Should the Government or the Patient Decide What is Medically Necessary

[Pup7]

I can’t view them at the moment. You have my word I will.

 

[SuperLuigi]

@Monica83 Thank you for your contributions! I think you are handling the barrage very well.

Unfortunately, whenever this issue comes up there are always people who use cover-fire as their primary interest is in defending government-funded single payer health care, which is a monster to say the least.

How on earth do you know that they do not “really” care.

Personal experience for one. Would you believe people who say they care about you and then utter racist names and epithets your way when you don’t agree? The other: there’s a lot of people out there who are more concerned with being labeled right-wing than being pro-life. To which it must be noted it’s a battle you will never win.

 

[phil19034]

I can’t view them at the moment. You have my word I will.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[Vonsalza]

It doesn’t matter if death take 4 days or 4 years to happen, you do not withhold ordinary care for the direct intent of ending the life.

What is ordinary care for someone expected to die in 4 days vs. someone “expected” to die in 4 years isn’t the same.

Or do you think it is?

No, I’m not ignoring the “unless.” As the Catholic Church teaches, end of life decisions are up to the patient and loved ones. Not the doctors.

Really? CCC 2278:
The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

Again, I’m not talking about pulling the plug on extraordinary means.

Of course you’re not. We just disagree over what those are.

BUT AGAIN - we don’t have the facts here. However, I find it suspicious that its been twice now that one hospital was willing to take a child and that a UK hospital has taken the parents to court to prevent a transfer from happening.

It’s no more suspicious than charging JWs or Scientologists with a crime when they withhold care from their children.

Parents don’t have an absolute right over their kids and flying the kid to Italy would have been extraordinary and painful with zero chance of increasing the child’s life.

To me, this is about rights. The parents should have the right to transfer the child, if another doctor was willing to take him.

It’s about rights to me too. The child should have the right to experience as little suffering as possible.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Children shouldn’t be made to suffer pointlessly just to meet the needs of their parents.

 

[SuperLuigi]

They would not allow the family to leave the country. That is a sign of anti-life tyranny.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Again, sadly, mom and dad don’t always know what’s best.

Neither does the government.

I’ve never met “The Government”, but I’ve seen quite a few judges on the news who clearly know what was better for a few kids than their terrible parents.

Vonsalza:

Sorta sounds like the exact critique levied against insurance companies… They vehemently opposed things like the ACA because it meant they had to actually cover someone who had cancer before getting insurance. !!!!!!

As opposed to…

Nope.

 

[Vonsalza]

They would not allow the family to leave the country. That is a sign of anti-life tyranny.

They wouldn’t allow the kid to be subjected to undue suffering, if that’s what you mean.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’ve never met “The Government”, but I’ve seen quite a few judges on the news who clearly know what was better for a few kids than their terrible parents.

If you think it’s a good idea for the government to be the parent, your civilization won’t last long. But perhaps the real question is do you even care if it does.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’ve never met “The Government”, but I’ve seen quite a few judges on the news who clearly know what was better for a few kids than their terrible parents.

If you think it’s a good idea for the government to be the parent, your civilization won’t last long.

We call that “Rule of Law”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

And you were privileged to see his charts, were you? When was this then?

And remind me, what are your medical qualifications exactly

Uh, no. That is not how medical professionals think.

Emphasis on PROFESSIONAL.

I am one, and know better.

Nothing quite like a good old-fashioned appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[SuperLuigi]

We call that “Rule of Law”.

Like immigration laws?

 

[Vonsalza]

Nothing quite like a good old-fashioned appeal to authority fallacy.

It’s not a fallacy if they’re actually an authority on the subject…

An appeal to authority fallacy is “I’m right because I’m the boss”.

It’s not an appeal to authority fallacy when someone says “As someone who works in the field, I think X”.

 

[phil19034]

Parents don’t have an absolute right over their kids and flying the kid to Italy would have been extraordinary and painful with zero chance of increasing the child’s life.

But the Church teaches that parents have the right to pay for extraordinary care.

Really? CCC 2278:

The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

The people legally entitled to act for the patient in this case are the parents. Not the doctors, hospital, or courts. The decision should have been up to the parents. The fact that the courts can take that legal right away from the parent is wrong. CCC 2278 does not intend for the an EU Court to intervene and take away that right from parents.

What is ordinary care for someone expected to die in 4 days vs. someone “expected” to die in 4 years isn’t the same.

Or do you think it is?

