View Single Post
  #7  
Old 07-30-2017, 04:44 AM
Барбоса's Avatar
Барбоса Барбоса is offline
doesn't know REAL wrestling...
WWE Women's Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Norn Iron
Posts: 874
Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...Барбоса is getting phone calls from TNA...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberPunk View Post
What exact harm did they intend?
They did not intend harm but that does not mean they would not have caused it.

We really have two competing fundamental rights in play here - right to life versus right to be free from human experimentation.

There was no evidence that the 'treatment' would not cause further suffering nor that it would help. That makes it an experiment that skirts very closely to breaking the Nuremburg Code and the Hippocratic oath.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberPunk View Post
It's not about parents' or child's best interest.
Wrong. It is about the child's best interests. Those interests were best served by not exposing him to expermentation with no proven positive results and no investigated side effects. Given that Charlie's disease had brain involvement unlike the others cases, what if this nucleoside would have destroyed every one of Charlie's brain cells, sending jolts of unimaginable pain through his tiny body?

That is the kind of thing that doctors, guardians and judges have to protect people and particularly children from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberPunk View Post
Well, treatments can be nasty, we all know that.
Treatments with a proven track record of working. What was being advocated here was in no way a treatment. It would have been the early stages of an experiment with unknowable results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberPunk View Post
It's not your, mine or any third party's place to say what's cruel for a child when the most merciful thing we can come up with is death.
Pretty sure it is for doctors and judges to gauge what is cruel, which is what happened in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberPunk View Post
but the fact that the fate of a child, who can't speak for himself, isn't a consenting adult, is decided by a third party and not the parents is flabbergasting to me.
Again, the parents know nothing about medicine, are so effected by grief that they cannot think straight and do not own Charlie Gard.

They cannot do whatever they want to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberPunk View Post
I cannot fathom that 'death' can be preferable over any form of life.
Well, it most certainly can be.

And even if we disagree on that fundamental point, was Charlie Gard really still alive? I doubt it. Those seizures stripped him of his consciousness. Experimenting on the still-breathing body which is able to feel pain to no predictable benefit is illegal.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote