Posted on 07/19/2017 8:05:24 AM PDT by Morgana
The on-going political row over the treatment of Charlie Gard took a new turn today as it emerged US lawmakers have granted the terminally-ill 11-month-old permanent resident status to allow him to fly to America for treatment.
Congress passed the amendment that it is reported could mean Charlie's parents, who have been mired in a battle with British doctors, to take him to the US without needing their permission.
Jeff Fortenberry, Republican U.S. Representative for Nebraska, tweeted:
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“make their lives unenjoyable”
I didn’t say unenjoyable. I said frustrating and painful possibly both physical and mental.
Put yourself in the mind of the child. It is possible he has no process to decide anything. His only stimulation is food, waking up from sleep, and possibly recognizing physical care. How long do you want to stay that way? You won’t grow, you won’t dream as you have no picture in your mind to draw from, nothing. Is that a life? To me, no. And because in time he will no longer recognize what it is. it will become nothing to stimulate him. A lump of flesh waiting to pass.
I mentioned in my writing on this that according to the article, his position is not critical, it is terminal. There is no guarantee the treatment will do anything. It’s all theory. And even if it works, he could be right back to being a piece of flesh with no active intelligence. It may be worth the try if the brain damage they indicate is minimal. But, we don’t know the extent. I pray for the best. But I’m not going to second guess God.
rwood
Applying your reasoning to those who are not babies, then anyone with a terminal or incurable illness that causes or is the result of brain damage with loss of many abilities and functioning, is living a life not worth living and should not continue to live.
You beat around the bush but your meaning is crystal clear.
The most revolting sentence is this:
A lump of flesh waiting to pass.
You don't recognize him as an eternal soul, temporarily in a physical body. Everyone is worthy of respect and care because everyone is an eternal soul. You just see the lump of flesh, and a lump of flesh that doesn't work very well is a life not worth living. Sick.
“ whose song you’ve been singing”
I haven’t sung a single word of anyone’s song. My “lyrics” are based upon reasoning for the best interest of the child. And as long the article doesn’t give us enough information to make a calculated decision, and the treatment hasn’t been accomplished and successful anywhere except on the blackboard, and what is left in the mind of the child because of prior damage, if anything, then no one has the right to make any decision at all. But the parents have to make the call as no decision means death anyway. And like I mentioned in previous writing, it is no one’s business where the child is taken for care unless the parent are intent upon premature death. Letting him pass without trying the treatment that we don’t know will work, and what it will leave in the crib if it is tried, is none of anyone’s business except the parents. But this is one tough decision, or maybe a couple of them, I wouldn’t want to make. I did that once with my father. And it was the right one as he was dying painfully. But it never feels good. I can’t imagine two parents giving a vegetable life to their child. I wouldn’t. There’s no pain in death. And if you believe it, just the light.
rwood
You carefully couch your words to make them seem innocuous, sort of like adding artificial flavoring to poison. Basically, you are saying "God did this to the baby so it's His fault". And you lie that you are answering only for yourself. If you only applied this to yourself, you would not be arguing with others, stating clearly that the only life worth living is one with some arbitrary list of standards and levels of enjoyment, abilities and mental capacity that you, in your all knowingness, regard as making a human life worthy enough to live. And simultaneously you read minds and you know exactly what others are experiencing in their hearts, and they don't measure up to the "life worth living" standards.
There seems to be a serious misconception. The alternatives are not a) stay in Britain and die or b) be cured in the US.
Even Dr. Mirano admits there is NO cure, only the SLIGHT possibility of a “significant” improvement, whatever that may be. Originally he put the probability at 10 %. Then, miracolously, it was up to 56 % (!?!) for no apparent reason. Neither he nor anyone else has ever tried the treatment he suggests for the specific kind of mitrochondrial desease that Charlie has, not even on mice or lab rats.
Plus, Dr. Mirano had not even seen the child when he gave those statements. It remains to be seen whether he still thinks he can help Charlie now that he`s been to London.
