Judge decrees infant must die, parents forbidden to take him home

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting. Judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is founded within the desire to keep the patients best interests at focus... and Jason wants to demonize the judge, the UK Health Care system and pretend this is just about money.

We had a member at this web board of whom the private market showed no interest in saving their life, and his prognosis was a bazillion times better than this child... and his prognosis was pretty bad.

Jason, now would be a good time to step back, admit error, and walk away from the unbelievably dastardly projection of inhumanity you have decided to project here on the judge.

 

[beero1000]

Interesting. Judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is founded within the desire to keep the patients best interests at focus... and Jason wants to demonize the judge, the UK Health Care system and pretend this is just about money.

We had a member at this web board of whom the private market showed no interest in saving their life, and his prognosis was a bazillion times better than this child... and his prognosis was pretty bad.

Jason, now would be a good time to step back, admit error, and walk away from the unbelievably dastardly projection of inhumanity you have decided to project here on the judge.

I really hope he does.

I feel bad for the kid, whose life has and will only be short and painful. I feel bad for the parents, as they're in an impossible position and are understandably clinging to every last shred of hope they can. I feel bad for the judge, for having to make the decision and write that statement - it was hard enough reading it.

I have nothing but disgust for people who are trying to use this as some kind of political 'gotcha', disingenuous fake news propaganda. It's shameful.

 

[Bomb#20]

This is about what's best for the patient, not his parents' denial about the situation.

Likely yes. They could in Canada. It isn't about health insurance. It is about child abuse. The state can step in when the parents do something like this to make the child suffer irresponsibly and irrationally, despite their hearts being in the right place. Its that same sort of ruling that has children taken into state custody away from parents who think their kids are possessed by demons etc, only this is the secular version.

The judge is involved because the NHS has a legally defined duty to do what is best medically for the patient, and has the expertise to make that determination; But the parents have the right to have the courts review the medical decision, and to confirm that all reasonable medical steps have been considered by qualified doctors, and that the opinions offered do reflect the scientific consensus.
...
No, the worst that could happen is that the patient's pain and suffering might be prolonged and/or worsened needlessly. The patient's death has been assessed by experts to be inevitable; That the family believes the experts to be wrong, and that a doctor outside the NHS is prepared to accept a very large sum of money to buck the expert consensus, is (according to the law) not sufficient reason to risk increasing the suffering of this patient prior to his inevitable death.

Interesting. Judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is founded within the desire to keep the patients best interests at focus...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The parents, the contributors, the pope, everyone trying to get the kid the experimental treatment, are also wrong, but at least they're honestly pursuing a coherent, if stupid, notion of what's best for the child: maximize life at all costs. The state is claiming it's also pursuing what's best for the child; but the state is lying. It's being irrational and hypocritical about this from start to finish.

This is not about what's best for the patient. The state is not trying to prevent child abuse. The NHS does not have a legally defined duty to do what is best medically for the patient. The judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is not founded within the desire to keep the patient's best interests at focus. This is about all the state actors just doing their jobs, just following orders, just covering their asses, just making sure that when this inevitably goes south at the end, they will not be found to have broken the rules that have been put in place: rules put in place not for the purpose of protecting a child with this sort of medical problem, but for political reasons or to satisfy institutional needs.

If the NHS, the British legal system, or the European Court of Human Rights were sincerely concerned with the child's best interests, trying to prevent child abuse, and not make the child suffer irresponsibly and irrationally, then somebody would stick a needle in that poor kid's vein and give him an overdose of painkillers, instead of taking him off a ventilator and making him slowly choke to death.

 

[Bomb#20]

From (one of) the court decisions:

...
It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie’s best interests, that I find it is in Charlie’s best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

There is no such thing as dying with dignity.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

]Read the first judge's decision.
The worst that could happen is a great deal more suffering for this child, with no real expectation of benefits realized that would justify the suffering.

Actually, no. The worst that could happen (and just did) is for SCROTUS to get involved:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uld-be-allowed-to-die/?utm_term=.721a9c97645b

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

]Read the first judge's decision.
The worst that could happen is a great deal more suffering for this child, with no real expectation of benefits realized that would justify the suffering.

Actually, no. The worst that could happen (and just did) is for SCROTUS to get involved:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uld-be-allowed-to-die/?utm_term=.721a9c97645b

That level of idiocy comes from people believing in religious fantasy.

 

[beero1000]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The parents, the contributors, the pope, everyone trying to get the kid the experimental treatment, are also wrong, but at least they're honestly pursuing a coherent, if stupid, notion of what's best for the child: maximize life at all costs. The state is claiming it's also pursuing what's best for the child; but the state is lying. It's being irrational and hypocritical about this from start to finish.

This is not about what's best for the patient. The state is not trying to prevent child abuse. The NHS does not have a legally defined duty to do what is best medically for the patient. The judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is not founded within the desire to keep the patient's best interests at focus. This is about all the state actors just doing their jobs, just following orders, just covering their asses, just making sure that when this inevitably goes south at the end, they will not be found to have broken the rules that have been put in place: rules put in place not for the purpose of protecting a child with this sort of medical problem, but for political reasons or to satisfy institutional needs.

You are directly contradicting the explicit explanation that the judge gave for his decision. Do you have any actual evidence for those accusations? Or are they (the treating doctors, the hospital, the NHS, multiple courts, etc) all just lying from cynical self interest?

If the NHS, the British legal system, or the European Court of Human Rights were sincerely concerned with the child's best interests, trying to prevent child abuse, and not make the child suffer irresponsibly and irrationally, then somebody would stick a needle in that poor kid's vein and give him an overdose of painkillers, instead of taking him off a ventilator and making him slowly choke to death.

Euthanasia is illegal in Britain, and the assumption that Charlie won't receive palliative care is simply wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting. Judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is founded within the desire to keep the patients best interests at focus... and Jason wants to demonize the judge, the UK Health Care system and pretend this is just about money.

We had a member at this web board of whom the private market showed no interest in saving their life, and his prognosis was a bazillion times better than this child... and his prognosis was pretty bad.

Jason, now would be a good time to step back, admit error, and walk away from the unbelievably dastardly projection of inhumanity you have decided to project here on the judge.

His problem wasn't really financial, but medical. The supply of organs is limited, they should go to those with a good prognosis for the transplant. He had a very bad prognosis.

 

[laughing dog]

This is not about what's best for the patient. The state is not trying to prevent child abuse. The NHS does not have a legally defined duty to do what is best medically for the patient. The judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is not founded within the desire to keep the patient's best interests at focus. This is about all the state actors just doing their jobs, just following orders, just covering their asses, just making sure that when this inevitably goes south at the end, they will not be found to have broken the rules that have been put in place: rules put in place not for the purpose of protecting a child with this sort of medical problem, but for political reasons or to satisfy institutional needs.

Do you have any evidence that others can access that support your claims concerning the motivations of all the state actors?

 

[bilby]

Likely yes. They could in Canada. It isn't about health insurance. It is about child abuse. The state can step in when the parents do something like this to make the child suffer irresponsibly and irrationally, despite their hearts being in the right place. Its that same sort of ruling that has children taken into state custody away from parents who think their kids are possessed by demons etc, only this is the secular version.

The judge is involved because the NHS has a legally defined duty to do what is best medically for the patient, and has the expertise to make that determination; But the parents have the right to have the courts review the medical decision, and to confirm that all reasonable medical steps have been considered by qualified doctors, and that the opinions offered do reflect the scientific consensus.
...
No, the worst that could happen is that the patient's pain and suffering might be prolonged and/or worsened needlessly. The patient's death has been assessed by experts to be inevitable; That the family believes the experts to be wrong, and that a doctor outside the NHS is prepared to accept a very large sum of money to buck the expert consensus, is (according to the law) not sufficient reason to risk increasing the suffering of this patient prior to his inevitable death.

Interesting. Judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is founded within the desire to keep the patients best interests at focus...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The parents, the contributors, the pope, everyone trying to get the kid the experimental treatment, are also wrong, but at least they're honestly pursuing a coherent, if stupid, notion of what's best for the child: maximize life at all costs. The state is claiming it's also pursuing what's best for the child; but the state is lying. It's being irrational and hypocritical about this from start to finish.

This is not about what's best for the patient. The state is not trying to prevent child abuse. The NHS does not have a legally defined duty to do what is best medically for the patient. The judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is not founded within the desire to keep the patient's best interests at focus. This is about all the state actors just doing their jobs, just following orders, just covering their asses, just making sure that when this inevitably goes south at the end, they will not be found to have broken the rules that have been put in place: rules put in place not for the purpose of protecting a child with this sort of medical problem, but for political reasons or to satisfy institutional needs.

