Charlie bit it (and it really hurts)

[Purpelia]

The problem that our courts have when dealing with medical issues, however, is that the doctors are backed up by their titles and experience while the parents are not, so they obviously give the doctors opinion far more weight.

The parents are free to bring in their own medical experts, who can review the situation, examine the evidence, examine the child and present the case for treatment. That is their right in these circumstances. They can bring in doctors that are backed up by titles and experience and to whom the courts will listen.

But in the end, the courts make the judgement based on evidence provided. Because that is all they do, and all they are empowered to do.

And that's the disgusting part.

No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible. And certainly not here when the only thing they were empowered to do was order the child to die.

[Big Jim P]

And the fact that the parents can't be freaking parents. Unless its abuse, let parents do what they want with their kids. They made that little human and they should have a say.

Humans aren't property. Making one doesn't give you ownership of them.

Nor does governing them/us.

[Calladan]

The parents are free to bring in their own medical experts, who can review the situation, examine the evidence, examine the child and present the case for treatment. That is their right in these circumstances. They can bring in doctors that are backed up by titles and experience and to whom the courts will listen.

But in the end, the courts make the judgement based on evidence provided. Because that is all they do, and all they are empowered to do.

And that's the disgusting part.

No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible. And certainly not here when the only thing they were empowered to do was order the child to die.

See my previous post re: fucked up moral agenda.

"No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible."

No situation? You can't think of a single situation where the government should take a child away from its parents? Not a single one?

Because five or six are springing to mind just as I am typing, and I am not even thinking that hard.

The father is raping the daughter as the mother takes pictures.
The mother is raping the daughter as the father takes pictures.
The father is pimping his son out to his friends while the mother acts as the accountant.
The mother repeatedly beats the living shit out of the son while the father gets drunk in the lounge, laughing occasionally.
The father repeatedly beats the shit out of the daughter while the mother goes about her business pretending not to notice.
The mother and father lock the child in the basement, trying to starve the child feeding it once a day, and forcing it to piss and shit in a bucket.

But sure - "No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible."

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

The parents are free to bring in their own medical experts, who can review the situation, examine the evidence, examine the child and present the case for treatment. That is their right in these circumstances. They can bring in doctors that are backed up by titles and experience and to whom the courts will listen.

But in the end, the courts make the judgement based on evidence provided. Because that is all they do, and all they are empowered to do.

And that's the disgusting part.

No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible. And certainly not here when the only thing they were empowered to do was order the child to die.

I can think of a good few circumstances where government institutions have the duty to enter someone's home and take away their children.

[Frank Zipper]

No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible.

Horseshit. The Fritzl case springs to mind.

[Risottia]

No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children.

I see you support the right of parents to treat kids as their property, even to the point of raping them, torturing them or killing them.

Good to know.

[Purpelia]

No situation? You can't think of a single situation where the government should take a child away from its parents? Not a single one?

Nope not a single one.
I can see situations where the parents commit a crime like say trying to literally murder or rape the kid, or they are a drug dealer or murderer or something similarly nasty in general and are sent to prison for their crime which de-facto takes away access to their children. But that is very much not the same thing as deliberately deciding that even though a person has committed no crime he is no longer to have the right to care for his children.

[New haven america]

The parents are free to bring in their own medical experts, who can review the situation, examine the evidence, examine the child and present the case for treatment. That is their right in these circumstances. They can bring in doctors that are backed up by titles and experience and to whom the courts will listen.

But in the end, the courts make the judgement based on evidence provided. Because that is all they do, and all they are empowered to do.

And that's the disgusting part.

No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible. And certainly not here when the only thing they were empowered to do was order the child to die.

So what if the parents were: beating the child, neglecting the child, psychologically depriving the child, or using the child as a sex slave? (Better yet, why not all 4!?)

[Purpelia]

So what if the parents were: beating the child, neglecting the child, psychologically depriving the child, or using the child as a sex slave? (Better yet, why not all 4!?)

