Matt Walsh: Stop pretending you’re killing Charlie Gard ‘for his own benefit,’ you monsters

[JonC]

The larger issue is who decides.

When I am old and suffering from medical issues will the medical world's decision that I need to exercise my right to die trump my own decision to live? What about the unborn? Will a parent's desire to bring into this world a child who is handicapped be ignored because the medical world thinks the suffering too much?

Another related topic - Does a parent have the right to teach their child the Christian faith even if it opposes "secular truth", or does Christianity itself deny the child's right to a secular worldview?

 

[Matt Black]

Ok, to clarify: there are three parties involved in the case. The first is the Great Ormond Street Hospital Trust. This is funded by the government but independent of it, much like when I did criminal defence work: most of what I did was funded by the government but I was actually employed by a private firm which claimed payment from the government for each case I did. Next we have the law courts. Again, our judiciary is independent of the government although judges receive a government salary. Finally the parents: they too receive a degree of government funding through welfare benefits like child benefit but are also independent of the government.

[ETA reply to 777]

 

[Revmitchell]

IN American the hospital never overrides the family unless there is some neglect or abuse.

 

[JonC]

Ok, to clarify: there are three parties involved in the case. The first is the Great Ormond Street Hospital Trust. This is funded by the government but independent of it, much like when I did criminal defence work: most of what I did was funded by the government but I was actually employed by a private firm which claimed payment from the government for each case I did. Next we have the law courts. Again, our judiciary is independent of the government although judges receive a government salary. Finally the parents: they too receive a degree of government funding through welfare benefits like child benefit but are also independent of the government.

[ETA reply to 777]

When I say "government" I mean "courts" - a difference between there and here I suppose....unless the decisions of the court are actually enforceable by a governing entity (then it's probably a distinction without a difference).

 

[Matt Black]

Here the government is often taken to court (a process known as judicial review) and has been found to have acted unlawfully.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The larger issue is who decides.

When I am old and suffering from medical issues will the medical world's decision that I need to exercise my right to die trump my own decision to live? What about the unborn? Will a parent's desire to bring into this world a child who is handicapped be ignored because the medical world thinks the suffering too much?

Another related topic - Does a parent have the right to teach their child the Christian faith even if it opposes "secular truth", or does Christianity itself deny the child's right to a secular worldview?

You are right that this case could be the thin end of a very large wedge. But I think some of the scenarios you mention would require government legislation before they could happen. It seems to me that the Charlie Gard case requires legislation that would make the wishes of the parent paramount except in cases of neglect or abuse.

 

[JonC]

You are right that this case could be the thin end of a very large wedge. But I think some of the scenarios you mention would require government legislation before they could happen. It seems to me that the Charlie Gard case requires legislation that would make the wishes of the parent paramount except in cases of neglect or abuse.

Yes, I agree... and this is a difference between nations. In the US the medical professionals have obtain a court decision in order to provide care against the desire the parents (who have guardianship over their children and are responsible for making decisions on their behalf). Apparently this is not the case in England (it is reverse, the parents have obtain a court decision in order to provide care against the desire of the medical professionals).

In my culture there is an ongoing fight for and against socialism (actually, it is a fight about what degree of socialism is acceptable). I wish this case was more on the front burner here as it could spark debate by offering a glimpse of the direction the US is headed.

 

[Matt Black]

Not quite: the legal situation is more confused here. The main 'legally cultural' piece of legislation is the Children Act of 1989 (passed by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government) which asserted the best interests of the child are paramount in any litigation. The context then was in divorce cases involving custody and access but it established the legislative and judicial precedent that the child's needs superseded the wishes of either parent. That principle has permeated and informed our legal-judicial culture, irrespective of the politics of our government

 

[Rob_BW]

Ok, to clarify: there are three parties involved in the case. The first is the Great Ormond Street Hospital Trust. This is funded by the government but independent of it, much like when I did criminal defence work: most of what I did was funded by the government but I was actually employed by a private firm which claimed payment from the government for each case I did. Next we have the law courts. Again, our judiciary is independent of the government although judges receive a government salary. Finally the parents: they too receive a degree of government funding through welfare benefits like child benefit but are also independent of the government.

[ETA reply to 777]

The courts are independent of the government?

I'm sorry, but it's gonna take me a minute to wrap my head around that one.

 

[Matt Black]

Take all the time you need. The government is frequently found by the courts to have acted unlawfully.

 

[Rob_BW]

Take all the time you need. The government is frequently found by the courts to have acted unlawfully.

That happens here also. But the courts are still considered one of the three branches of government.

 

[Matt Black]

Theresa May and her ministers have no control over the law courts. Different here I guess

 

[Rob_BW]

Theresa May and her ministers have no control over the law courts. Different here I guess

So who appoints or elects judges? Is there a single jurisdiction, or city/county/federal courts?

 

[JonC]

Take all the time you need. The government is frequently found by the courts to have acted unlawfully.

That happens here as well. I think what @Rob_BW is saying (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is that there does not seem to be a difference between what you are describing as the courts not being a part of the government and the situation here with a judicial branch of the government. In reality, your courts are issuing decisions that affect the governing of your nation and the rights of your citizens (which is what we would call "government").

 

[Matt Black]

No. 'Government' here is Theresa May and her ministers who have absolutely zero control over this case.

Take a look here: Government of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

 

[Rob_BW]

No. 'Government' here is Theresa May and her ministers who have absolutely zero control over this case.

Take a look here: Government of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Without looking through all of the departments that fall under the government, it apears that what you call the government is analogous to our executive wing of government.

Always interesting to see how you guys do it. Lots of "almost, but not quite" when comparing the two.

 

[JonC]

No. 'Government' here is Theresa May and her ministers who have absolutely zero control over this case.

Take a look here: Government of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

I understand the government of the UK. My comment is that there is no difference in terms of what we would call "government" here in the US. The court system in the UK acts as a governing body by the decisions it makes whether you call it a "government", "courts", or an elephant. The result is the same. A "non-governing body" (the courts) makes a decision that in effect governs the citizen under the influence of the courts. If the courts say that the child must die in a hospital then the child must die in a hospital. If the courts allow the parents to take their child for treatment then the parents can take their child for treatment. If the courts allow the hospital to decide the matter then the hospital can decide the matter.

Courts are a part of the governing of a people. UNLESS, of course, you are saying that the courts can decide the matter yet their decision remain unenforceable. If they decide the child must stay, then will the parents be prevented from taking the child?

 

[Matt Black]

Ok, so we're arguing over definitions. For me, 'government' is 'The Ministry of Theresa May' or 'The Trump Administration'. The legal system is not part of that, is independent of and, where necessary, antagonistic to it.

 

[JonC]

Ok, so we're arguing over definitions. For me, 'government' is 'The Ministry of Theresa May' or 'The Trump Administration'. The legal system is not part of that, is independent of and, where necessary, antagonistic to it.

No, not arguing but comparing differences so that we don't talk past each other. Our government consists of three branches - the Executive (the "Trump Administration"), the Legislative (Congress, Senate, House of Representatives) and the Judicial (Supreme court and other federal courts).

My point was that it can be dangerous when the governing body (to include the organization that determines judicial matters) makes these decisions. I also acknowledge that leaving this to the parent can be a dangerous thing as well.

 

[Rob_BW]

Matt, could you provide any input on UK courts, in regards to appointment/election and levels of jurisdiction?

All that I know now comes from encountering "and so and so studied law at the Inns of Court in such and such year" when reading biographical info.