Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Whatever lets you sleep at night bro. But seriously, you'd have to have a seriously sick mind to think that. Turning it around to claim that I, and the parents, are the actual monsters here.

They are, they really are.

Anyone with any actual experience in this will tell you that.

No they wont.

Mostly because I have experience in this and I am not saying that.

I think the sane points have been made, and everyone can walk away from the crazy train now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Whatever lets you sleep at night bro. But seriously, you'd have to have a seriously sick mind to think that. Turning it around to claim that I, and the parents, are the actual monsters here.

They are, they really are.

Anyone with any actual experience in this will tell you that.

No they wont.

Mostly because I have experience in this and I am not saying that.

Well, my anecdotal group of folks who have dealt with families keeping empty shells alive and suffering agrees at least.

I have no empathy for family putting their emotional needs above the needs of the patient.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, its totally an overreaction and throwing a tantrum to find it morally wrong for the government to be able to kill someone because "they're suffering".

Except that the government isnt doing that.

The government in this case is not killing anyone.

This person is already going to die imminently. The government is saying that, given such a situation and that the proposed treatment is extremely involved and a loooooooooooooooooong shot (and is unready for live human trials), and where even if successful would, at best, result in human potato living a few extra years, it's best to just let it go for the sake of the patient.

These are not the thing.

The US has had 12 years to implement the wholesale execution of the sick, how are the medical executions coming along?

 welshhoppo wrote:
A case that springs to mind is when a woman was suffering from pre-eclampsia and was refusing treatment, despite the fact that it would kill her and kill her child. So the doctors went to court to give treatment for the child to live. It was granted. And then the woman sued the hospital for GBH and she won.

So you're saying the state was having a mild autoimmune incident?

I've never tried medical humor before, okay?

Didn't one of those big profile coma cases in the US, you know the ones where someone wants to end life support and someone else doesn't and they have a big court battle over who gets to have the final say, end in something like this? Anyone? I'd swear I heard one where life support was ultimately ended, and the person who lost the court battle then sued over wrongful death or some such and won.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, its totally an overreaction and throwing a tantrum to find it morally wrong for the government to be able to kill someone because "they're suffering".

Except that the government isnt doing that.

The government in this case is not killing anyone.

This person is already going to die imminently. The government is saying that, given such a situation and that the proposed treatment is extremely involved and a loooooooooooooooooong shot (and is unready for live human trials), and where even if successful would, at best, result in human potato living a few extra years, it's best to just let it go for the sake of the patient.

These are not the thing.

Riiiight. Its just the government saying that you can only get treatments if they have a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise you should just die already and get it over with.

We'll never know what might have happened if he'd gotten the treatment. Maybe it would have substantially improved his function and let him live even longer than a few years. Maybe it would have done nothing. Either way, it was immoral not to try. Once you tried the treatment, and if it failed and there was literally nothing left. Then maybe we could talk about pulling the plug. Then maybe we could say that the parents should let go. But instead it got ended early. And that was truly monstrous.

Nobody involved in the expiremtal treatment argued that it would result in any improvement.

 d-usa wrote:
Nobody involved in the expiremtal treatment argued that it would result in any improvement.

Well then why would they call it a treatment then?

It might help mechanical function.

Mental functions, no effect or minimal.
He was blind, deaf, not registering much activity that should be there had signs of extensive and irreversible brain damage.

Sure you might fix the body but it has no advanced higher level function bar existing.

Is that life. Or is that just a extension of his suffering.

 d-usa wrote:
I think the sane points have been made, and everyone can walk away from the crazy train now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Whatever lets you sleep at night bro. But seriously, you'd have to have a seriously sick mind to think that. Turning it around to claim that I, and the parents, are the actual monsters here.

They are, they really are.

Anyone with any actual experience in this will tell you that.

No they wont.

Mostly because I have experience in this and I am not saying that.

Well, my anecdotal group of folks who have dealt with families keeping empty shells alive and suffering agrees at least.

I have no empathy for family putting their emotional needs above the needs of the patient.

That is sad, because you should always have empathy for family who are losing a loved one. Some people do not have the experience we have, they cannot deal with death like we do. They cope in different ways, they have not had to develop the skills we have in order to deal with it. We have to take a few minutes, then move on to the next person we are treating. But these are family members, loved ones. You should always feel empathy for people trying to cope, even if they do not understand what they are doing.

You cannot hold everybody to the standards of a nurse or doctor.

It's okay to have empathy for the family. But the patient comes first, always.

Grey Templar wrote:Yes, its totally an overreaction and throwing a tantrum to find it morally wrong for the government to be able to kill someone because "they're suffering".

How many times does it need to be pointed out that the government had no input at all in this case? Not a jot. Nothing.

Got it yet?

 jhe90 wrote:
It might help mechanical function.

Mental functions, no effect or minimal.
He was blind, deaf, not registering much activity that should be there had signs of extensive and irreversible brain damage.

Sure you might fix the body but it has no advanced higher level function bar existing.

Is that life. Or is that just a extension of his suffering.

Maybe not. But it could have. We still don't know very much about the brain. People come out of comas for no reason at all.

It is possible that better mechanical function could potentially allow for some brain healing. Besides, they had raised all the necessary money to do it. If they tried it and he didn't have any improvement, then we could talk about ending it. But not before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Yes, its totally an overreaction and throwing a tantrum to find it morally wrong for the government to be able to kill someone because "they're suffering".

How many times does it need to be pointed out that the government had no input at all in this case? Not a jot. Nothing.

Got it yet?

Did you miss the court ruling? That was the government stepping in and giving their input, because courts are part of the government. The judge clearly knew that as a result of his ruling the baby would die.

But by all means, continue to justify society moving towards an awful dystopia.

This is a highly emotional case.

Back in March, an independent panel of medical experts assessed the little boy and considered he had no chance of recovery, there was no realistic treatment, and to keep him alive simply prolonged his suffering.

The only doctor who disagreed with this diagnosis was the American Japanese doctor who was prepared to offer $1,000,000 of experimental treatment that has never been used on this kind of disease, and gave a 10% chance of improvement. Crucially that doctor had not examined the patient or even read the case notes, so he essentially was completely guessing.

This was the basis of facts that led the judges -- not the government because in the UK and Europe we have the rule of law -- to deny the parents' case on two occasions. I believe the European Court of Human Rights declined to hear the case after it went through the UK Supreme Court.

I completely understand the parents mental suffering and their desire to cling to the slightest shred of hope.

I also understand the emotional response of the general public. It was the same thing when Cameron clamped down on refugee immigration. A week later that 3-year-old boy got drowned, his picture was on the front pages, suddenly everyone loved the poor refugees, and Cameron did a U-turn and increased the UK allocation.

In the Gard case things have gone too far. We have got to the point of death threats to doctors, and corresponding 'social' media vitriol against the supporters of the Gard family. This is why emotion has to be tempered with rational consideration. This is best done through the medium of the law.

As for the argument about "death panels", the Gards raised £1.5 million by crowd-funding to pay for treatment. The reasons for denying it were medical, not financial.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, its totally an overreaction and throwing a tantrum to find it morally wrong for the government to be able to kill someone because "they're suffering".

Except that the government isnt doing that.

The government in this case is not killing anyone.

This person is already going to die imminently. The government is saying that, given such a situation and that the proposed treatment is extremely involved and a loooooooooooooooooong shot (and is unready for live human trials), and where even if successful would, at best, result in human potato living a few extra years, it's best to just let it go for the sake of the patient.

These are not the thing.

Riiiight. Its just the government saying that you can only get treatments if they have a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise you should just die already and get it over with.

No, it's not that tha treatment should have X chance of success, but that, even if successful, at absolute best you'd be left with a human potato. Thats the crux of the issue.

