So how do you “do it right” then?
Because the boy was incapable of even registering pain, the woman’s condition was not in any way painful either. She was in a semi coma and completely out most of the time thus incapable of “suffering”.
Amazing how some will turn themselves inside out to justify this “ethical” way of letting people die. Never mind that they will die instead of dehydration or starvation, which of course are avoidable ways of death.
Sadly it all boils down to greed just like the majority of pro abortion arguments.
Just kill them so there will be more money and resources for everyone else and they’ll twist themselves into tiny knotted balls to justify it.
Yet “conservatives are heartless and cruel”.
Right?
1 Like
I think leftists try to justify it as some “humane” or “ethical” thing to do, but ignore the fact these people died of dehydration or starvation instead.
If a puppy had been treated the same way as Alife had been, these same leftists would be outraged.
It’s very doubtful that Italy could have done anything to help the boy, but the parents absolutely had the right to try. What is so maddening is the fact it would not have cost the UK another penny to allow the boy to leave and receive treatment elsewhere.
I totally believe the boy is in heaven, but sure feel for his parents. I hope eventually they can move on with their lives. They sound like wonderful people.
1 Like
Treat symptoms with proper medications. Dyspnea with narcotics or benzos for example. You don’t let people suffer in the last stages of their life. That too would be unethical.
The boy was so far gone that he was completely incapable of feeling pain? And you still wanted to keep him alive?
Does that make sense to you?
So in other words, drug them to the point where the suffering from dehyration or starvation is bearable?
Would you do this to a puppy or a cat?
Feel free to refuse these drugs when you’re dying, but if you want to alleviate suffering, that’s the way to do it.
A dog or cat would just be put down. That’s not terribly legal in most jurisdictions.[
So in other words, we treat dogs and cats better than people.
You think being put down is better than treating the symptoms of a terminal patient as they die a natural death? I’m not sure I agree.
So you are ok with the government deciding what is best for a patient, rather than letting the family decide?
Italy was willing to take this child, at no cost to the UK government.
But you think it was fine for the government to overrule the wishes of the parent?
So let them starve to death, but “alleviaite the suffering” by drugging them instead?
If nothing else, thanks for reminding me why I am not a leftist.
1 Like
It wasn’t my decision to make nor should the state have that power. That’s where parental rights come into play or used to.
They were not going to be out a dime by allowing them to transfer him and in fact were out a hell of a lot of money by refusing to allow it.
Treating dyspnea with narcotics is most likely going to be fatal as most are respiratory suppressants.
Unfortunately, sometimes the wishes of the family are not in the best interest of the patients. For example, on the other side of the coin, a parent could refuse to treat their child for a serious but curable medical condition. This happens every once in a while and makes news. At times, the government has stepped in to overrule the wishes of the parent.
I feel that’s appropriate. Don’t you?
The fact that Italy was willing to take the child at no cost to the UK government should tell you this wasn’t about money.
You give respiratory suppressants to a patent who’s already in respiratory distress and the treatment is likely to be fatal.
And this is where we strongly disagree with the left. We believe such decisions should be made by the family, not the government.
I find it frightening to realize many Americans are willing to let the government decide.
Of course it was about money, every day he lived in the hospital was costing the UK, killing him was the “cure” for the financial problem.
Even more importantly it was to make the point that you cannot win challenging the uk health system.
It probably cost them in the neighborhood of hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight this out in court and would lead to hundreds of millions if more people did the same.
1 Like
Yep, well you have probably noticed I am strongly disagreeing with leftists with their arguments.
It is NOT for the government to decide.
1 Like
