Starker on 28/4/2018 at 01:35
Before you start thanking the liberals, you might want to know that the law that allows the UK government to do this was passed by the Conservative Party. In fact, they had a landslide majority at the time.
Pyrian on 28/4/2018 at 01:35
What is it with these guys and multi-posts? Is it some kind of propagandist SOP?
Renzatic on 28/4/2018 at 01:41
There isn't a shred of hope left to them. He was in a semi-vegetative state since practically the day he was born, and has only gotten worse from there. The only thing a potential miracle cure will do is keep the kid alive. They will never have
a son.
You're advocating placating the needs of despairing parents with empty hope at the expense of the child. Transporting him will lead to nothing but pain and suffering for all.
jkcerda on 28/4/2018 at 02:01
These guys are under socialized medicine and all the pitfalls that come with it. Compare it to say Medicare in the U.S. you seriously think they know better and no one else can help the child elsewhere? Concentrating on the kid is really not my point. As a vulture I am pointing out the citizens are at the mercy of both the criminals and the govt whims. Guy in post 542 made a difference that saved his sons life. These poor souls don't have that option or the means at all to take kid by force elsewhere where he could get the care he needs. DRs make mistakes. Alfie is 23 months. Not bad for a kid that has been a vegetable since almost birth
Starker on 28/4/2018 at 02:43
It's not just the GOSH doctors that say there is no hope for improvement. Other experts, including American ones, have been consulted about this. And it's not like the Vatican hospital is offering a treatment, let alone a cure.
Understandably, the parents want to keep their child alive at any cost as long as possible. But the doctors also have an ethical obligation to prevent unnecessary suffering. And the UK government, following a law passed by conservatives, has an obligation to intervene in this case in the interest of the child.
Also, once more, this has absolutely nothing to do with "socialised medicine". Italy also has "socialised medicine", for example.
jkcerda on 28/4/2018 at 03:00
Starker. Guns aside do you believe the govt /GOSH/ hospital blah blah blah should have the power to keep the kid till he dies? Or should the parents be able to decide.?
Starker on 28/4/2018 at 03:35
I generally believe the parents have the right (and the obligation) to decide what's best for their children, except when they are neglecting them and/or causing them harm, in which case the government should definitely intervene.
As for Alfie Evans, I'm not sure whether this is the case. The parents want to keep their child alive, but if that means they are making the child suffer, should they be allowed to do it? Is it best for the child? It's kind of a murky situation, and things are very heated due to politics and religion.
I'll flip it around and ask you whether parents should have the power to make medical decisions for their children even against the child's best interests?
jkcerda on 28/4/2018 at 03:56
That's an awesome flip. And it entails a lot like the anti Vaxxers and idiots who try to “pray” illness away , I agree with the points you raise , there are times when govt intervention is needed to prevent harm to minors . As an outsider looking in Alfies plight is a biased issue depending on what sources are presented , easy to arm chair quarterback from way back here because in THIS case I don't believe the govt should have the way so when others have offered to help. And as pointed out we have the other end of things with morons just praying a kid gets better , issue is very complex. Balancing freedom with govt intervention is never easy , I prefer less govt but do acknowledge there is some govt intervention needed at times
Starker on 28/4/2018 at 05:14
The powers of the state in regard to the individual certainly should be kept in check, as the potential for (and history of) misuse is so great. A well-functioning independent judicial system is the traditional way to do it, but of course people should not be overly reliant on the government either. But this is a matter of balance that I don't think people will agree on ever. Definitely a lot of room for debate there.
Draxil on 28/4/2018 at 05:16
Quote Posted by Starker
I generally believe the parents have the right (and the obligation) to decide what's best for their children, except when they are neglecting them and/or causing them harm, in which case the government should definitely intervene.
As for Alfie Evans, I'm not sure whether this is the case. The parents want to keep their child alive, but if that means they are making the child suffer, should they be allowed to do it? Is it best for the child? It's kind of a murky situation, and things are very heated due to politics and religion.
This is a case of the UK exerting it's role as the lessor of parental rights. Parents in the UK have the right to decide things for their children unless the state, the Ultimate Parent, says otherwise.
The judge in this case ruled that: (
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained) “almost the entirety of Alfie's brain [has] been eroded leaving only water and cerebral spinal fluid ... the connective pathways within the white matter of the brain which facilitate rudimentary sensation — hearing, touch, taste and sight — had been obliterated.” If he is so senseless that he can't feel pain, (
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf) as, indeed, the doctors of Alder Hey testified, then the state's argument that they're trying to keep him from unnecessary pain is ridiculous. The state has no compelling interest in overriding the parents' decision in what is in the best interest of their son.
To me, this seems a(nother) very dangerous precedent for the subjects of the UK. And never has "subject" been a more fitting term. You are subject, absolutely, to the whim of the state. Of course the state has a "monopoly" on legal violence. It make the laws. They could pass a law tomorrow, dismember Alfie and take his still-beating healthy-little heart for another more deserving subject, and that would be legal. It's not a very far fetched scenario, either.
Quote:
I'll flip it around and ask you whether parents should have the power to make medical decisions for their children even against the child's best interests?
Why stop at medical interests? Why not educational, social, physical? It's illegal to home-school in Germany; if caught doing so you can face hefty fines and have your children taken away. Do you approve? Why should parents be allowed to raise their children on a diet of McDonald's and KFC? Do you know how unhealthy that is, and what studies show about obesity in children and depression, yadayadayada...
In fact, does anyone really have business having children without state permission? (see: China)
halfway through typing this, I heard my 2 year old son's croaky voice saying "dad, i needtago pee". So I took him. And I realized, while he peed all over the toilet rim and tiles of my bathroom, a few things:
First, the answer to your above question is "yes", with the understanding that it's not always going to work out for the best as far as the kids are concerned. And that's too bad, but it's the price to be paid for free societies. It's neither possible nor desirable to have a government that can fix all social ills. Once upon a time, during the reign of Pius IX, it was deemed appropriate by the authorities to seize the children of Jewish parents who had been baptized (the kids, that is), even if the baptism was done against the will of the parents. The thought process was that the spiritual welfare of the children outweighed the rights of the parents. You seem to be advocating for the same thing, from the secular side. Unless there is clear-cut child abuse happening, the state should have a very limited role in parent-child interactions. The child-parent relationship predates the citizen-state relationship, and is far more important to society.
second: I love my (5) children more than anything in this world, and I feel a great deal of pain contemplating Alfie's parents' agony. There's nothing in the world as terrifying as the prospect of harm coming to my kids.
third: If any judge in this country tried to do to my family what Mr. Justice Hayden has done to the Evans family, I, or someone in my family, would kill him. I'm very certain of that. It's a coldly comforting thought, and a nice touchstone--I know exactly what it would take for me to take up arms against the state. Is there anything the state could do to you that would make you take up arms against it?
fourth:
I love living in a country where I have the means at my disposal to make #3 a reality, and this entire episode has steeled my pro-gun position. The UK could only benefit from angry mobs gunning down black-robed-wig-wearing despots, methinks.