Are those things a crime when done to any other citizen? Yes. Therefore send them to prison for the crime. End of story.

I find it oddly idiotic how all of you have completely failed to read the words I wrote. I said "to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children". Notice the actual words. Enter and take away. That means you enter and take something away leaving everything else unharmed.
I did not say "the parent shall be rendered immune to all criminal trials for as long as he has a kid and can therefore go on a murder spree but we can't touch him because he has a kid".

It's almost as if all of you just want to impose your ideological bend on it. And I only say that because I refuse to accept the only viable alternative which is that you all are incapable of comprehending the english language.

[New haven america]

So what if the parents were: beating the child, neglecting the child, psychologically depriving the child, or using the child as a sex slave? (Better yet, why not all 4!?)

Are those things a crime when done to any other citizen? Yes. Therefore send them to prison for the crime. End of story.

I find it oddly idiotic how all of you have completely failed to read the words I wrote. I said "to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children" and not "the parent shall be rendered immune to all criminal trials for as long as he has a kid". It's almost as if all of you just want to impose your ideological bend on it.

No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible.

Well, ain't that damning evidence? (Under any circumstance includes abuse, as abuse is a circumstance)

[Purpelia]

Are those things a crime when done to any other citizen? Yes. Therefore send them to prison for the crime. End of story.

I find it oddly idiotic how all of you have completely failed to read the words I wrote. I said "to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children" and not "the parent shall be rendered immune to all criminal trials for as long as he has a kid". It's almost as if all of you just want to impose your ideological bend on it.

No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible.

Well, ain't that damning evidence? (Under any circumstance includes abuse, as abuse is a circumstance)

Only an intellectually dishonest or insane or idiotic (and I absolutely refuse to believe any of you is the later two) person would naturally come to an interpretation of my words that translates to "under no conditions shall the parents be arrested for anything".

And what's with those underlines? Do you not understand how sentence structure works?
No government institution - The subject of the action. Congratulations. You can identify who I am talking about. Have a cookie.
should - The action in question. Have not ID'd this one. F
ever under any circumstance - The conditions of the action. Guess you read some of my text. Good for you.
have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children[/u]. [u]There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible. - The object to which the action applies. You Id'd half of it and obviously did not read the words. So again, F-

enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children - directly describes a situation where the state enters your home and decides to leave you alone but remove your child. And that is indeed something the state should newer be allowed to do ever. If you have committed no crime for which they can put you in prison than they have no right deciding if you are to be allowed to have children or not.


But you know what. This just ain't worth my nerves. I simply refuse to participate in a discussion with people who not only twist my words to instil what ever ideological bend they want on them but than insist on demanding I accept their interpretation.

[New haven america]

No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible.

Well, ain't that damning evidence? (Under any circumstance includes abuse, as abuse is a circumstance)

Only an intellectually dishonest or insane or idiotic (and I absolutely refuse to believe any of you is the later two) person would naturally come to an interpretation of my words that translates to "under no conditions shall the parents be arrested for anything".

You said that no government institution should, ever, under any circumstance have the right the enter someone's home and take away their children. Your words, not mine.

So, either you support the government taking the abuser's child/children from them, or you think that the kids should stay with the abuser(s)? Because as you stated, under no circumstance should the state go in and take someone's kid from them, there's no situation where that would be sensible.

You backed yourself into the corner, not me. (Notice which words were indented)

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

Only an intellectually dishonest or insane or idiotic (and I absolutely refuse to believe any of you is the later two) person would naturally come to an interpretation of my words that translates to "under no conditions shall the parents be arrested for anything".

You said that no government institution should, ever, under any circumstance have the right the enter someone's home and take away their children. Your words, not mine.

So, either you support the government taking the abuser's child/children from them, or you think that the kids should stay with the abuser(s)? Because as you stated, under no circumstance should the state go in and take someone's kid from them, there's no situation where that would be sensible.

