Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Charlie Gard II


Recommended Posts

There is a thread on this, but the computer says 'no'.

The ethics of ill children, a consideration.

Charlie Gard's parents spent emotional energy trying to keep their child alive.  But it was always hopeless.

They've now had a new baby.  This one is healthy.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54009093

Would this new child have arrived if they'd still have been exhausting their emotional energy keeping Charlie alive?  Was this new child's existence at threat by their insistence on keeping going with a hopeless case?

I'm not getting into their attachment to Charlie and the 'reasonableness' of their actions.  Just that the ethics is really complicated, and certainly more complex than 'save a life' (that can't be saved).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dgul said:

There is a thread on this, but the computer says 'no'.

The ethics of ill children, a consideration.

Charlie Gard's parents spent emotional energy trying to keep their child alive.  But it was always hopeless.

They've now had a new baby.  This one is healthy.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54009093

Would this new child have arrived if they'd still have been exhausting their emotional energy keeping Charlie alive?  Was this new child's existence at threat by their insistence on keeping going with a hopeless case?

I'm not getting into their attachment to Charlie and the 'reasonableness' of their actions.  Just that the ethics is really complicated, and certainly more complex than 'save a life' (that can't be saved).  

Don’t see that this has anything to do with the ethics of the Charlie Gard case. Who has final say over treatment, government licensed doctors, or parents?

It’ll be of supreme relevance again in the near future when the governments mandate injecting only partially tested vaccines into all children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • spunko changed the title to Charlie Gard II
12 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Don’t see that this has anything to do with the ethics of the Charlie Gard case. Who has final say over treatment, government licensed doctors, or parents?

 

The issue of saving your child's life presents a moral and ethical dilemma. Medical science can now keep a body alive even when it is brain dead. A foetus can be be nurtured from a stage now that a few years ago was not possible. Medical experiments are even trying to see if life can be created artificially and at the other extreme experiments to extend life well past our genetic design.

We are taught life is sacred and must be preserved at all cost unless we should sacrifice people for the greater good. 

Still it gives the philosophers amongst us something to debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Don’t see that this has anything to do with the ethics of the Charlie Gard case. Who has final say over treatment, government licensed doctors, or parents?

It’ll be of supreme relevance again in the near future when the governments mandate injecting only partially tested vaccines into all children.

Surely not even the most sheepish of sheeple are going to accept that?

Even if they say your kid can't go to school without it, people will be forging documents and doing anything they can to avoid it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Surely not even the most sheepish of sheeple are going to accept that?

Even if they say your kid can't go to school without it, people will be forging documents and doing anything they can to avoid it.

They have been putting out the idea of mandating it, and trying to gauge the reaction IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hail the Tripod said:

They have been putting out the idea of mandating it, and trying to gauge the reaction IMO.

They don't know how to gauge the reaction of the population from the bubble in Westminster, if they did then the Brexit vote would never have happened.

Who the fuck is going to accept an untested vaccine for their child for a disease that harms maybe 0.01% of children?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

We are taught life is sacred and must be preserved at all cost

Religious folk teach us this because the idea of life and death is mystical and terrifying and it's a way of coping.

But when this then gets applied in exactly the same way to medical science and we have situations where people are kept alive with no quality of life for them or their family, I think we need a new moral compass other than "life is special".

No. Some life is fairly shitty. We can't fix everyone, and we should find a way to take this responsibility away from the emotionally compromised family and gracefully end the suffering of these individuals for everyone's sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

 

We are taught life is sacred and must be preserved at all cost unless we should sacrifice people for the greater good. 

Still it gives the philosophers amongst us something to debate.

Yes.  The unborn sparkle of a child was delayed by Charlie, and might not have existed at all had the parents kept Charlie going for a few more years.  There is no consideration of the rights of the unborn non-existent child against the rights of the existent one that doesn't have a life.

[It is the same argument with termination of fetuses with serious diseases.  Sure, you're denying that fetus a chance of live, but giving a chance to the next fetus that comes along, that wouldn't come along at all if the parents are spending all their time looking after a seriously ill baby.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 'cure' for a lost lived one is another life.

Simple but it works.

Granny on death bed? Knock a grandkids out.

I've known a couple of families lose children. The ones with best outcome had another kid quickly.

The worse outcome was a family that shutdown and turned the kids bedroom into a shrine, the death turning into point of reference  - before x died, after x died. Destroyed.

The Gards had a lucky outcome. The poor sod had mitochondrial disorder. All that was going was a base brain function that would have died out sooner. The desease made the hard choice for them.

The Gards n their supporters were a bunch of cunts, blocking n protesting at the hospital.

 

 

 

Edited by spygirl
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...