Should the Government or the Patient Decide What is Medically Necessary

[phil19034]

Monica83:

I think Archbishops can sin too. Hes human like you and I.

No, the patient simply had no other avenues of care being in the military. The Evans’ did.

No, they didn’t. They wanted to believe they did, but there wasn’t one.

Honest question for you.

If there wasn’t another avenue to provide palliative care, then why was the hospital in Italy willing to accept him? If the flight would have killed the child, then why was the hospital in Italy willing to accept him?

 

[TheLittleLady]

by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

Note here it speaks of those legally entitled to act for the patient. As we see in some situations a child will be legally represented by a guardian appointed by the courts (I do not know how the UK terms this sort of situation).

Parents can be blinded by fear, manipulated by the unscrupulous, a thousand other things. Sometimes another party has to step in and protect the dignity, the welfare of the child.

In this case, we will never know half of the story. We know what the parents chose to make public and what appears in the court documents. We will not see the medical file nor know even a fraction of what really happened.

These things scare parents, and that is exactly the reaction the media wants. They want us to be up in arms afraid someone is going to take our child and kill it.

We need to step back and look at these things logically.

The Church never says that the parents must use extraordinary, it is legitimate for a parent or a spouse or a sibling to forego extraordinary care (do you have your durable medical power of attorney set up for someone who knows YOUR wishes?)

Still looking for the “moral right to pursue whatever extra steps they have access to” citation. What if the parents wanted to try a brain transplant from the baby in the next room. They have found a doctor who will do it. Do they still have a moral right?

Really, everyone needs to realize that this is an iceberg, we saw a small bit of it and in charity we are commanded to assume that the other parties acted in the best way they could.

 

[phil19034]

Note here it speaks of those legally entitled to act for the patient. As we see in some situations a child will be legally represented by a guardian appointed by the courts (I do not know how the UK terms this sort of situation).

Yes. However, in this situation, I don’t think the court in the UK removed custody from the parents. I don’t know British Law, but I know what is was based on. Courts typically don’t take guardianship away from parents for just one decision. If the court thought the parents were not acting in the best way for the child, they should have taken custody away. But they didn’t.

Parents can be blinded by fear, manipulated by the unscrupulous, a thousand other things. Sometimes another party has to step in and protect the dignity, the welfare of the child.

True. But the protection of the Child’s dignity belongs to the parents. If someone needed to step in, they should have first ruled that both parents were no longer fit to be parents and transferred custody to another family member (for example grandparents or an aunt/uncle).

In this case, we will never know half of the story. We know what the parents chose to make public and what appears in the court documents. We will not see the medical file nor know even a fraction of what really happened.

This is true. The part that seems fishy to me is the fact that the hospital in Italy was willing to take him. If there was no hospital willing to take the child, and the parents were going to try to fly him from hospital to hospital, I would think that would be insane. However, there was a hospital willing to take him. So that’s why I question the wisdom of the courts in this situation. But again, we only have one side the story. But based on what is pubic knowledge, I would feel the same way as those parents.

These things scare parents, and that is exactly the reaction the media wants. They want us to be up in arms afraid someone is going to take our child and kill it.

I don’t think the media necessarily wants this. Most people in the media are liberal, and liberals tend to side with the courts on this. NOTE: I’m not saying all liberals. However, it is a sensational news story from their point of view. Controversy sells and this is surely controversial.

The Church never says that the parents must use extraordinary, it is legitimate for a parent or a spouse or a sibling to forego extraordinary care

Correct. I never said parents must use extraordinary care.

(cont)

 

[phil19034]

(cont)

Still looking for the “moral right to pursue whatever extra steps they have access to” citation. What if the parents wanted to try a brain transplant from the baby in the next room. They have found a doctor who will do it. Do they still have a moral right?

Well, I also said “within the actions of a reasonable adult, parent.” Wanting to perform a brain transplant would not be considered a reasonable action in any way what so ever. Also, I have stated several times that my views on this are based on the the teachings from the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the Life Choices Facility in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. So a “brain transplant” would not be considered a valid option. Again, as a Catholic, parents would have to be kept within the moral law.

Most of my EXTREMELY LIMITED exposure to all this comes from a lecture with Q&A with the Life Choices Facility hosted by my parish.

However, the English Bishops released this as part of their statement regarding 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.

The Bishops of England supported the right of the parents “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.”

http://www.catholicnews.org.uk/Home/News/2017/Charlie-Gard/(language)/eng-GB

 

[phil19034]

I don’t think it matters, because it’s an issue of parental/familial rights, which is something the Church strongly supports.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Honestly, I think healthcare should be left up to the Catholic Church and the government should stay out of it.