Yes, it is the same. God forbid, something happens to my child and my child has to live as a vegetable with assisted nutrition and hydration for the next 60 years, I cannot remove that assistance. Regardless of how burdensome it is for me, because food and water are always ordinary care (regardless of how it’s delivered).

We just disagree over what those are.

My view of ordinary vs extraordinary care is the same as the Church. I defer to the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the Life Choices Facility of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia Office for Life and Family (both in Philadelphia, PA, USA).

If the NCBC & Life Choices Facility say it’s ordinary care, it’s ordinary care. If the NCBC & Life Choices Facility say it’s extraordinary care, then it’s extraordinary care.

Watch the videos from the Life Choices Faculty. If you agree with them, then we are on the same page. http://phillycatholiclife.org/life-affirming-choices-3/videos/ (you don’t have to start with the first video - which is the whole video)

God Bless

 

[Vonsalza]

But the Church teaches that parents have the right to pay for extraordinary care.

Citation?

The people legally entitled to act for the patient in this case are the parents. Not the doctors, hospital, or courts.

Legally? You’re incorrect here, as much as it hurts. Rule of law is a real thing. Parents are not the absolute rulers of their children.

Yes, it is the same.

No it isn’t, but I understand.

My view of ordinary vs extraordinary care is the same as the Church.

There’s a Bishop over there that might pick a bone with that…

A CATHOLIC one, no less…

 

[phil19034]

Children shouldn’t be made to suffer pointlessly just to meet the needs of their parents.

True. But the acceptable level of suffering is subjective, not objective. You are not qualified to determine what is acceptable for my children, whom I love with all my heart and would do anything to protect them.

Here’s part of what His Excellency, Archbishop Peter Smith said about Charlie Gard:

The tragic situation of baby Charlie Gard is truly heartrending, not least, of course, for his parents and family. Those responsible for his medical care in the UK believe they have done all they can to help him. It is completely understandable, nonetheless, that his parents should also want to pursue every possible chance of extending his life, even when this carries no guarantee of success and would require transfer to the United States. In this, both sides are seeking to act with integrity and for Charlie’s good as they see it. Parental love will so often want to take every possible extra step and this we support.

Parents have the moral right to pursue whatever extra steps they have access to to extend their child’s life.

After all, suffering is redemptive.

 

[Pup7]

If you think it’s a good idea for the government to be the parent…

So look at these…

https://www.masskids.org/index.php/religious-medical-neglect/cases-of-child-deaths

Faith-Based Decisions: Parents Who Refuse Appropriate Care for Their Children, Commentary 1

Physicians need to understand the resources available to them to serve the sometimes conflicting needs of the pediatric patients' best interest and the religious beliefs of the patients' parents.

journalofethics.ama-assn.org

…and tell me when you’d like the state to step in in the name of abuse and protection.

Keep in mind there are states with exemptions for religious practice. Is that okay too?

Some include manslaughter objection based on religion. What??

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/12/most-states-allow-religious-exemptions-from-child-abuse-and-neglect-laws/%3Famp=1

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

But the Church teaches that parents have the right to pay for extraordinary care.

Citation?

The people legally entitled to act for the patient in this case are the parents. Not the doctors, hospital, or courts.

Legally? You’re incorrect here, as much as it hurts. Rule of law is a real thing. Parents are not the absolute rulers of their children.

Yes, it is the same.

No it isn’t, but I understand.

My view of ordinary vs extraordinary care is the same as the Church.

There’s a Bishop over there that might pick a bone with that…

A CATHOLIC one, no less…

Watch the videos I posted.

 

[phil19034]

SuperLuigi:

If you think it’s a good idea for the government to be the parent…

So look at these…

Learn the Facts - Cases of Childhood Deaths due to Parental Religious Objection to Necessary Medical Care

http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2003/08/ccas1-0308.html

…and tell me when you’d like the state to step in in the name of abuse and protection.

Keep in mind there are states with exemptions for religious practice. Is that okay too?

Some include manslaughter objection based on religion. What??

Redirect Notice

There is a fundamental difference here. In your post, these are examples where the parent is doing something that could/does result in death death of their child, while the state is trying to preserve life.

In the issues surrounding both of these little boys, the parents were trying to preserve life and the EU Courts were stopping it.

In my opinion, we should always side with the preservation of life.

 

[Pup7]

In the issues surrounding both of these little boys, the parents were trying to preserve life and the EU Courts were stopping it.

Not the EU. :woman_facepalming:t3::woman_facepalming:t3:

HM’s Courts. Not. The. E. U. It did not go to the EU.

And that isn’t how it worked in the least.