Search results

Ok, good, so now we've established the principle that sometimes parent's wishes should be overridden for the child's welfare, what about when the parents' wishes will do more harm than good?

Again, who is being 'made to work '? People have a choice about whether to take a job, surely?

Alternatively, who is being 'forced to work' here?

Ok, then: in your view, is the right to medical treatment free at the point of delivery and funded by national taxation slavery? [ETA: cp with the Rev, to whom I therefore ask: is someone being forced to work to fund the armed services slavery then also?]

Do you accept that there are circumstances where a child's need for appropriate medical treatment should override the wishes if his parents, yes or no?

So is healthcare free at the point of delivery slavery in your view?

Then why did you make the civil war analogy?

So you're not answering the question: in the JW case, do the child's and hospital's rights trump the parents', yes or no?

Another post that plays the man, not the ball! Way to go, Rev!!

Because, like the doctor in the OP on which you made the comment, she is obliged to treat all those who come before her needing treatment. You said that you'd fought a civil war over that - a clear reference to slavery if ever there was one. The obvious conclusion is there to be drawn; one...

Not when it comes to issues like medical treatment where the parents are not medical experts and the 'treatment' on which they are insisting is against the advice of said medical experts. What if the parents were Jehovah's Witnesses and Charlie needed a blood transfusion? Would you say there...

No one forces people to work for the NHS here: they apply for a job with the NHS same as everywhere else. Nice of you to compare my wife, who works for the NHS, to a slave BTW...

All children have rights and the courts have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, not in the best interests of the parents. Obviously an infant cannot represent himself in court so a 'Next Friend' will be appointed to speak up for the child. That however is not quite the case here...

Because the child has rights, not just the parents. And, for the umpteenth time, the government is not involved in this case, other than passing the occasional comment.

Alright, just for you I will refine my first sentence to begin with "Most people on the News and Politics forum" instead of "everyone ". My second sentence remains unaltered. Happy now?

The Schiavo case is an interesting comparison. There are similarities and differences, both medically and legally/ ethically. The obvious similarity is that you had a patient unable to speak for herself, just as Charlie is unable. Also the courts were called upon to intervene to attempt to...

Hardly 'far left' then: centrist to centre-left.

What's the relevance of the suffering of the Church? The government have nothing to do with it by the way: they are separate from the courts and also the hospital trust concerned, both of which are independent of the government.

It is arguable at best whether he isn't presently suffering: he endures fits as a result of his condition. But what is beyond medical doubt on the present evidence is that seeking to move him - to his home, let alone the US or the Vatican which are two of the ideas mooted - will increase his...

Yes there is: inflicting further pain and suffering before that person dies. That is the issue here and why the courts - absolutely correctly based on the evidence presented to them - have ruled against abusing him in this way.