Finally, please remember that even Charlie`s parents have “acknowledged and accepted that the quality of life that Charlie has at present is not worth sustaining”
. . . improvement, whatever that may be. Originally he put the probability at 10 %. Then, miracolously, it was up to 56 % (!?!) for no apparent reason. . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I beg your pardon BUT there was a reason and you got it wrong. I read explanation. When he first HEARD about it, he gave a CONSERVATIVE number, and SAID that is what it was.
Thank you for your comment. Could you please let me know where you found that information?
On a Charlie Gard thread a few days ago. Where else.
I noticed you put that false accusation at the end in quotes, but you carefully left off the fact that his mother interrupted in court to deny having said that, and then both parents stormed out of the courtroom because of the false allegation. Are those quotations marks your subtle way of avoiding responsibility for a statement you already knew was false?
"Are there lives that have forfeited their individual legal protection because their continued existence has permanently lost all value for the person himself, and for society as well? Simply posing this question brings up an uneasy feeling in anyone who has become accustomed to evaluating the value of a particular life to both the individual concerned and to society.... If one simultaneously thinks about a battlefield covered with thousands of dead young men, or a mine where a violent thunderstorm has buried alive hundreds of diligent workers, and compares it to an institution for imbeciles with its care for its living inmates, one is deeply shocked by the blatant dissonance between the sacrifice of the greatest treasure of humankind on one hand, and on the other, the greatest care being given to existences that are not only absolutely worthless, but that drag other worthy beings down negative existences ..." (page 27)
No. I put it in quotes because i was quoting Justice Francis`decision https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/gosh-v-yates-and-gard-20170411-1.pdf (see paragraph 14)
I did not “carefully leave off” anything, for the simple fact that i had no idea of the parents denial.
From what I`ve found here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4692028/Charlie-Gard-s-parents-claim-held-captive.html Mrs. Gard seems to have denied having “said it like that” (not: “I did not say it”) adding “I didn’t say that he was suffering.” (afaik nobody claimed she did) To me that`s no denial of the sentiment expressed in the quoted paragraph.
The judgement dates from April 11th, the hearing seems to have taken place on July 13th. I find it hard to believe the Gards would have waited 3 months to set the record straight had they really been misquoted.
“If you only applied this to yourself, you would not be arguing with others,”
I’m not arguing with others, you’re attacking me. Calling me a liar and saying i’m artificial didn’t come out of my mind.
“God did this to the baby so it’s His fault.”
I’m also not saying that the child should die. I’m saying the child was chosen by God to bear this and I had nothing to say about it, But you think you do have a lot to say about it. So your argument is with God, not with me.
“stating clearly that the only life worth living is one with some arbitrary list of standards and levels of enjoyment, abilities and mental capacity that you, in your all knowingness, regard as making a human life worthy enough to live.”
Okay, I determined in my mind what a good life is, and you did the same. So how are you different than me. I don’t want to see years of just being and you don’t mind watching a child possibly frustrated or in pain for however it may take to determine when God decides to pass him.
Personally I don’t have a stake in this and nothing to prove. If your only difference with me is whether there is a life or not for a brain injured terminal child that apparently has one chance at any type of life at all through a still experimental process, let him have the treatment. I never said not to. Factually, in one of my posts I was all for it. But I also am not confident with the outcome as they don’t know what will happen and if it will turn out a human that could be independent and grow or just have nothing.
You want to make the decision, fine. I voiced my opinion that I wouldn’t want to wish a child dead, but the term terminal was in the article. So if you do the treatment, and it cures the illness, what’s left? We don’t know. But if it was me, I don’t want to be a vegetable. There are a few things worse than death: loss of dignity, loss of agency, or loss of a sense of purpose, to name a few. Tag into that incontinence, and in time needing a breathing machine, needing a feeding tube, and needing care all the time. And in this case, the possibility of failure of the treatment exists and the terminal remains. You call that life? I don’t. But with the information we have on his brain injuries, it is more than possible that the child will never understand what is happening to him. And that’s a blessing if it has to go that way.
