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

[IUFG]

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.

strategic health authorities and NHS trusts make life decisions every single ****ing day as to whether or not to allow a patient to undergo surgery, other treatments, etc. based entirely on available resources. Little in the way of compassion is involved in the decision tree (being a parent / responsibility for young kids is the main 'compassion' point). The Gard case went beyond that in so far as money was not the issue. The MDT involved in this case obviously felt any treatment would not increase the kid's quality of life

like I said, happens every day.

sad all the same.

[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.

[Peter]

Until proven, with peer-reviewed data, double-blind testing and all the rest, such a treatment has EXACTLY the same status as prayer and homeopathy, yes. That's how science works.

No, it is how it is supposed to work. Or at least how medical science is supposed to work. Plenty of other factors get in the way. You are coming a little close to suggesting that something only works once science says it does.

Does marijuana have any positive health benefits? Did it have these fifty years ago when it was an evil drug, frying your brain?

Scientists are just as human as the rest of us, just not as good looking. ****s.

[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.

[Burney]

No, it is how it is supposed to work. Or at least how medical science is supposed to work. Plenty of other factors get in the way. You are coming a little close to suggesting that something only works once science says it does.

Does marijuana have any positive health benefits? Did it have these fifty years ago when it was an evil drug, frying your brain?

Scientists are just as human as the rest of us, just not as good looking. ****s.

The scientific method as I've described it is the reason we are where we are today. It keeps us reasonably safe from poison, unwanted side effects and quackery. It is the means by which we sort anecdote and coincidence from fact.

[Ash]

Why couldn't The Doctor come to the kid and at least have a look?

He/She is busy regenerating at the moment, I gather.

[Burney]

He/She is busy regenerating at the moment, I gather.

wd a.

Although obviously you're going to hell for making jokes about a dying baby.

[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.

[Peter]

The scientific method as I've described it is the reason we are where we are today. It keeps us reasonably safe from poison, unwanted side effects and quackery. It is the means by which we sort anecdote and coincidence from fact.

Observed fact. And the point about coincidence is interesting. Science doesn't set out to prove that something 'works'. It sets out to understand how it works. What it doesn't understand it labels coincidence.

Because, as I say, scientists are all ****s. I don't need to understand how nicotine works to know I want a fag.

[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?