Should the Government or the Patient Decide What is Medically Necessary

  • Thread starter Thread starter HolySpirit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not qualified myself but appropriate professionals would be. parents can sometimes be more focused on protecting themselves from grief than protecting the best interests of their children
 
Here are just two places where I read the “EU” got involved, at least in regards to Charlie Gard.
How did Donald Trump and the Pope get involved?
In the wake of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision not to allow the parents to intervene in their child’s case, Donald Trump waded into the controversy.

The President said he would be “delighted” to help the tot, as a US hospital offered to ship an experimental drug to the UK to save him.

The Pope declared that he wanted to give baby Charlie Gard a Vatican passport to move him to an Italian hospital.
Click to expand...
The European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday a hospital can discontinue life support to a baby suffering from a rare genetic disease. His life support will be switched off Friday, his parents said.
Click to expand...

Now, I just looked up the European Court of Human Rights, and apparently it is actually a separate entity from the EU. I had mistakenly assumed that since it was an international, European court, that is was part of the EU.
 
Last edited:
Andy235 said:
Meeting him doesnt make you one.
Click to expand...
Kaninchen said:
Just making it up as you go along.
Click to expand...
Thank you both for being uncharitable by insulting me. You can argue with me without insulting me.

BTW @kaninchen - I was not making anything up. I was reporting what I read, which very well may have been incorrect. But I did not make anything up. Read my previous post.

Thank you.
 
Vonsalza said:
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.
Click to expand...
For some reason this falls on deaf ears. Children are not property, we fight to remind people of this in the battle against abortion and against human trafficking. We cannot have it both ways.
 
phil19034 said:
Now, I just looked up the European Court of Human Rights, and apparently it is a separate entity from the EU. But when other papers mentioned EU, I had assumed that the ECHR was part of the EU.
Click to expand...
Not only is the ECHR not part of the EU, its position was that it declined to take the case - as it did with Charlie Gard.
 
phil19034 said:
BTW @kaninchen - I was not making anything up. I was reporting what I read, which very well may have been incorrect. But I did not make anything up. Read my previous post.
Click to expand...
Right, you were reporting people who had been making it up as they went along.
 
The EU is a mutual economic and political agreement. They are very guilty of what I would call “mission creep” on a lot of subjects, I would agree - but not this one, and you’re right - they’re not the Euro Human Rights court. That’s not their job.
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
phil19034:
Parents have the moral right to pursue whatever extra steps they have access to to extend their child’s life.
Click to expand...
Citation please?
Click to expand...
NOTE: I did not say moral duty. Big difference.

For starters, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in regards to extraordinary care
  1. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. 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.
It says withholding extraordinary care CAN BE LEGITIMATE. We are under no moral obligation to provide extraordinary care, however, the decision should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or by those legally entitled to act for the patient (aka parents and/or next of kin). That should NOT be the doctors, hospital, or state (unless the child was a ward of the state).
“It is some weeks now since Pope Francis said that he was following ‘with affection and emotion the case of little Charlie Gard and expresses his own closeness to his parents. For them he prays, hoping that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end is not ignored.’
Click to expand...
http://www.catholicnews.org.uk/Home/News/2017/Charlie-Gard2/(language)/eng-GB
Parental love will so often want to take every possible extra step and this we support.
Click to expand...
http://www.catholicnews.org.uk/Home/News/2017/Charlie-Gard/(language)/eng-GB

The number one issue I have with all of this is that the parents, who are the legal guardians of the child were taken to court because they were attempting to extend their child’s life. It’s wrong for the court to rule against the parents in this situation, without totally removing custody from the parents due to negligent or abuse.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
Children are not property
Click to expand...
Correct. Children are not property. However, parents are the legal guardians & custodians for their children. The parents make the choices (esp when a child cannot make the choice for themselves).

If the state felt that the parents were not acting in the best interests of the child, then they should have first sued to remove the child from the parents’ custody, to make the child a ward of the state. (Which in this situation, I do not see reason to take away custody from the parents)

NOTE: I have NEVER said once that I agree with the parents regarding what they were doing. I don’t have all the facts to know whether I would have done the same thing or not. HOWEVER, I strongly believe in their right as parents to do everything (within the actions of a reasonable adult, parent) to keep their child alive.
 
Last edited:
How about DOCTOR Willy Parker, DOCTOR Warren Hern, and DOCTOR Eugene Gu to name a few?


http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/i...on-later-abortion-from-someone-who-does-them/
Blockquote
You are addressing someone who watched their OWN FATHER DIE when support was withdrawn out of necessity, the person who made his funeral arrangement
Click to expand...
Was that your choice for him though- being his loved one?
Blockquote
Still time? Before what?
Click to expand...
Not judging the fate of your soul. I don’t know. Just calling your condonement of public bodies taking the role of parents in cases where its not called for a sin-because it is. Just like I would think an active homosexual would still have time to amend his/her ways. Some things are hard to change, but through the grace of God can be.
Blockquote
Why can you not accept that a parent does not have the power to arbitrarily check a child out AMA, and that they’re not allowed to do that here either - which is how JW and Christian Scientist parents make the 6 o’clock n
Click to expand...
Because the parents of Alfie Evans were not abusive nor neglectful and they should have been able to seek other avenues of care if pain is controlled-and I’m sure it was. JW and CS are neglectful.
Blockquote
supported a physician who of their own volition called a family stateside to say “we can’t transfer your husband/child/wife because the flight alone would kill him/her, and here’s why - but let me make arrangements for you to at least talk to him/her one last time because death is imminent”
Click to expand...
Well thats his prognosis and the family still had the right to access alternative care provision if they were able to.
 
Last edited:
Monica83 said:
Was that your choice for him though- being his loved one?
Click to expand...
Yep. It was the family’s choice.
Monica83 said:
Not judging the fate of your soul. I don’t know. Just calling your condonement of public bodies taking the role of parents in cases where its not called for a sin-because it is
Click to expand...
Please call the Archbishop and tell him that, then, as he said the same thing. Stop judging. Because you are. And you have zero right to do so.

And as for the Stateside family?

No, they had no option. The patient died in Afghanistan from his injuries because transferring him was100% impossible. He died about ten minutes after that phone call. As I said, you lack the knowledge. Hard to access an alternative when it’s a nine hour flight away in a war zone.
 
Last edited:
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, it was the inability to survive flight. Not being in the military.

If you knew anything about aeroevac, you’d know that.
 
Last edited:
SuperLuigi said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
An appeal to authority fallacy is “I’m right because I’m the boss”.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly the argument that is being made. Re-read the posts.
Click to expand...
No. That’s you trying to cover-tail because you just got revealed as not knowing what an appeal to authority is.

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

lol…
 
Monica83 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, they didn’t. They wanted to believe they did, but there wasn’t one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top