

2: “the wishes of the parents must come first”.

No, they don’t, and this is fundamental both in British (and European) and US law.

Children are not property; they’re humans, with their own individual rights. Parents may think they have the right to treat their children as they wish, but that’s wrong. In the US, UK and elsewhere, if parents were to refuse their child cancer treatment, or a blood transfusion necessary to save their lives, then doctors would step in and seek an injunction to force it. (There’s case law in the US, and UK hospitals have easy legal setups if Jehovah’s Witness parents refuse necessary transfusions. You may be wondering — I did — why this doesn’t apply for vaccinations. The obvious answer: not having those doesn’t pose a direct threat to your life. Not getting an MMR jab might be bad, but you’re not at proximate risk of dying, unlike a blood transfusion for an operation or cancer treatment.)

Instead of the parents’ wishes, the wishes — or more accurately welfare — of the child comes first. If the parents and the doctors can’t agree on the best course of action, then you may eventually get what happened here: the two sides end up in court. The court appoints a guardian, whose responsibility is to determine what course will be best for the welfare of the child. The doctors and parents make representations; the guardian tries to weigh the arguments and reports to the judge, who rules on what should be done, guided by the guardian.
 
Corazón said:
From the article, which you obviously didn't read.

2: “the wishes of the parents must come first”.

No, they don’t, and this is fundamental both in British (and European) and US law.

Children are not property; they’re humans, with their own individual rights. Parents may think they have the right to treat their children as they wish, but that’s wrong. In the US, UK and elsewhere, if parents were to refuse their child cancer treatment, or a blood transfusion necessary to save their lives, then doctors would step in and seek an injunction to force it. (There’s case law in the US, and UK hospitals have easy legal setups if Jehovah’s Witness parents refuse necessary transfusions. You may be wondering — I did — why this doesn’t apply for vaccinations. The obvious answer: not having those doesn’t pose a direct threat to your life. Not getting an MMR jab might be bad, but you’re not at proximate risk of dying, unlike a blood transfusion for an operation or cancer treatment.)

Instead of the parents’ wishes, the wishes — or more accurately welfare — of the child comes first. If the parents and the doctors can’t agree on the best course of action, then you may eventually get what happened here: the two sides end up in court. The court appoints a guardian, whose responsibility is to determine what course will be best for the welfare of the child. The doctors and parents make representations; the guardian tries to weigh the arguments and reports to the judge, who rules on what should be done, guided by the guardian.
Click to expand...
what an incredible pile of bullshit.......there are cases where the courts have ordered treatment for children when the parents refused due to religious reasons.........but you show me one case in the US where the government ordered a treatment denied when the parents wanted it........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what an incredible pile of bullshit.......there are cases where the courts have ordered treatment for children when the parents refused due to religious reasons.........but you show me one case in the US where the government ordered a treatment denied when the parents wanted it........
Click to expand...
Fuck off!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top