We'll never know what might have happened if he'd gotten the treatment. Maybe it would have substantially improved his function and let him live even longer than a few years. Maybe it would have done nothing. Either way, it was immoral not to try.

In my first post, I said that if there was any chance the kid could recover, they should have done it, and if such was the case they probably would have allowed it.

But that wasnt the case. Nobody, not even the US doctor claimed that this would reverse the extensive damage already done. This is to say nothing of the fact that it was not designed to treat the condition the way it was expressed in this child nor for people with the secondary conditions this child had. It's like using a screwdriver as a hammer and hoping it works.

Just like putting out a housefire wont magically rebuild the house, all you do is stop further destruction, but the consequences cannot be reversed simply by stopping whatever caused it, throwing fire suppressant all over everything doesnt fix it. This treatment *may* have stopped further destruction, but the damage already done is likely to be fatal over time and would not be affected by the treatment.

This was a choice between allowing the kid to die now, or putting him through a gruelling experience so he may have the tiniest of chances to live to 3 or 5 as vegetable. There was never any chance of regaining that body function or mental capacity.

That's what it ultimately came down to, and thats why the parents were told "no". From a medical ethics standpoint, thats an absolutely valid conclusion.

We can speculate on hypotheticals until the end of time, but medical decisions should not be based on the hope for literal miracles.

Grey Templar wrote: Not the same thing. Killing someone who has been convicted of a heinous crime is not the same as deciding to kill an innocent person whose only crime was being sick.

They didn't euthanise the child, hey withdrew treatment from a terminal case that had already left a child severely brain damaged, unable to really think, see, hear or move.

Patients often have ventilators and life support turned off when the situation is hopeless, we have do not resuscitate so as to not continually make painful attempts to pull people back from death, we don't keep administering CPR beyond a certain point.

Calling a day on treatment is not the same as killing a patient.

nfe wrote:
None of us have anything close to the expertise to discuss this intelligently.

It's a question about morality, we're not getting into the specifics of whether or not the therapy would have worked.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But, the doctors do not have the right to make that call. The parents are the legal guardians of the baby. They should be the ones to make the decision. Not the doctors. Doctors should never force a particular course of action. They need consent, and should always need consent. They should never have the right to override the people who have that right.

This is simplistic, and if you think about it, you know it. For example, if a child has an illness that a blood transfusion would fix, and the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and have a religious objection to blood transfusions, the state will take custody of the child until the child has been treated. Do you think that's wrong, and that parents have the right to let their children die in totally avoidable ways due to non-medical reasons? I'm sure you don't.

Grey Templar wrote:
Did you miss the court ruling? That was the government stepping in and giving their input, because courts are part of the government. The judge clearly knew that as a result of his ruling the baby would die.

But by all means, continue to justify society moving towards an awful dystopia.

Good grief. Courts are not an arm of government. They're seperate entities to which the government is answerable, and which frequently rule against them. One of the courts appealed to was not even in the UK.

You're doing yourself no favours displaying this level of ignorance whilst suggesting everyone disagreeing with you, that to an individual seem to have a better grasp of the situation, are evil baby-killing monsters.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The potential abuse of a legal guardian is far far less worse than the guaranteed abuse that a government with total power and authority to kill any injured or sick citizen would be.

The government is not your friend. It should never be given anything close to this kind of authority. This is about as evil as you could get.

The government didn't kill anyone. Doctors made a determination, parents disagreed they went to court, court heard arguments and rendered a verdict. This is no where even close to some kind of dystopia.

You gotta dial it back man. Like jesus you are overreacting in a way that makes me concerned for your quality of life (and I'm a self admitted donkey-cave XD)

No the government definitely did kill him. They were the ones who had the power to say Yes or No. They said Yes. Ergo, they did do the deed through the doctor.

No, its not total dystopia yet. But this is how you get one. Little things like this which advance over time, and people like you who go along with it and buy all the BS to justify it.

I don't think you understood what happened.

