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

Did you read Matt Black's post?

Have you considered that by keeping the child alive artificially you are killing him in a slow more painful way. Which is better, a longer more suffering death or a quicker less suffering one?

 

I'm not God to make that final decision.
But left up to me, life is my choice.

Yes I oppose the death penalty.

As always the progressive left finds a rare circumstantial case, then magnify it, then make it the norm.

DECEPTION.

HankD

 

It always amuses me when someone invokes God's or nature's natural order.

In the history of medicine, there was always a "first." The first to try some weed that healed a rash; the first to turn a mold into penicillin; the first to prevent smallpox; and so, and so on. In each case there were those that argued "it goes against the natural order of things."

Didn't God create us with intelligence, to create tools? And yes, medicines and remedies? If so, then how can it be against His order of things when we develop new things?

And if you don't want to attribute it to God - isn't it still within the natural order of things when we apply increased knowledge to create new cures, that someone somewhere must be the first?

Isn't the actual prevention of God's natural order when we deny the things that He has given us the ability to create?

 

Indeed.

Luke 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.


HankD

 

I am amazed at the mind-set that so adamantly rejects another's choice to potentially save a life THAT IS HERE AND NOW, but claims conservatives are the ones that do not care about life AFTER birth; which is it???????

These parents are the God selected overseers of this young life, and NO hospital/doctor/government has the right to deny them the POSSIBILITY (yes, possibility - there's always a first time for any medical breakthrough) of using their own money & time to utilize every possible chance of a cure as long as THEY take the responsibility for the child.

IMHO, this is just like the Terry Schavo (correct name??) in Florida that was STARVED TO DEATH by order of a GOVERNMENT edict. Her parents were willing to take full responsibility for her, but some judge (I still wonder about the motives of that judge) decided she had to be killed by starvation/dehydration. Of course the left kept yelling "Death with dignity", but the family had no say in this case.
Seems the left is, in reality, the culture of death: too much already spent; cannot be cured; no quality of life; abortion even after birth; euthanasia; yada, yada, yada!!

Perhaps this is the best choice for the tyke, BUT, that choice rests with the family, those that truly love the child, NOT THE BUREAUCRACY!!!!

 

And all too often it comes down to the decision of continuing medicine and prolong suffering or withhold medicine [treatment] and shorten the suffering. Hard, hard, hard decision.

Sometime a life is saved only to be condemned to a death with much more suffering. I had an elderly friend who had a heart attack. He was rushed to the hospital and his life was saved. Within a month he was diagnosed with cancer and died a horrible, long, slow death. Modern medicine is a two edged sword.

 

So the baby should be killed so it doesn't later get cancer.

Keep digging.

 

Your reply shows your inability to read comprehensively. But that is par for the course these past number of years.

I feel sorry for your dog.

 

The baby is not being killed by anyone or anything except his own medical condition. He will never have the 'chance' to get cancer, whatever decision is made this month. The decision is about whether to artificially prolong and exacerbate his suffering or let God call him to Him sooner and less painfully.

 

I repeat: no-one is killing this baby. His medical condition is. Question: how long should an ER crash-team perform CPR on someone who's flatlined - 20 minutes or 20 hours? And why?

 

You are denying him a chance, however slim. There are folks willing to work on him, house him, and fund him. There is no excuse to refuse him this. I reject the both of you admonishing anyone on this. In the name of God AND science.

 

...and inflict pain on him. Have you ever - as my sister has - had to 'treat' a neonate with a condition like this? Poking constantly with a needle trying to find one of their few remaining veins? The child unable to respond because of catastrophic fatal brain damage but you know you are inflicting more pain with every jab? And, all the time, knowing, knowing, that your efforts will be futile, that all you're possibly doing is altering the when, not the if, and wondering where the heck in all this your Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm' fits into this, still less God (she is a Christian for the record)? So, equally, I reject the admonition of you and others.

 

Said what I've had to. Have a nice Independence Day.

 

So what is wrong with explaining all this to the parents, and letting THEM make the final decision -- not some outside agency.

Say what you will, this is the end result of gov. controlled healthcare, and what we will have once the liberals get back in power in the future; after the rapture!!

 

Because it's what's in the best interests of the child, not the parents, that counts here. That's why the courts are involved, to adjudicate between what the outside agency (the medical profession) and the parents are claiming, and to try to find what is in the best interests of the child. It's called due process.

 

The abortion clock is a real eye-opener. So is the national debt clock.

Time to pay the piper. The total depravity of man is evident. Now what?

Find someone to fund some non-traditional methods for MDS.

Is anyone praying through? God still cures more than we know.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

False argument.

Where is the proof that the treatment will prolong suffering?

Those that received smallpox vaccinations were condemned to suffer further because they weren't allowed to "let nature take its course" and contract the disease? Or be saved from death after contracting it?

Does the treatment being offered provide *any* relief of suffering?

 

There is no curable treatment. Life is prolonged. The brain suffers more and more. Suffering increases. How much suffering is enough?

 

Haven't you read anything on this thread?

 

I don't believe the suffering is without medical relief.

Again an exceptional case is being made the norm to justify murder - euthanasia.

HankD