The European Union has "Death Panels" now.

originally posted by: M5xaz
What is "sick" is the "I own the child" attitude of the courts.

Why is that "sick"? If the child was being abused, or neglected then you would expect the courts to intervene. In this case the courts have been asked to make a judgement of what is in the best interest of the child. The simple choice is to prolong the child's agony, or not.

You need to do some research, or read my earlier post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It's sad how this is getting normal and common in certain countries. If you want to go, and your an adult thats fine but a baby or a little kid? No, they can't make their own decision. The Human Spirit is dying in the compassion department.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

What an evil EU, doesn't want this baby to become a lab-rat (costing the parents a fortune and very likely won't have any positive effects on the baby's health anyways....)
Bad EU!

a reply to: audubon

Given the recent controversy over the drugs used in fatal injections, I'm not sure that this reflects what's going on in the penal system. One state has just decided to do away with lethal injection and has opted for firing squads instead.

Thats why I used the word "ostensibly". The idea is to prevent suffering, the practice falls short. Because doctors and medical supply companies refuse to provide the penal system with drugs that kill.

That hippocratic oath thing. The point being that we want prevent suffering but then let people die slowly, painfully at the end of life, whats up with that?

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: M5xaz

What is "sick" is the "I own the child" attitude of the courts.

No, this is a misunderstanding.

The courts have upheld the medical decision not to inflict unnecessary harm and suffering on a terminally-ill baby. It's a question of the baby's human rights and the interaction of those rights with medical ethics.

The courts have not asserted any 'ownership' of anyone. That is a ludicrous thing to suggest.

The parents are better placed to judge what is in the best interest of the child, NOT the court's decision.

You appear completely unable to understand the "1984"-like ramifications of such a decision.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: M5xaz
What is "sick" is the "I own the child" attitude of the courts.

Why is that "sick"? If the child was being abused, or neglected then you would expect the courts to intervene. In this case the courts have been asked to make a judgement of what is in the best interest of the child. The simple choice is to prolong the child's agony, or not.

You need to do some research, or read my earlier post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The child was not being abused, you are wilfully misrepresenting the situation.

The parents were also not using state resources - this was a decision to be made solely by the family.

As I responded to another poster, you don't understand the "1984"-like ramifications of such a decision.

originally posted by: M5xaz
The parents are better placed to judge what is in the best interest of the child, NOT the court's decision.

Sometimes, but not always. Certainly not in this case.

You appear completely unable to understand the "1984"-like ramifications of such a decision.

That is because they only exist in your rather melodramatic imagination, and it is not my responsibility to address that.

I am presuming you are from the USA.

Here is an example of a similar case. In this case, the issue before the court was whether the child was mature enough to make an informed decision about whether or not to refuse treatment.

The court decided that in this instance, the child was mature enough to make that decision. It meant that the child was choosing to die, because his illness was terminal.

But the outcome is not the important thing. What this case shows is that it is fairly normal for courts to make decisions on difficult medical situations involving life or death - even in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

They are not being allowed to take their own baby out of the hospital?

Disgusting isn't it. Parents raised £1.3m from people who actually care, yet some idiot doctors and some clowns in the EU decide they make the decision on who gets a chance at life, regardless of whether they have to pay for it or not. This story should send shivers down the spine of any American looking to copy the system we have here.

This is the very definition of a death panel.

One can only hope that the POTUS getting involved will help to give this child at least a chance.

Sheesh.

If the child is truly brain dead... its a stretch to say they are suffering... so why not let the parents take him make the arrangements and go try the experimental procedure?

It is 99.9999999999999999999999999% likely nothing would change for the better for the child... but they might discover something that lets the next child that is diagnosed have a better chance at life!

Then even when their child dies they can possibly take solace in that the doctors will have a better understanding with the next child to be diagnosed...

It must be tough for the parents, I think the best thing they can do is let him rest , and when they are ready create new life !
it must be the most horrific feeling and the most helpless feeling not being able to do anything for someone you made and someone you love.

Having to bury your children is the last thing a parent should do. Giving the parents that totalitarian view that there is nothing can be done and you arent allowed must be horrible to hear.

If they remove him we would likely die on the way to the states as he is on life support.

I dont know why people are so upset about "death panels!" Our whole society is built on who lives who dies ideas
currently our governments can do as they please with austerity measures
and forcing disabled to work
thats basically saying who lives who dies
make life so expensive that all the poor die off !