Posted on 06/21/2019 2:36:20 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW
London, England, Jun 21, 2019 / 11:15 am (CNA).- A British judge has authorized doctors to perform an abortion on a pregnant Catholic woman with developmental disabilities and a mood disorder, despite the objections of the woman’s mother and the woman herself. The woman is 22 weeks pregnant.
“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn't want it is an immense intrusion,” said Justice Nathalie Lieven in her ruling in the Court of Protection, June 21.
“I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society's views of termination,” Lieven explained, arguing that her decision is in the best interest of the woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
Absolutely.
Is it any wonder that Orwell was British?
And they forcibly --- and I mean --- prevented his parents from transporting him out of the country to get better care, although it wouldn't have cost the NHS or the government a single Euro, and they had already arranged for a medical air transport and an accompanying physician who was one of the top pediatricians in Italy.
In NHS, you belong to the government, body and soul.
They own you.
That's the bottom line.
IMO, it was not wrong, if the daughter was too disabled to ever be capable of caring for that child. It is very likely that the child would be born with profound disabilities, considering the DNA available. There are other cases of mild retardation, where the girl would be able to mother, albeit with assistance. I’ve heard of some people in this population getting married. Each case is unique.
And obviously, hey value “choice” as little as they value “life”.
When the government owns you, you have no choice and only have the life they allow you to have.
I thought it said the judge stopped it.
They wouldn’t even let Alfie’s parents take him out of the country to try to get help!!!!!
That was evil.
No, this is an evil insane judge who mouths the right words while she does the wrong and insanely evil thing.
No, it was not wrong. He made the decision for her that she would have made for herself if she had been capable of doing so. Birth control is not the same thing as abortion.
Alfie’s brain was a mass of tissue capable only of experiencing pain and seizures. The hospital fought to end his life not bc they didn’t want him treated elsewhere - it would have been cheaper for the hospital if had gone to die in Italy - but bc the kids life was constant torture.
If I ever end up in such a condition I hope a doctor would intervene the same way if a relative insisted on keeping me alive to experience only paid.
So you’re saying that the child was owned by the government and not the parents?
The Brits are subjects.
Americans are [ostensibly] citizens.
The story happened in Britain, and the subjects were subjected to the government.
Was that wrong?
********
Sterilization doesn’t kill a human being.
I have no idea how badly she was handicapped... it matters...
Many handicapped women are often raped/”taken advantage of” ... The FIL would be the party that would be burdened with raising the child...
Without knowing all the details I would say it was a reasonable precaution.
citizen noun
cit·i·zen | \ ˈsi-tə-zən
a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized.
"a Polish citizen" · "the rights of every citizen"
synonyms: subject · national · passport holder · native · taxpayer · voter
*** What about someone who has mental illness, but follows a very strict drug regimen? ***
Most of the drugs used to treat mental illness are contraindicated for use in pregnancy as they are teratogens.
(1) What you describe as his condition was not without controversy. There were pediatric specialists who gave him a different, better prognosis.
(2)Although novel or experimental treatment with low chances of success is not a moral obligation, it IS a moral option. The parents wanted to "go the extra mile" and see if other treatments might help their little boy. It wasnt even a funding issue: they had volunteer specialists and private funders: their own non-state options. The NHS was absolutely out of line to block all of the parents' choices.
(3) Even a severely disabled and dying person has a right to nutrition and hydration. If you cut these off, the person does not die of his underlying condition, but of starvation/dehydration. This is intentional killing. It is immoral for deliberately starve a medically dependent child to death.
Being willing to accept a state agency as the absolute arbiter of life and death, cutting other doctors and even the patient's parents out of the picture: this is totalitarian. I am frankly surprised that there would be anybody at Free Republic who would surrender that kind of unchallengeable power to the state.
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.