subgenius wrote:Chap wrote:That is what the courts are for - and I am glad they do that job, since, sadly, there are times when the desperate optimism of parents may end up doing the child more harm than good. .
Guaranteed death or possible cure.....the former being your definition of "better", the latter being "more harm" - Got it!
So what you are really saying is that the courts were merely adjudicating optimism.....Parents being denied "2nd opinion" or exercising their right to seek other treatments is something you are "glad" occurs via writ....great job!
At what point do you suppose the Doctors of Great Ormond have the authority to raise such a dispute? I mean is this not tantamount to the doctors accusing the parents of neglect or abuse? surely such dangerous parents should be brought up on charges by your reasoning, yes?
The question is, does anyone but the parents have any right to set limits on the suffering inflicted on a child in the hope that there may be some amelioration in the child's condition?
I do not think any civilised country could tolerate a state of affairs in which no limits were set on parental discretion in that regard. Thus, for instance, suppose parents were to be persuaded that the application of red-hot irons to their child's skin might, just might, improve the child's health (that once was an approved medical therapy, by the way). Clearly any reasonable person would expect the law to intervene at that point, and say to the parents
'No. We understand that you think you are doing the best you can for your child. But we must and shall over-ride your discretion and say enough is enough. Better your child should die in peace than that it should suffer so much in the distant hope of a cure.'
If anyone thinks that in such a case the parents should be allowed to continue the branding treatment, I have nothing to say to them.
But to the 99.99% who would agree that in such a case the law should be allowed to intervene and over-ride the parents, I would point out that you have conceded the essential principle. The law must at times intervene to protect a child from the consequences of a mistaken judgement by parents. A child is not its parents' property, to do with as they will, but a human being with rights. And sometimes one of those rights may be the right to be left to die in peace rather than to be made to suffer in a hopeless quest.
The courts are currently reviewing the case of the child referred to in the OP, to see if there is further evidence that might change the original decision. I have no idea how they will decide. I have no wish for the decision to go one way or another. I just want it to be made on a cool and rational estimate of the balance of prolonged pain versus possible amelioration of the child's condition.
(I would however be delighted if it suddenly turned out that a miracle cure was available that would rescue this child from its apparently certain fate and its parents from their grief. But that seems very, very unlikely as things currently stand).