If the NHS, the British legal system, or the European Court of Human Rights were sincerely concerned with the child's best interests, trying to prevent child abuse, and not make the child suffer irresponsibly and irrationally, then somebody would stick a needle in that poor kid's vein and give him an overdose of painkillers, instead of taking him off a ventilator and making him slowly choke to death.

You are, of course, correct; But as euthanasia is illegal, it's not an option for the authorities. The state is trying to do what is best for the patient, within the constraints of the law - and that qualifier usually goes without saying.

Changing the law to allow for an even better outcome for the patient is not on the table at this time, but I agree with you that it should be; If the patient was a dog, the RSPCA would be up in arms about the cruelty of keeping him alive to suffer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is not about what's best for the patient. The state is not trying to prevent child abuse. The NHS does not have a legally defined duty to do what is best medically for the patient. The judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is not founded within the desire to keep the patient's best interests at focus. This is about all the state actors just doing their jobs, just following orders, just covering their asses, just making sure that when this inevitably goes south at the end, they will not be found to have broken the rules that have been put in place: rules put in place not for the purpose of protecting a child with this sort of medical problem, but for political reasons or to satisfy institutional needs.

Do you have any evidence that others can access that support your claims concerning the motivations of all the state actors?

it'll take a good deal of fiber supplements for him to get it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

]Read the first judge's decision.
The worst that could happen is a great deal more suffering for this child, with no real expectation of benefits realized that would justify the suffering.

Actually, no. The worst that could happen (and just did) is for SCROTUS to get involved:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uld-be-allowed-to-die/?utm_term=.721a9c97645b

Has he dispatched Hastert or Carson yet?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Russia is hacking US. Quick look over there. A sick baby.

 

[Bomb#20]

You are directly contradicting the explicit explanation that the judge gave for his decision. Do you have any actual evidence for those accusations?

You already posted the evidence for my accusation.

"Euthanasia is illegal in Britain"​

The judge wrote:

"I find it is in Charlie’s best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity."​

Being "permitted to die" is not in Charlie's best interests. Being euthanized is. If the state were motivated by what is in Charlie's best interests then euthanasia would not be illegal in Britain.

Or are they (the treating doctors, the hospital, the NHS, multiple courts, etc) all just lying from cynical self interest?

No, of course not. Whether they're lying is an interesting philosophical question. They know what they're saying isn't true; but they have presumably compartmentalized their minds to prevent themselves from noticing, much as religious people do. But surely if you were to cross-examine Justice Francis and ask him if Charlie would be better off suffocating or euthanized, he'd admit that it's euthanasia that would be in Charlie's best interests. Same goes for Charlie's NHS doctors. So does it count as lying if you're deceiving yourself too, training yourself not to think about the things you know that prove the things you say are wrong? But if that counts as lying, it's not cynical. It's human nature.

If the NHS, the British legal system, or the European Court of Human Rights were sincerely concerned with the child's best interests, trying to prevent child abuse, and not make the child suffer irresponsibly and irrationally, then somebody would stick a needle in that poor kid's vein and give him an overdose of painkillers, instead of taking him off a ventilator and making him slowly choke to death.

Euthanasia is illegal in Britain, and the assumption that Charlie won't receive palliative care is simply wrong.

Who said he won't receive palliative care? But if the patient were a dog, he'd already be dead. And already dead would be better for him than where he is now, even with palliative care: being kept alive by the state irresponsibly and irrationally. Prohibition of euthanasia for humans is child abuse.

 

[RavenSky]

Interesting. Judge is forced to make a binding and permanent decision that will see the end of a life, via a well thought out and thorough decision which is founded within the desire to keep the patients best interests at focus... and Jason wants to demonize the judge, the UK Health Care system and pretend this is just about money.

We had a member at this web board of whom the private market showed no interest in saving their life, and his prognosis was a bazillion times better than this child... and his prognosis was pretty bad.

Jason, now would be a good time to step back, admit error, and walk away from the unbelievably dastardly projection of inhumanity you have decided to project here on the judge.

I really hope he does.

I feel bad for the kid, whose life has and will only be short and painful. I feel bad for the parents, as they're in an impossible position and are understandably clinging to every last shred of hope they can. I feel bad for the judge, for having to make the decision and write that statement - it was hard enough reading it.

I have nothing but disgust for people who are trying to use this as some kind of political 'gotcha', disingenuous fake news propaganda. It's shameful.

^^^ all of that is so well said

 

[barbos]

Anyone else get the feeling the US doctor may be taking advantage of grieving parents with deep pockets?

Yes, I do.

 

[Bomb#20]

You are, of course, correct; But as euthanasia is illegal, it's not an option for the authorities.

That's an odd way of looking at it. These aren't laws of physics we're talking about. What is or isn't illegal is up to the authorities to choose.

The state is trying to do what is best for the patient, within the constraints of the law

That's just another way of saying their primary goal is to obey the law, not to do what's best for the patient. That's what I said: the state actors are making sure that they will not be found to have broken the rules.

- and that qualifier usually goes without saying.

Indeed it does. But it doesn't go without knowing. They all know their goal is to follow the rules, and they all say their goal is to do what's best for the patient. Why the heck should we all politely let that go without comment? That qualifier should not go without saying.

Changing the law to allow for an even better outcome for the patient is not on the table at this time, but I agree with you that it should be; If the patient was a dog, the RSPCA would be up in arms about the cruelty of keeping him alive to suffer.

Bingo. So let's put it on the table. Pointing out that the state is being irrational about this, refusing to allow euthanasia while suffocating children, seems to me like a good way to get it there. By refusing to let the parents take Charlie to America for further futile treatment attempts, the state has already put itself in the business of telling the Pope to take his religion's obsession with maximizing life span and get stuffed. There is no non-religious reason to regard pulling the plug as more moral than putting a person down the way we do dogs. So for the state to tell the Pope to get stuffed on the one matter and not the other is hypocrisy, and, more importantly, it's bad for patients. So why won't they just bloody well tell the Pope to get stuffed twice? In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[bilby]

That's an odd way of looking at it. These aren't laws of physics we're talking about. What is or isn't illegal is up to the authorities to choose.

The state is trying to do what is best for the patient, within the constraints of the law

That's just another way of saying their primary goal is to obey the law, not to do what's best for the patient. That's what I said: the state actors are making sure that they will not be found to have broken the rules.

- and that qualifier usually goes without saying.

Indeed it does. But it doesn't go without knowing. They all know their goal is to follow the rules, and they all say their goal is to do what's best for the patient. Why the heck should we all politely let that go without comment? That qualifier should not go without saying.

Changing the law to allow for an even better outcome for the patient is not on the table at this time, but I agree with you that it should be; If the patient was a dog, the RSPCA would be up in arms about the cruelty of keeping him alive to suffer.

Bingo. So let's put it on the table. Pointing out that the state is being irrational about this, refusing to allow euthanasia while suffocating children, seems to me like a good way to get it there. By refusing to let the parents take Charlie to America for further futile treatment attempts, the state has already put itself in the business of telling the Pope to take his religion's obsession with maximizing life span and get stuffed. There is no non-religious reason to regard pulling the plug as more moral than putting a person down the way we do dogs. So for the state to tell the Pope to get stuffed on the one matter and not the other is hypocrisy, and, more importantly, it's bad for patients. So why won't they just bloody well tell the Pope to get stuffed twice? In for a penny, in for a pound.

Separation of powers.

The authority in judgement here is the judiciary. The authority with the power to change the law is parliament.

The judge cannot change the law.

 

[laughing dog]

Being "permitted to die" is not in Charlie's best interests. Being euthanized is. If the state were motivated by what is in Charlie's best interests then euthanasia would not be illegal in Britain.

It ought to be obvious that the context of the judge's statement is that given the laws of the England, it is Charliess best interest to not receive the experimental treatment. To expect a judge to flout or contradict the laws of the country is unrealistic.

 

[Bomb#20]

Separation of powers.

The authority in judgement here is the judiciary. The authority with the power to change the law is parliament.

The judge cannot change the law.

All the more reason not to falsify what's going on. You say "The NHS has a legally defined duty to do what is best medically for the patient". No, it just doesn't. It has a legally defined duty to obey Parliament; and Parliament is not commanding the NHS to do what is best medically for the patient. Parliament is commanding the NHS to commit child abuse.