The court =/= the government. And it was not just the UK courts, but also the European court of human rights.

They did not say anyone could kill anyone. They agreed doctors could withdraw treatment when they felt that was in the best interest of the patient. Exactly the same choice made by doctors across the world every day.

The situation is totally not what you are making it out to be.

Here is two US articles explaining the concept of withdrawing or refusing treatment:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795406/
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2015/06/11/when-doctors-withdraw-cancer-treatment/?referer=

nfe wrote:
are evil baby-killing monsters.

Hey man. I only work with the government kill babies because I gotta maintain my alignment!

 Grey Templar wrote:


Did you miss the court ruling? That was the government stepping in and giving their input, because courts are part of the government. The judge clearly knew that as a result of his ruling the baby would die.

But by all means, continue to justify society moving towards an awful dystopia.

You usually have a much higher level of discourse, GT. Surely you understand how much of a complete fething backwards pageantry you've made of your last post?

I mean, you're free to argue the moral side of the story, but all you did in the last 3 page is a bad pastiche of Breitbart, and you should be conscious of it.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Did you miss the court ruling? That was the government stepping in and giving their input, because courts are part of the government. The judge clearly knew that as a result of his ruling the baby would die.

But by all means, continue to justify society moving towards an awful dystopia.

You usually have a much higher level of discourse, GT. Surely you understand how much of a complete fething backwards pageantry you've made of your last post?

I mean, you're free to argue the moral side of the story, but all you did in the last 3 page is a bad pastiche of Breitbart, and you should be conscious of it.

Sorry, I just kind of lose it when people try to justify immoral acts like this one.

And its pretty ridiculous to say courts aren't part of the government. The Judiciary is a branch of government. So yes. Its impossible to say that it wasn't the government getting involved.

This case isn't an indictment against the NHS/Single-payor system...

This is more about the relationship and rights between the patient, his parents, the providers and the UK government (yes, that include the court system).

Medically, there may have been no hope for Charlie... even at an earlier date.

Politically, I find that the process the Gards were subjected to was a crude power play of the state against the individual (the parents)... and the state won.

What's lost in this whole ordeal, imo, is this:
The treatment may or may not have caused pain (there were many divergent thoughts on this). Lots of treatments do cause pain and horrible side effects... chemotherapy and radiation treatments for cancer just as a for instance. But, really, that's beside the point.

The point is, Gard's parents believed that the chance to prolong his life was worth the chance and felt they had more options. They loved him and are in a much better position to judge than anyone else.

It's a shame that the providers/courts wouldn't give the parents the dignity to exhaust all options (since they had the means to do so).

I couldn't say what I would do as this ordeal is stuff of nightmares for me (being a father myself). But, if my kid were devastatingly sick, and I had the means to provide them alternative treatment.... I'd move the heavens to get him there, consequences be damned.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Did you miss the court ruling? That was the government stepping in and giving their input, because courts are part of the government. The judge clearly knew that as a result of his ruling the baby would die.

But by all means, continue to justify society moving towards an awful dystopia.

You usually have a much higher level of discourse, GT. Surely you understand how much of a complete fething backwards pageantry you've made of your last post?

I mean, you're free to argue the moral side of the story, but all you did in the last 3 page is a bad pastiche of Breitbart, and you should be conscious of it.

Sorry, I just kind of lose it when people try to justify immoral acts like this one.

And its pretty ridiculous to say courts aren't part of the government. The Judiciary is a branch of government. So yes. Its impossible to say that it wasn't the government getting involved.

Many (including me) would say that continuing treatment is an immoral act. It is an act that continues the suffering of a child with no benefit.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Did you miss the court ruling? That was the government stepping in and giving their input, because courts are part of the government. The judge clearly knew that as a result of his ruling the baby would die.

But by all means, continue to justify society moving towards an awful dystopia.

You usually have a much higher level of discourse, GT. Surely you understand how much of a complete fething backwards pageantry you've made of your last post?

