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

[Revmitchell]

Unless there is abuse or neglect proven that would show the parents unfit the parents should always be the one to speak for the child.

 

[Matt Black]

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 that they should speak for him, that their religious rights trumped his rights?

 

[Revmitchell]

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 that they should speak for him, that their religious rights trumped his rights?

You are hurting your own case. JW's would put his life in jeopardy, here the hospital is. Sorry

 

[Matt Black]

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?

 

[Revmitchell]

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?

Sorry, not buying your premise because it is flawed as it is not an equal comparison. No parents nor hospital should neglect to save the life of the church.

 

[Matt Black]

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?

 

[Revmitchell]

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?

If their "wishes" puts the childs life in jeopardy yes, in the same vein it goes the same for the medical field.

 

[Matt Black]

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?

 

[Revmitchell]

What I have agreed to is that anyone who is threatening the life of the child loses the right to take part in the decisions regarding said life.

 

[777]

It should always err on the side of life - A baby needing a transfusion that's against the parent's wishes should be given that transfusion.

 

[Matt Black]

And what about when it is not a matter of life and death - given that Charlie's condition is terminal - but rather how much harm will be inflicted before death? Who gets to decide there?

That is what this case is about.

 

[777]

Yes, but your question was a general one. In this case, the parents. You could argue that that's possibly inflicting more pain on Charlie but it has to be the parent's call.

 

[Matt Black]

Except the parents aren't in a position to judge whether the treatment will inflict pain, at least not compared to a neo-natal paediatrician

 

[Revmitchell]

Life first always

 

[just-want-peace]

Except the parents aren't in a position to judge whether the treatment will inflict pain, at least not compared to a neo-natal paediatrician

Well, I would say that neither is the hosp., if they aren't familiar with the experimental treatment being offered in the USA.

 

[JonC]

I have just a couple or three points to make on this:
1 If he is being kept alive artificially, it is not murder to withdraw the support.
2 On rare occasions those who have life support withdrawn have actually recovered.
3 A friend of ours who had a pacemaker said that if he heart stopped again, they would not try to revive her as they would only be keeping the heart going but she would not be alive.

I believe that the parents would be justified in either decision (to seek this treatment even if it's a long shot or to withdraw life support). The government is not justified in making the decision for the parent.

 

[Matt Black]

I believe that the parents would be justified in either decision (to seek this treatment even if it's a long shot or to withdraw life support). The government is not justified in making the decision for the parent.

The government isn't.

 

[777]

The government isn't.

Let me get this straight: this kid is in the care of the NIH. Every employee of the NIH is a government employee. The hospital wants to cut off the life support. The parents don't. They go to a British court then appeal to a EU court. And the government isn't involved?

What it looks like here is a sad case of the pratfalls of socialized medicine, and that's why I think this board will rule to release him on the 25th.

 

[church mouse guy]

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 as I understand it: this is not a case of child - v - parents but rather the hospital trust -v - the parents. The trust's view, based on the medical evidence, is that were they to continue to treat Charlie, that would (in essence) do more harm than good and thus would be in breach of their duty of care which they owe to him as a patient. The parents disagree and are demanding that the trust continue the treatment and indeed allow Charlie to be moved to another venue to have yet more treatment. They cannot reach agreement on this issue, and the courts are therefore involved. There is I suspect another force at play: the trust don't want to be on the receiving end of an even more expensive lawsuit from the parents in the (inevitable) event of Charlie's death, so they want to cover their backs.

Okay, I think that the same thing can happen in the case of a health insurance company that says that an experimental treatment is worthless or harmful and the patient can sue the insurance company and then the lawyers get involved in medical issues. I assume that something like this is happening in England. Of course, if you have the money, you can buy experimental treatments in unregulated countries, etc.--something like that happened in the case of movie star Steve McQueen, for example. The best thing is to become a billionaire and not have to fool with insurance companies or government welfare or government medicine but just buy whatever you please.

As Reagan used to say, the most dangerous words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I am here to help you." Certainly, looking at the history of the 20th century, perhaps the darkest century in human history, tens of millions of people died at the hands of their own governments in God-forsaken countries worldwide. As the West goes into moral decay, even Western governments become more and more despotic. I think that you can say that the US Supreme Court murdered tens of millions of infants by allowing women to execute their babies on demand. I don't see how God can absolve the Justices who signed the papers to allow abortion. When is the Nuremberg docket going to try the American Supreme Court Justices who signed in blood the warrants for tens of millions of abortions? As you say, Matt, all children have rights, and the right to life is clearly God-given to every unborn baby. It makes you want to shout like Rousseau, "Man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains." Nowadays, the chains are government chains.

 

[JonC]

The government isn't.

There are two conflicting views here - the medical provider and the parents. If not the government (here the courts) then who is deciding the matter?