Well done to the Biriths state for upholding its right to kill innocent individuals

[Burney]

No compassion was involved. Only an infringement of the ultimate civil liberty, the right to try and save your life by whatever means possible. The intent was to stop the child from having potential life-saving treatment. If this line was taken with every new treatment we'd still be chewing leaves every time we had a headache.

You do not know if the boy would have lived or died with the experimental treatment. You cannot know, neither can I. It might have worked or it might have helped to improve the treatment for others, that is how science works.

A child incapable of expressing an informed preference is in the care of the state, not of anyone else. His parents are not and never were empowered to override the NHS's clinical decision in this matter.

Modern science does not work by chucking early-stage, wholly unproven treatments at desperately sick babies on the vague off-chance they might work. That would be both bad science and monstrously unethical.

Your suggestion that there was no compassion involved in this decision is, I'm afraid, absurd. Compassion was absolutely at the heart of this decision.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171195] A child incapable of expressing an informed preference is in the care of the state, not of anyone else. His parents are not and never were empowered to override the NHS's clinical decision in this matter.

[QUOTE]

You started by saying this was nothing whatsoever to do with the state. Now the child is in their care. And he died.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171203][QUOTE=Burney;4171195] A child incapable of expressing an informed preference is in the care of the state, not of anyone else. His parents are not and never were empowered to override the NHS's clinical decision in this matter.

You started by saying this was nothing whatsoever to do with the state. Now the child is in their care. And he died.

I started by refuting Mo's claim that the state killed him. In fact, no-one killed him and the courts (i.e. not the state) made the final decision.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171209][QUOTE=Peter;4171203]

A child incapable of expressing an informed preference is in the care of the state, not of anyone else. His parents are not and never were empowered to override the NHS's clinical decision in this matter.



I started by refuting Mo's claim that the state killed him. In fact, no-one killed him and the courts (i.e. not the state) made the final decision.

Of course they didn't kill him. They just let him die. The state, that is.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171222][QUOTE=Burney;4171209]

Of course they didn't kill him. They just let him die. The state, that is.

They conceded - based on huge levels of medical knowledge and a profound understanding of medical ethics - that his death was inevitable and allowed it to happen while ensuring he suffered as little as possible.

A baby bird falls out of the tree. It is clearly badly injured, in shock and too young to survive alone. Its parents cannot save it and it is merely a question of how and when it dies - not if. What is the ethical course of action?

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171231][QUOTE=Peter;4171222]

They conceded - based on huge levels of medical knowledge and a profound understanding of medical ethics - that his death was inevitable and allowed it to happen while ensuring he suffered as little as possible.

A baby bird falls out of the tree. It is clearly badly injured, in shock and too young to survive alone. Its parents cannot save it and it is merely a question of how and when it dies - not if. What is the ethical course of action?

What if, as you about to stamp on his head, a vet rings and says its a long shot but he might be able to save it? What do you do?

I would try a homeopathic remedy myself

[Pokster]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171249][QUOTE=Burney;4171231]

What if, as you about to stamp on his head, a vet rings and says its a long shot but he might be able to save it? What do you do?

I would try a homeopathic remedy myself

Is the vet going to foot the bill or is he going to ask you to pay for it?

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171249][QUOTE=Burney;4171231]

What if, as you about to stamp on his head, a vet rings and says its a long shot but he might be able to save it? What do you do?

I would try a homeopathic remedy myself

I would weigh the options, thinking about whether prolonging the poor thing's suffering was right, given the odds and then stamp on its head.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

A child incapable of expressing an informed preference is in the care of the state, not of anyone else. His parents are not and never were empowered to override the NHS's clinical decision in this matter.

Modern science does not work by chucking early-stage, wholly unproven treatments at desperately sick babies on the vague off-chance they might work. That would be both bad science and monstrously unethical.

Your suggestion that there was no compassion involved in this decision is, I'm afraid, absurd. Compassion was absolutely at the heart of this decision.

What utter rubbish. Corbynista nonsense. The state does not own anyone's life, not even a convict serving a life sentence.

You might be a rabbit who is happy for the men in white coats to play with at will, my life is worth more than any tuppence artist on the NHS might think it. If it was me and my money, I would have my child or myself trying the treatment and anyone trying to stop me would answer with their own lives because no-one has the right to stop me from doing what I think is best for myself or my child if I can afford to pay for it.