Matt Walsh: Courts in Europe have sentenced a baby to death. This is socialized medicine.

I'm not concerned with your story. The OP is a SPECIFIC case and I want you to address that one. Defend not letting this child be removed from the hospital. It's your claim, made before your story and after you didn't answer my question of why this SPECIFIC case ISN'T a death sentence.

 

Why is it a death sentence to allow nature to take it's course?
Why is it a death sentence to allow God to do as he does through nature?
Is God the author of death?

 

I explained why. They didn't let the parents pay for other treatment, to the point kid napping the child away from the parents by not letting them even take him home, and then pulling the plug against their will.

My question predates your story and other questions. I could not be more clear. Please defend the actions of the hospital, In this case, if you can.

 

Those are moral questions which do not answer to the question of the authority of the state to make the death decision.

Once "death with dignity" is introduced and socially acceptable the next step could be "death with dignity" of the healthy as the debate going on in the Netherlands:

Dutch Law Would Allow Assisted Suicide for Healthy Older People

Next step - the state decides who gets "death with dignity" (with or without the recipients approval?).

HankD

 

Sorry, I stopped playing this stupid game you continually come up with on issues.

If you go back and look I did not take sides, so there is nothing for me to defend and I won't take sides.

Did you bother to read the article quoted in the OP?

 

So why are you fussing about evil old Donald Trump taking away health insurance?

 

Totally different topic. Kind of like some who continually derail or attempt to derail threads. Stick with the topic. Thanks.

 

Baloney. You've taken a side. It's cool with you if a sick kid gets tossed away once in a while in the name of government controlled heath care.

 

No. It is a very pertinent point. You simply have no answer. You will one day learn to think a few moves ahead before opening your mouth.

 

When Sally Crackhead leaves her baby in a dumpster she can now claim "I was just letting nature take its course".

 

You can believe, false or otherwise, what you want. I won't play your infantile game.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

I have read about this case. The "treatment" they want for the child in the US is NOT for his particular disease, and he is also far too affected to really benefit from it. I think there comes a point when the hospital needs to give the parents a wake up call...this child is not going to improve. At what point does "preserving life" move to keeping someone alive who has no chance for any meaningful recovery?
Now...I've made that sort of decision three times in my life. The first was with a child of my own. 28 week preemie, on day 11 of life, child suffered a grade 4 bilateral brain hemorrhage. As long as life support was provided (ventilator, various medications and TPN feeding), the child would "live". However, if life support was stopped, the child would die. Second, 78 year old woman suffered a series of strokes that left her comatose (persistent vegetative state). Blind, deaf, screaming out in pain as her muscles contracted and spasmed. There were two choices to make. The first, "let nature take its course" by withholding nourishment OR subject the woman to kidney dialysis, the forcible introduction of an NG feeding tube to continue life. Third, 95 year old woman in end stage heart failure. She had dementia, was totally unaware of her surroundings. Choice was again, "let nature take its course" or take her to surgery to implant a pacemaker.

There comes a time when the parents and/or relatives of the patient must be made aware that what they're doing is NOT the proper care...I have no problem with the hospital saying that the child really needs to be let go to let nature take it's course.

 

If that's the truth when it might really be - it's more cost effective "to let it go" than the cure.

That's what eugenics is all about - the green god.

HankD

 

There was no "cure" for the child's illness. And, yes, at some point, cost enters the equation. Was that half-million dollar hospital bill worth it? Did the care received in the hospital improve the state of someone's life?

 

Of course there was "no cure" in their equation.

HankD

 

Mitochondrial diseases RARELY have cures or even treatments. There comes a point where subjecting anyone to further treatment is NOT appropriate. Truth is, if it wasn't for the technology, the child would have peacefully passed on when he became too weak to breathe...did you ever think that by putting the child on life support we are thwarting God's will?

 

Is reviving a heart attack victim "Thwarting Gods will"? Do we even have the ability to thwart Gods will?

 

What do you think?

It would be good if you gave an opinion and then ask questions. Otherwise it appears you are simply playing games. Give us your opinion first. Thanks.