You backed yourself into the corner, not me.

It looks pretty clear that they're not going to budge on this one, no matter how much mental gymnastics it takes.

[Great Nepal]

Humans aren't property. Making one doesn't give you ownership of them.

Ownership? Definitely not.

It does give you guardianship of that human by default and the right to make decisions for them until they can make their own decisions.

I don't think Ebnious was trying to make the implication that children were property of their parents. They are wards of their parents.

Similar to how the state can be granted guardianship of a specific person and be granted the right to make decisions for them until they can make their own, and these people are considered wards of the state. Again, not property. Wards.

Whoever - or whatever - has legal guardianship of a child is normally entitled to exercise their ability to make decisions on that person's behalf in accordance with the principles of said guardianship. It may be a parent, an attorney, a non-immediate family member, or even the state itself as per above.

That principle includes acting in best interest of the ward, when dispute arises on what that entails we turn to standard dispute resolution mechanism - the courts. Courts in this instance, having reviewed evidence determined turning the child into lab rat wasn't in his best interest.

Oh really? So we should just abandon medicinal experimentation and attempting new means of treating illnesses that are un-treatable at present?

I feel nothing but contempt for those who choose Palliative care and Euthanasia over something that may save their life experimental or not, all other circumstances being equal. And the idea that the NHS took the right to fight for their childs life from these two people is nothing but despicable.

You can try medical experimentation on individuals who're able and have provided informed consent to said experimentation, the child being a child and in a vegetative state is understandably unable to provide informed consent. I suppose the parents could have made the case that advancing science by performing painful and fruitless experimentation on Charlie would be in his best interest, but I doubt that'd fly.

Ever tried NHS Scotland? Good luck.
Anyway, they don't from America, and as I said if he was unabe to be taken to the doctor then the case would have been over very quickly as the medical arguments would have started by hinging on whether it was physically possible to take him their, not about what would happen while he was their.

Removing child to a jurisdiction where his rights are weakly protected so a doctor can maybe take a look at him instead of doctor making one day trip out to do so, understandably doesn't pass the smell test.

[New haven america]

You said that no government institution should, ever, under any circumstance have the right the enter someone's home and take away their children. Your words, not mine.

So, either you support the government taking the abuser's child/children from them, or you think that the kids should stay with the abuser(s)? Because as you stated, under no circumstance should the state go in and take someone's kid from them, there's no situation where that would be sensible.

You backed yourself into the corner, not me.

It looks pretty clear that they're not going to budge on this one, no matter how much mental gymnastics it takes.

It seems that they don't get what "Under any circumstance" means.

Oh well...

[Calladan]

No situation? You can't think of a single situation where the government should take a child away from its parents? Not a single one?

Nope not a single one.
I can see situations where the parents commit a crime like say trying to literally murder or rape the kid, or they are a drug dealer or murderer or something similarly nasty in general and are sent to prison for their crime which de-facto takes away access to their children. But that is very much not the same thing as deliberately deciding that even though a person has committed no crime he is no longer to have the right to care for his children.

So you CAN think of situation whee the government should take a child away from the parents. You seem to be changing your story. Funny that.

[Blitzkeig]

It looks pretty clear that they're not going to budge on this one, no matter how much mental gymnastics it takes.

It seems that they don't get what "Under any circumstance" means.

Oh well...

I think people here may be arguing a deliberately obtuse view of the statement.
What I believe he is arguing is that in cases of abuse, they don't take away the child, they take away the parents from the child; which, naturally, leads to said child going into state care or living with a relative.

I disagree, of course, even with that view. Their are situations where children probably should be taken away from their parents, like if the parents are incapable of looking after the child (though in my book you're going to want some amazing proof on that one.)

[Calladan]

It seems that they don't get what "Under any circumstance" means.

Oh well...

I think people here may be arguing a deliberately obtuse view of the statement.
What I believe he is arguing is that in cases of abuse, they don't take away the child, they take away the parents from the child; which, naturally, leads to said child going into state care or living with a relative.