I mean, you're free to argue the moral side of the story, but all you did in the last 3 page is a bad pastiche of Breitbart, and you should be conscious of it.

Sorry, I just kind of lose it when people try to justify immoral acts like this one.

And its pretty ridiculous to say courts aren't part of the government. The Judiciary is a branch of government. So yes. Its impossible to say that it wasn't the government getting involved.

It's only ridiculous if you have no idea what you're talking about. Please tell me how the ECHR is a branch of British government.

Because in America the nominal independence of the court system is rarely recognized or appreciated.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Did you miss the court ruling? That was the government stepping in and giving their input, because courts are part of the government. The judge clearly knew that as a result of his ruling the baby would die.

But by all means, continue to justify society moving towards an awful dystopia.

You usually have a much higher level of discourse, GT. Surely you understand how much of a complete fething backwards pageantry you've made of your last post?

I mean, you're free to argue the moral side of the story, but all you did in the last 3 page is a bad pastiche of Breitbart, and you should be conscious of it.

Sorry, I just kind of lose it when people try to justify immoral acts like this one

Aren't you the guy that argued that the death penalty was OK even when you for sure know that innocent people are killed, and that no anesthetic should be used?

Please, tells us more about how the government needs to respect the sanctity of life.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Nobody involved in the expiremtal treatment argued that it would result in any improvement.

Well then why would they call it a treatment then?

Why would they call it experimental.

Grey Templar, after reading all of your posts... did you actually give a damm about this kid or are you just pushing an agenda?

This kid is better death than """"""alive""""" for 4-5 more years as a vegetable.. Thats the reality.
I don't see the problem with the law protecting voiceless citizens from being used and abused. Is like how a parent can chose to not vacinate their children. Or to reject a blood transfusion if they are Jehova Whitnesess, resulting in the child dying. Thats just absurd. All because we fear the BIG BROTHER , HE WANTS TO STEAL OUR FOOD AND KILL OUR COWS! The goverment is not our friend.
Viva la resistance!

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Did you miss the court ruling? That was the government stepping in and giving their input, because courts are part of the government. The judge clearly knew that as a result of his ruling the baby would die.

But by all means, continue to justify society moving towards an awful dystopia.

You usually have a much higher level of discourse, GT. Surely you understand how much of a complete fething backwards pageantry you've made of your last post?

I mean, you're free to argue the moral side of the story, but all you did in the last 3 page is a bad pastiche of Breitbart, and you should be conscious of it.

Sorry, I just kind of lose it when people try to justify immoral acts like this one

Aren't you the guy that argued that the death penalty was OK even when you for sure know that innocent people are killed, and that no anesthetic should be used?

Please, tells us more about how the government needs to respect the sanctity of life.

This confirms it then. He doesn't give a damm about the poor kid. He was just pushing an agenda. And have you the face to call other people "Inmoral"? Whaaat. Nice double standards.

Desubot wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Nobody involved in the expiremtal treatment argued that it would result in any improvement.

Well then why would they call it a treatment then?

Why would they call it experimental.

Galas wrote:Grey Templar, after reading all of your posts... did you actually give a damm about this kid or are you just pushing an agenda?

This kid is better death than be """"""alive""""" for 4-5 more years as a vegetable.. Thats the reality.
I don't see the problem with the law protecting voiceless citizens from being used and abused. Is like how a parent can chose to not vacinate their children. Or to reject a blood transfusion if they are Jehova Whitnesess, resulting in the child dying. Thats just absurd. All because we fear the BIG BROTHER , HE WANTS TO STEAL OUR FOOD AND KILL OUR COWS! The goverment is not our friend.
Viva la resistance!

Experimental to point it never been tested on a rat with his condition.
Not even tested to any degree. Only proven results are on similar, but similar is not exact.

Secondly..
Live as a vegetable, forever stuck brain damaged in a bed for 4-5years. That is no life.
Life is being able to do more than lie in a bed on a machine.

That's just existing, and exiting is not a life worth living.