 

[Axsenex]

If that is so then they should pay for ADA accessibility too.

 

[Pup7]

If there wasn’t another avenue to provide palliative care, then why was the hospital in Italy willing to accept him? If the flight would have killed the child, then why was the hospital in Italy willing to accept him?

They had already said it would be palliative care. I’m not going to weed through the Internet to find the source, but it’s there, and that is precisely what they had said.

 

[Pup7]

The Church never says that the parents must use extraordinary, it is legitimate for a parent or a spouse or a sibling to forego extraordinary care (do you have your durable medical power of attorney set up for someone who knows YOUR wishes?)

This - but let me tell you, living wills can be challenged.

 

[Pup7]

I went out to see a movie tonight, so I still have not watched your videos. I’m about half an hour from retiring for the night. I am going to keep my word to watch them.

Just letting you know I’m not putting you off.

 

[TheLittleLady]

However, there was a hospital willing to take him

IIRC a statement was released near the end that the hospital in Italy had actually sent a medical team and they had decided they could not provide treatment, only the same end of life care. There are too many jillions of threads to read through to find the link to that one blurb. Maybe someone else remembers it?

 

[SuperLuigi]

An appeal to authority fallacy happens because the person claims to be an authority in the field and that’s the only merit he/she is using.

She works in the field. That makes her something of an authority on things within that field.

lol…

You just made an appeal to authority fallacy by trying to explain appeal to authority fallacy. :clap:t4:

And ending on an “lol”----------------

Have you learned nothing from the Colonel?

 

[Vonsalza]

An appeal to authority fallacy happens because the person claims to be an authority in the field and that’s the only merit he/she is using.

Vonsalza:

She works in the field. That makes her something of an authority on things within that field.

lol…

You just made an appeal to authority fallacy by trying to explain appeal to authority fallacy. :clap:t4:

And ending on an “lol”----------------

Have you learned nothing from the Colonel?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements.

---

No charge, kid.

Now next time you’ll know what you’re talking about.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You seem to be talking about appeal to false authority. That’s a different fallacious argument and I’ve never even mentioned that once.

The argument from authority most certainly may apply to someone who is an expert in the field if they are saying “I’m a medical professional so therefore my argument correct!” which is exactly want happened here.

I would also like to take this time to declare the source you posted as incomplete and therefore invalid.

 

[Vonsalza]

You seem to be talking about appeal to false authority.

Ok buddy.

Whatever you say.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[SuperLuigi]

As I thought. All you did was a google search and that’s all you came up with.

And now the Meme, aka, Vonsalza’s unconditional surrender.

 

[Pup7]

An appeal to authority fallacy happens because the person claims to be an authority in the field and that’s the only merit he/she is using.

I certainly hope this isn’t directed at or is regarding me.

 

[Vonsalza]

As I thought. All you did was a google search and that’s all you came up with.

This is probably the 40th time I’ve referenced stanford’s link on this site alone - it’s darn useful.

…But whatever makes you feel like you have an “out”… lol

 

[Monica83]

I don’t think doctors are authorities in morality. Do they have a lot of medical knowledge? Of course. Can they make predictions? Sure. Are they always right? No. Should they have authority in choosing healthcare plans for a child over a nonabusive/nonneglectful loving parent? Definitely not. You think obgyns should be choosing to abort “terminal” babies? I’m guessing not if you call yourself Catholic. Medical expertise is a false appeal to authority. MANY abortion doctors appeal to their roles as medical professionals or their years of education/hands on expertise to excuse killing babies-“the fetus doesn’t feel pain until 28 weeks so its fine. You aren’t a doctor so you wouldn’t know this.”-an actual conversation I had with “Dr.” Leah Torres.

 

[Pup7]

I actually don’t think most humans are moral authorities. We are far too fallible and malleable and able to be influenced.

Doctors are, however, experts in ethics. Their license requires it - regardless of whether you are here or in the UK.

“the fetus doesn’t feel pain until 28 weeks so its fine. You aren’t a doctor so you wouldn’t know this.”-an actual conversation I had with “Dr.” Leah Torres.

That’s not a fallible moral claim.

That’s a fallible physiological claim. There’s a difference.

And before you jump in with both feet, I am NOT saying that any abortion doctor has a moralistic claim to what they are doing. I’m pointing out that your example isn’t a great one. That’s not morals. That’s horrible physiology.