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

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Nope. You are suggesting that. All I did was to say, check it for yourself, that the NHS is happy to condone homeopathy when it chooses to.

I stand by the second part of your statement because that is the effect whether it is their intent or not. The kid will die and the NHS will save itself hassle and a few quid.

[Burney]

Nope. You are suggesting that. All I did was to say, check it for yourself, that the NHS is happy to condone homeopathy when it chooses to.

I stand by the second part of your statement because that is the effect whether it is their intent or not. The kid will die and the NHS will save itself hassle and a few quid.

The existence of homeopathy anywhere near the NHS is a national disgrace and due almost entirely to that renowned gobshīte the Prince of Wales. I would agree that their readiness to countenance such nonsense does undermine their reputation for making dispassionate judgments based on hard, clinical data. However, that is not the fault of the individuals involved in this decision, most of whom I don't imagine like homeopathy any more than I do.

Intent and effect are two very different things. The intent was to achieve the best possible level of care for this child given his condition. The effect is that the NHS has had to go to court at great public expense to defend its its primacy in such decision-making. The fight was over an important and compassionate principle and was - I would suggest - a lot more hassle and more expensive than letting the poor child be used as a guinea pig.

The outcome is that the boy will die. The boy was always going to die, though.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

The existence of homeopathy anywhere near the NHS is a national disgrace and due almost entirely to that renowned gobshīte the Prince of Wales. I would agree that their readiness to countenance such nonsense does undermine their reputation for making dispassionate judgments based on hard, clinical data. However, that is not the fault of the individuals involved in this decision, most of whom I don't imagine like homeopathy any more than I do.

Intent and effect are two very different things. The intent was to achieve the best possible level of care for this child given his condition. The effect is that the NHS has had to go to court at great public expense to defend its its primacy in such decision-making. The fight was over an important and compassionate principle and was - I would suggest - a lot more hassle and more expensive than letting the poor child be used as a guinea pig.

The outcome is that the boy will die. The boy was always going to die, though.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.