Alfie Dies

[Matt Black]

ibid #56

You said "When would you say to stop CPR then? 20 minutes? 20 days? 20 months?"...

And you said it should be left up to the mother and father. I countered that.

Are you seriously suggesting that an ER crash team who've been performing CPR to no avail for an hour should have to contact the next of kin of the patient and get their permission to stop?

 

[HankD]

And you said it should be left up to the mother and father. I countered that.

That was part of my complete answer.

Are you seriously suggesting that an ER crash team who've been performing CPR to no avail for an hour should have to contact the next of kin of the patient and get their permission to stop?

I am not a medical professional but TRUE death would be my criteria to suggestion as to when to stop.

 

[HankD]

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.

The JW position leads to death and government intervention saves life.
The intervention of the British Crown led to the destruction of life.

 

[Matt Black]

That's not what I was talking about: I was countering the idea that children are somehow the "property" of their parents; do you think that they are or not? If they are, then the JWs have the right to refuse a transfusion for their child.

 

[HankD]

That's not what I was talking about: I was countering the idea that children are somehow the "property" of their parents; do you think that they are or not? If they are, then the JWs have the right to refuse a transfusion for their child.

I'm talking about saving life, you're talk about destroying it.

In America it's the platform of the Democrat Party, the Party of death (Abortion, euthanasia, eugenics).

 

[Matt Black]

Just answer the parental rights/ ownership question please: yes or no?

 

[TCassidy]

“In general, parents have the constitutional right to make decisions for their children without government interference unless there is proof of abuse or neglect.”

Children need to be raised and represented by parents who love them, not by disconnected government officials.

Children belong to the parents, not to corrupt government.

 

[Matt Black]

No members of H M Government were involved: doctors, lawyers, judges and the parents were.

 

[Matt Black]

“In general, parents have the constitutional right to make decisions for their children without government interference unless there is proof of abuse or neglect.”

.

Right, so you agree with the principle that children "belong" as you put it to the parents; we therefore disagree as to the circumstances in which that principle applies.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

As to the principles YOU apply to it.

 

[Matt Black]

No, the principle appears to be agreed - unless you are saying that JWs' religious beliefs should prevail over the right of their children to life-saving medical treatment

 

[TCassidy]

No members of H M Government were involved: doctors, lawyers, judges and the parents were.

So, in England, the PHS doctors are not paid by the government and the hospitals are private, for profit businesses?

And the judges don't work for the government and the courts are private too?

 

[TCassidy]

Right, so you agree with the principle that children "belong" as you put it to the parents; we therefore disagree as to the circumstances in which that principle applies.

As neither of us has stated an opinion as to when and how the principle is applied, your post is a non-sequitur.

 

[Matt Black]

So, in England, the PHS doctors are not paid by the government and the hospitals are private, for profit businesses?

Some are, some aren't.

And the judges don't work for the government and the courts are private too?

Frequently the judiciary work against the government not for!

 

[Matt Black]

As neither of us has stated an opinion as to when and how the principle is applied, your post is a non-sequitur.

Are you saying you agree then? If not, then my post is correct

 

[TCassidy]

Some are, some aren't.

Dodged the question. Are the doctors who work for the public health service, and the hospitals owned by the public health served paid/owned by the government of not?

Frequently the judiciary work against the government not for!

And again dodged the question. Who pays the judges salaries? Who owns the court houses?

 

[TCassidy]

Are you saying you agree then? If not, then my post is correct

Agree to what? You haven't said anything to agree with.

 

[Matt Black]

Dodged the question. Are the doctors who work for the public health service, and the hospitals owned by the public health served paid/owned by the government of not?

They are owned and paid for in the main the the local NHS Trust

And again dodged the question. Who pays the judges salaries? Who owns the court houses?

H M Courts and Tribunals Service

 

[Matt Black]

Agree to what? You haven't said anything to agree with.

That children don't necessarily "belong" to their parents in certain circumstances eg: abuse, JWs refusing transfusions.

 

[Matt Black]

Right, so you agree with the principle that children don't always "belong" as you put it to the parents; we therefore disagree as to the circumstances in which that principle applies.

Apologies - just read my original quote and noticed there was an inadvertent error - missing a negative - which I've now corrected as per the above. Hope that that now clarifies the original statement.