ya, his life wasn't worth the effort to find out.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Alfie Dies
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
ya, his life wasn't worth the effort to find out.
Which is why they didn't have four court hearings to find out and fully adduce the evidence...oh wait, they did.
under whose jurisdiction and how much money would it cost to go after the small chance?
Depends where you want to stop. At some point someone has to say enough is enough and carry the can for saying that.
The point I am making is that this is the way of the spirit of antichrist to "get the camel's nose in the tent".
First spectacularize a VERY IFY case of heart wrenching events to introduce euthanasia (or what is designed to become euthanasia} to the public at large.
Then go from there. This is what happened here with Terri Schiavo.
From 1990 to 2005 she lingered in a "vegetative state". She was put to death in 2005.
in the mean time both Washington and Oregon (and currently California and Vermont) have created "Death with Dignity" (assisted suicide) laws.
So, in the UK judges make medical decisions? Do doctors make legal decisions?
The judges are guided by the doctors. That's the whole point of having medical expert witnesses in court. I understand your judicial evidential methodology is similar if not the same.
So how many doctors did the court allow to give evidence contrary to the evidence given by those who advocated killing the child? Any? At all?
No one gave evidence advocating killing the child.
Oh! So the boy is still alive and in South Africa receiving treatment?
Wait! I thought they were going to allow the Italians to try and save his life.
No, he died of his condition, having been artificially kept alive for over a year
Like I said he was a bellwether to prepare the sheeple for euthanasia.
When would you say to stop CPR then? 20 minutes? 20 days? 20 months?
That should be left up to the mother and father, not me, not the British crown.
If it were my child and left up to me then when ALL organs shut down, ALL brain wave activity ceases and rigor mortise sets in.
No, it's a decision that is a medical one and therefore is normally rightly taken by the doctors. Here, the parents challenged the doctors so it went to court - several courts in fact, with several top doctors giving evidence on behalf of the hospital and the parents. All of them reached the same conclusion.
ibid #56
You said "When would you say to stop CPR then? 20 minutes? 20 days? 20 months?"...
The ultimate question is "Who owns the children?"
In a free country, the parents do, and they decide which doctor and which hospital will provide care.
In a Socialist Dictatorship the state owns the children and they kill them whenever they think keeping them alive is not in the best interests of the state. In this case the financial best interests.
The situation isn't as binary as you claim.
Firstly, we have a Conservative government responsible for the most vicious cuts in public spending this country has ever seen, so your "socialist dictatorship" claim is risible.
Secondly, children are not "property" to be "owned" by anyone in a truly free country; no one owns anyone else in the UK - we abolished slavery in 1833. If you are arguing that parents should have ultimate power over their children's lives, then I give you the following scenario: what about the Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to allow their child to receive a life saving blood transfusion? I don't think you'll find many who will argue that the parents' wishes should prevail there. So we've established the principle that in some circumstances the views of the medics and where necessary the courts have to override the wishes of the parents in the interests of the child. Now you can call that a "socialist dictatorship" if you want all you like; I call it common sense.
Firstly, we have a Conservative government responsible for the most vicious cuts in public spending this country has ever seen, so your "socialist dictatorship" claim is risible.
Secondly, children are not "property" to be "owned" by anyone in a truly free country; no one owns anyone else in the UK - we abolished slavery in 1833. If you are arguing that parents should have ultimate power over their children's lives, then I give you the following scenario: what about the Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to allow their child to receive a life saving blood transfusion? I don't think you'll find many who will argue that the parents' wishes should prevail there. So we've established the principle that in some circumstances the views of the medics and where necessary the courts have to override the wishes of the parents in the interests of the child. Now you can call that a "socialist dictatorship" if you want all you like; I call it common sense.