I disagree, of course, even with that view. Their are situations where children probably should be taken away from their parents, like if the parents are incapable of looking after the child (though in my book you're going to want some amazing proof on that one.)

Yeah, but if someone is going to use the phrase "No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible" then with all due respect, they should be ready to get mocked and ridiculed when they change their mind because it is such an utterly ludicrous statement to make and clearly they didn't mean it when they said it. They were just trying to make an over the top point about this case using the most over the top language they could find and - as I said - for that they clearly deserved mocking.

And - by the way - in cases of abuse (at least in the UK) the child is generally removed from the abusive environment (the home) while the case is investigated, and placed somewhere else. The police/social workers/etc (in short - the government) literally goes into the home, forces itself upon the family and takes away the child/children).

[Liberalter]

It's always good to trust the government. I think the hospital ultimately did the right decision. Parents do not know any better, and those advocating for "parent's rights" are usually right wing reactionaries.Doctors know better than you. Personal freedom isn't worth it if it's a life an death situation that can be treated by docto

I think people here may be arguing a deliberately obtuse view of the statement.
What I believe he is arguing is that in cases of abuse, they don't take away the child, they take away the parents from the child; which, naturally, leads to said child going into state care or living with a relative.

I disagree, of course, even with that view. Their are situations where children probably should be taken away from their parents, like if the parents are incapable of looking after the child (though in my book you're going to want some amazing proof on that one.)

Yeah, but if someone is going to use the phrase "No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible" then with all due respect, they should be ready to get mocked and ridiculed when they change their mind because it is such an utterly ludicrous statement to make and clearly they didn't mean it when they said it. They were just trying to make an over the top point about this case using the most over the top language they could find and - as I said - for that they clearly deserved mocking.

And - by the way - in cases of abuse (at least in the UK) the child is generally removed from the abusive environment (the home) while the case is investigated, and placed somewhere else. The police/social workers/etc (in short - the government) literally goes into the home, forces itself upon the family and takes away the child/children).

rs.
I agree. Why even have parents when the state can have the experts raise children instead.

[Blitzkeig]

Breaking: Charlie Gard died in a hospis around 10 minutes ago. Will find a source.

[Thyerata]

The BBC has just reported that Charlie has died. I would think that this would be an appropriate point to bring the debate to a halt.

[Blitzkeig]

It's always good to trust the government. I think the hospital ultimately did the right decision. Parents do not know any better, and those advocating for "parent's rights" are usually right wing reactionaries.Doctors know better than you. Personal freedom isn't worth it if it's a life an death situation that can be treated by docto

Yeah, but if someone is going to use the phrase "No government institution should ever under any circumstance have the right to enter someones home and force it self upon the family to take away their children. There simply is absolutely no situation where that is sensible" then with all due respect, they should be ready to get mocked and ridiculed when they change their mind because it is such an utterly ludicrous statement to make and clearly they didn't mean it when they said it. They were just trying to make an over the top point about this case using the most over the top language they could find and - as I said - for that they clearly deserved mocking.

And - by the way - in cases of abuse (at least in the UK) the child is generally removed from the abusive environment (the home) while the case is investigated, and placed somewhere else. The police/social workers/etc (in short - the government) literally goes into the home, forces itself upon the family and takes away the child/children).

rs.
I agree. Why even have parents when the state can have the experts raise children instead.

I do hope this is sarcasm.

[Calladan]

The BBC has just reported that Charlie has died. I would think that this would be an appropriate point to bring the debate to a halt.

hear, fucking hear.

[Thyerata]

The BBC has just reported that Charlie has died. I would think that this would be an appropriate point to bring the debate to a halt.

hear, fucking hear.

I'm probably going to invite a mod to lock it.

[Minoa]

I can officially confirm a source announcing the death of Charlie Gard, at the age of 11 months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40752120