View Single Post
  #10  
Old 07-31-2017, 10:14 AM
CyberPunk's Avatar
CyberPunk CyberPunk is offline
The Show himself
WWE Diva's Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: India
Age: 31
Posts: 556
CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...
Send a message via Skype™ to CyberPunk
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Yaz View Post
I'm not smart, really I'm not, so I may be completely missing the argument here. What it seems to me though, is that you are arguing that since the baby was already going to die, why not try more procedures that would kill him anyway in the chance that a miracle happens?
Nah, the argument is who gets to chose for the child. It's not the lack of trust in the doctors or the hospital, but who gets to eventually decide in a case like this where the patient himself is not capable of conveying his wishes.

Quote:

Maybe it's just an American thing because of our health care system, but so many people I know distrust doctors. Like why? Why would someone devote so much time and effort just to lie to people one day? Yeah, every profession has a handful of shitty individuals, but 99% of people have zero medical knowledge. Doctors, who have knowledge, should have some say in things like this. I never want children. It's a responsibility I want no part of. If that ever changes, you bet I'm gonna take the advice of the doctors when it comes to my children because I don't know shit about medicine and medical procedures. It's why I trust scientists on things I don't know anything about. If you don't know something, then you should trust the people who have devoted years of their life to that subject. We live in a world where former Playboy models have almost as much influence in the vaccination argument as doctors. It's mad.
Here's the fundamental disagreement I have and that is of personal liberty. Charlie had no personal liberty; neither the parents nor the hospital knew what Charlie wanted. It's not a case where patient willingly sought 'death with dignity', it was implied by the hospital. Parents thought otherwise. Who gets to decide? Whose life gets more affected? Who has the final say? Indian laws keep the decision with the next of kin, especially for patients who can't consent for themselves. UK has different laws and I get it, but where is the discretion in cases like this where the patient cannot consent.

Quote:

Quality of life matters, and as harsh and as fucked up as it sounds, even if the experimental procedure would have helped him "live" a little longer, he is still going to be in pain, have brain damage, and basically be in a state where life isn't worth living. At that point, I think death is the humane option and you have to try to remove emotions and attachment from that.


'Quality of life' is a very subjective thing. How do you determine quality of life? By our standards of quality of life, Stephen Hawking has none, yet he's living 'quality life' by his standard. Equating disadvantages and hardships of life with quality does nothing for the argument. And that's why the question from the very beginning I had was who decides.

Quote:

To say you can't fathom death to be preferable to any form of life is fine, I get it. Though not everyone feels the same. My husband is under strict instructions to turn off my life support if the alternative is a life I cannot enjoy, where I cannot do the things I love, or undertake basic hygiene myself. I've had many patients make the decision to stop their own treatment and allow them to pass naturally. This is a tragic case, but ultimately Charlie's body is not compatible with life. There's nothing we can do to change that.
That's the exact thing I'm saying. In your case, it would be your decision. Every country or state that has 'dying with dignity' laws does it according to patients' wishes and even then there are restrictions (e.g. if the patient is terminal and has less than 6 months to live). Even by your admission, it was the patients who made the decision to stop treatment. In Charlie's case, where the patient is incapable of any decision making, who makes the decision? It was certainly not Charlie, who according to the UK and European laws has 'right to to life.' When did his rights go out the window then? Who is making decisions for him? The point I'm trying to make it is the only people who'd lose anything in this are Charlie and his parents. It's not anybody else's place to determine what Charlie would've wanted but his parents.
__________________
Just Monika

Last edited by CyberPunk : 07-31-2017 at 10:21 AM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote