Nanny State

It took an appeal outside of the UK's highest court to make it happen, but baby Charlie Gard narrowly avoided death by state decree today... well, at least until Tuesday.

His parents have been doing whatever necessary to get him here to the States to treat his very rare ailment, but the three person death panel in the UK determined that they know better than the parents as to what constitutes the child's best interest.
One of these geniuses opined...

"The parents are deemed to be … the sole and only determiner of what can happen, [that’s] dangerous and it’s power without end.”

Arrogant parents!
Don't they know the State rules in these matters?
What is wrong with people these days, thinking they know what's best for their own children?!
Someone needs to put such defiance in its place.
Soon.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It took an appeal outside of the UK's highest court to make it happen, but baby Charlie Gard narrowly avoided death by state decree today... well, at least until Tuesday.

His parents have been doing whatever necessary to get him here to the States to treat his very rare ailment, but the three person death panel in the UK determined that they know better ...[text shortened]... ow what's best for their own children?!
Someone needs to put such defiance in its place.
Soon.

The case is bizarre to say the least; the parents have raised enough money to pay for travel and treatment in the US, but UK courts have blocked it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40225132

The European Court of Human Rights has stayed previous orders which would have allowed the hospital Charlie is presently in to end life support at least until a proceeding on Tuesday.

After Brexit, will the ECHR have any jurisdiction in the UK?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It took an appeal outside of the UK's highest court to make it happen, but baby Charlie Gard narrowly avoided death by state decree today... well, at least until Tuesday.

His parents have been doing whatever necessary to get him here to the States to treat his very rare ailment, but the three person death panel in the UK determined that they know better ...[text shortened]... ow what's best for their own children?!
Someone needs to put such defiance in its place.
Soon.

Well it's socialized medicine at its finest.

Not only is it what they offer their citizens, it's like Hotel California baby! You can never leave and get treated elsewhere.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The case is bizarre to say the least; the parents have raised enough money to pay for travel and treatment in the US, but UK courts have blocked it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40225132

The European Court of Human Rights has stayed previous orders which would have allowed the hospital Charlie is presently in to end life support at least until a proceeding on Tuesday.

After Brexit, will the ECHR have any jurisdiction in the UK?

According to the article, the money isn't for "treatment" but for prolonging the baby's life so it can suffer a bit more.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
According to the article, the money isn't for "treatment" but for prolonging the baby's life so it can suffer a bit more.

Not true. From the link I provided:

The American doctor who has agreed to treat Charlie has previously told the High Court the six-month therapy would be "treatment but not a cure".
The neurologist who would oversee the treatment told the court that while Charlie was in the "terminal stage" of his illness, treating him would be compassionate.
He added that there could be a meaningful improvement to his brain function meaning that he might be able to interact and smile.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not true. From the link I provided:

The American doctor who has agreed to treat Charlie has previously told the High Court the six-month therapy would be "treatment but not a cure".
The neurologist who would oversee the treatment told the court that while Charlie was in the "terminal stage" of his illness, treating him would be compassionate.
He add ...[text shortened]... eaningful improvement to his brain function meaning that he might be able to interact and smile.

That's the part I was alluding to.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That's the part I was alluding to.

Then your remark that the money wasn't for treatment is puzzling to say the least.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
According to the article, the money isn't for "treatment" but for prolonging the baby's life so it can suffer a bit more.

Suffer more?
Ouch.
While every single one of us--- who have come to some degree of consciousness--- is free to play our individual token in any fashion we choose, i.e., ending one's life, a baby is not capable of making that decision for themselves.
That's why parents were invented: to make decisions for their children until their children develop into sentient beings themselves.
These parents are perfectly within their rights and obligations to exercise that traditional role--- "traditional" as in, for ever.
And if these parents deem whatever suffering their child may be asked to endure in the hope to gain some kind of contact, any kind of contact with the two people who love him more than their own lives, as worth it, I am persuaded they absolutely are right.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Suffer more?
Ouch.
While every single one of us--- who have come to some degree of consciousness--- is free to play our individual token in any fashion we choose, i.e., ending one's life, a baby is not capable of making that decision for themselves.
That's why parents were invented: to make decisions for their children until their children develop into ...[text shortened]... e who love him more than their own lives, as worth it, I am persuaded they absolutely are right.

If you think parents are the best people to make decisions
for their children you are a bigger fool than I previously thought.

Try working with Social Services for a while.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then your remark that the money wasn't for treatment is puzzling to say the least.

My point, and the content of the article, is that it is "treatment" only in the sense of slightly prolonging the baby's suffering.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If you think parents are the best people to make decisions
for their children you are a bigger fool than I previously thought.

Try working with Social Services for a while.

Come on, nothing in my post suggests that.
There is an assumption of solid parenting, as that isn't in the State's consideration.

I've seen plenty of examples of people who cannot control themselves, let alone parent a child into adulthood, and in those cases, the State absolutely should intervene... and get the child to someone who will be a parent... who makes those decisions for them.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It took an appeal outside of the UK's highest court to make it happen, but baby Charlie Gard narrowly avoided death by state decree today... well, at least until Tuesday.

His parents have been doing whatever necessary to get him here to the States to treat his very rare ailment, but the three person death panel in the UK determined that they know better ...[text shortened]... ow what's best for their own children?!
Someone needs to put such defiance in its place.
Soon.

Complete bollocks and taking the whole story out of context.

The kid is going to die.
Without life support, it will die.
The trial treatment in the US won't cure it, might slightly increase brain function for a limited time.
Might, trial, costs millions and even the doctor who's willibg tondonthe trial says the kid is going to die; the parents might get a smile.
(Source: the link Marauder posted).

The EU court has said it needs more time to study the case and that the kid should remain on life support until they've come to a conclusion.

There's nothing wrong with any of it. Even the parents can't be blamed for their wanting.
However, doctors and judges are weighing up the distress a move to the US will cause the kid for a treatment that might increase brain activity, but has 0% chance of a cure.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Complete bollocks and taking the whole story out of context.

The kid is going to die.
Without life support, it will die.
The trial treatment in the US won't cure it, might slightly increase brain function for a limited time.
Might, trial, costs millions and even the doctor who's willibg tondonthe trial says the kid is going to die; the parents might ...[text shortened]... l cause the kid for a treatment that might increase brain activity, but has 0% chance of a cure.

Looks like I missed it.
What was the point?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Looks like I missed it.
What was the point?

Common-sense.

I can see why you missed it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Looks like I missed it.
What was the point?

The point is you missed it in your OP.