I do not converse with people on these boards that start calling me names. So this is the final input from you I will read. When you have to revert to this type of action to prove a point, you’ve proved nothing. So long.
rwood
I did a little research on the book you quoted. This book was published in 1920 at the start of the Nazi theories being invented. Their reference to a life unworthy of being lived is an early theology of killing not understanding the life of what a vegetable has. It is a general call for destruction, not determining quality of life.
I still say the actions should be the responsibilities of the parents, not the government. The same thing was in the ACA, and I was voraciously against that. Obama even made a statement on preparation of hospice and the loss of life in a town hall meeting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y
So, I do not agree with the government stepping in to decide, or have anything to say, about the life and death of a person, or further treatment available they can’t provide. It is up to the parents. So, if you give the child the treatment, which I have no problem with, and it doesn’t work, or it doesn’t repair the injuries to the child’s brain, what do you actually have. In my mind, a soul trapped in a dying body. I wouldn’t want to be that way.
rwood
They did not sit inside the courtroom in suspended animation for three months before replying, in court, to the judge. Charlie’s mother, replied in court, at the time of the false accusation. How stupid do you have to be to believe her parents actually said that? They have said all along that they want to give their son a chance at life. Why would they say otherwise?
One of the ironies I frequently witness in these discussions over whether or not severely disabled people should be allowed to live, is the people demanding death to anyone with cognitive deficits are so lacking in cognitive function as to fit the criteria for extermination.
You are one of the oiliest and most deceitful posters I've ever seen promoting the culture of death. You win if not the blue ribbon, at least second prize.
I'm wondering if your skill in slimy duplicity is natural or if you were trained in some way.
Your comment:
I don’t want to see years of just being and you don’t mind watching a child possibly frustrated or in pain for however it may take to determine when God decides to pass him.
Now I am the cruel person for "not minding" watching a child suffer. You are the merciful one who wants him to die because he, in your view, is not now and never will reach the bar of the characteristics that you listed above, that define a life worth living. That's what it means in simple, clear English. BTW my time is very short, I'm very busy, and any further comments to me I probably won't have time to read. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, and I do not. Apparently you only like dainty language. Too effing bad. Life and death are often far from dainty.
Try looking at the book as something other than an instruction manual. Your greatest criticism should not be that the authors focused too much on your shared desire to eliminate those you consider undesirable, and not enough on the undesirable characteristics that cause you to view your fellow human beings as vegetables that should be eradicated. It should bother you to know that your own views are identical to theirs. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Holocaust wasn’t such a good thing?
What about them? Those topics are for another thread, the baby was about to be put to death...........
Great answer, it pretty much confirms the increasing demise of compassion this site has experienced from newcomers such as you over the past decade...........
And the solution? "The Final Solution."
“undesirable characteristics that cause you to view your fellow human beings as vegetables that should be eradicated.”
I didn’t create the term vegetable. And I didn’t call for the eradication of anyone. Eradication is defined as to remove or destroy utterly; extirpate. I am not saying anything like that. I said it is the responsibility of the parents to decide on the possibility of not causing the child more pain than it already has, whether physical or mental.
In De Anima, Aristotle used the word vegetative (or, rather, the ancient Greek equivalent) to denote lesser forms of life. Plants, he wrote, have a “vegetative” soul, capable only of growth and reproduction, whereas humans have a “rational” soul that allows for thought. If the child, due to severe brain damage has not capacity to thought, rational or otherwise, how can he lead anything close to a normal life? And when will this status become a frustration for caregiver or patient?
We don’t know enough about the current status of the patient. But the parents do. If they choose the USA treatment and it fails, then the termination status currently in effect becomes a real issue that they will have to decide how to handle. Right now they are grasping at straws. Hope for the best for them, but I don’t know enough to know how well it will turn out. I fear bad.
rwood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.