If you live in the USA, this has Terri Schiavo-energy all around. It’s different, I know. Terri was alive and braindead. This infant is gonna die. The court is sparing the infant pain.
But why would you keep a child alive to suffer? It’s like Terri in that the parents refuse to think about anyone other than themselves. That’s just cruel / terrible / bad.
Are we really allowing articles from Fox News here now? FN clearly violates rule 3. Even if this particular story is sound, it just legitimizes them as an org and all of the other bonkers stuff they put out.
From your link:
Straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, which earns them a Mixed factual rating.
My second point stands.
Just because an outlet that spews made up nonsense and outright lies throws you a factual bone once in a while, it doesn’t make them credible. Hence the "low credibility "rating.
Fair point. I just fire up Google News and check headlines. Some are from Fox and some of those are fact-based. I didn’t consider the source, only the content (though I do consider the source when I begin reading anything from Fox). I know they’re mostly trash and lies.
Are you joking?
Parents are grieving and I hesitate to judge their irrational actions because grief isn’t a logical process.
They think they’re saving their child by refusing to say good bye. Unfortunately they’re being enabled by people with political agendas.
First of all, there is no reason to believe that this child is doomed to a life of suffering. Palliative care has come a long way, and people with terminal illnesses can almost always be made comfortable until the end arrives.
Furthermore, Terri Schiavo was not braindead, she was in a vegetative state. When someone is declared braindead they are legally dead and will immediately be taken to the morgue (stopping by the operating room if they are an organ donor.)
Terri Schiavo could breathe on her own, so by definition she was not braindead. In the US, when someone is incapacitated their family is responsible for determining what medical care they would have wanted.
Schiavo’s husband determined that she would not want life support. The courts supported his determination because he was her next of kin. If her husband had determined she wanted life support, the courts would have supported that too. That’s markedly different from the decision making in the OP.
This has happened a couple times in the UK. It’s a lot different than the USA for a few reasons, one being the NHS isn’t gonna waste money on someone who has like a .0001% chance of recovery (and why should they?).
These decisions aren’t about the cost of care, they’re about the interests of the individual and, in this case, not prolonging suffering unnecessarily.
Sorry, but a previous-case falsifies that that is the principle the NHS consistently is enforcing…
THE case which falsified White-medicine’s position that “no new braincells occur in a brain after adulthood is reached” was a guy who spent 19y in a coma, after having his hemispheres sundered in a crash.
The UK’s NHS was TRYING to get the plug pulled.
He woke up, violating their textbooks/dogma established-“knowledge”.
He had grown a replacement corpus-callosum 'round the back of his brain, re-connecting his hemispheres.
I believe they hit him with sooo many CT-scans that they guaranteed his life’s shortening, then.
Their war to unplug him had been costs-based, not what was best for the individual.
They don’t test the current brain-condition before making these decisions.
The US’s case, of the woman in vegetative-state, was clearly visible … iirc, in autopsy.
Which means it also would have been clearly-visible in any CT-scan or fMRI, also.
Same with the guy in UK who was busy growing replacement-brain for 19y, in his coma…
His recovering would have been visible in EVIDENCE-BASED medicine, but it is authority-based medicine that identifies as evidence-based that is what really is done.
Here is a years-old article which became a chapter in one of John Brockman’s books, stating exactly that authority-based medicine calls itself evidence-based medicine:
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25433
It isn’t ballsy-enough to call that entire-profession-gaslighting, as I do, but I’m a braindamage-survivor who was gaslit by the medical-profession for decades, & the REASON that there is such a low recovery-rate for such epigenetically-enforced brain-injury isn’t that that’s an innate-requirement of the condition, but rather because when you bully people with literal-brain-decimation into knowing that it “isn’t” brain-injury, but is instead “is” “incurable mental-illness”, & you bully them into being drugged into psychiatric-zombiehood, for sake of institutional-authority & institutional-budgetary-allocations-from-revenue, THEN you force the lives-in-question to NOT adapt, to NOT heal, to NOT significantly-improve.
IOW, it’s producing the most-establishment-profitable-result, and NOT acting in the individual’s interests, at all.
The guy who spent 19y in a coma was reported in New Scientist, which is how I found out about it.
My brain’s apparently done similar rewiring.
It takes decades to recover from massive brain-injury, & NEITHER bullying people into becoming “stabilized” chemically-enforced psychiatric-zombies, NOR pulling-the-plug, ALLOWS recovery to BE.
Sorry for being bitter, but having the White-medicine PROFESSION bully me to prevent my healing from existing, then tell me I never validly spent years much-of-the-time-catatonic-with-brain-injury, when I healed, because “healing isn’t possible”, … they can take their gaslighting-for-their-institutional-authority and go eat rocks.
White-medicine MURDERS healing from lives, for their authority’s comfort.
And that IS a moral crime, in my eyes.
( also, there is a history of it subjugating non-Whites to psychiatric “treatment” for the “mental illness” of … assuming civil-rights … , for instance, in the Deep South of the US,
& apparently Indigenous-religions were treated as “psychiatric illness” by the profession for many decades, too.
It’s definitely entire-profession-prejudice, & it’s unjustifiable.
My skin happens to be white, but my reasoning is Buddhist, not White, & THAT has had my life under threat-of-chemically-enforced-obliteration, by that profession:
their whole “souls don’t exist, & if they did, they WOULDN’T be recycled by universe, the way you’re believing: therefore your reasoning IS INSANE” kind of logic that White medicine enforces is just exactly prejudice.
THERE IS NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, CONTAINED WITHIN UNIVERSE, THAT UNIVERSE DOESN’T RECYCLE.
THAT is considered “insane” by White Physicalist-religion.
It’s blunt physics!
Physics includes ALL phenomena in universe, including mind.
The White-religion which pretends that “mind isn’t real”, & that it somehow “isn’t” within physics…
… so the measurable process-difference between a disintegrating-corpse vs a growing-organism “isn’t” in physics??
Ideological-rabies ought not have any right to authority, medical or scientific.
Ever.
I would put it right in all our constitutions, that EVIDENCE-BASED medicine is an inalienable-right.
Fuck institutional-authority based medicine that identifies as “evidence-based”, no matter how established. )
This does not mean that in the case that the OP is about is of that nature, but it means that systematically they are not what you’d told us their institution is.
That, alone, is what I am attacking: a well-entrenched disinformation.
Not you, … just that meaning.
_ /\ _
This issue is coming up that it won’t be NHS resources being used because the baby will be in Italy using a Technically Private hospital, in Italy. There isn’t a good reason to deny that, especially when the baby has Italian citizenship.
There is very good reason to deny it when it will only prolong suffering. That a fascist government has hopped on a Christo-fascist bandwagon is irrelevant. Her condition is incurable and she is suffering.
Non-Fox report here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/12/indi-gregory-critically-ill-baby-girl-removed-from-life-support
Last Monday, Indi was granted emergency Italian citizenship less than an hour before medical staff were due to withdraw life support treatment.
and here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-67378132
There is no reason to assume the child must be suffering. People with access to palliative care usually are not suffering, even if they have a terminal illness.
I’m not assuming anything. That is the basis of the medics’ decision and the court’s ruling.
If her doctors are unable to manage pain then her parents should be allowed to find doctors who can.
She isn’t the first child with this disease, after all. And withdrawal of support is certainly not standard of care for patients like her.
So the baby should die in part… Because of politics? The rest of what you have is fair but really?
No. The baby should not be forced to suffer because of politics.
People with ALS also have a terminal condition that requires life support. Maybe the NHS will start removing their ventilators too, to spare them further suffering.
I hear that human life invariably ends in death…
Why not pull the plug on all who suffer from that condition, then?
I’m certain the nihilists would be pleased by that paradigm…
( I agree with you: my point isn’t to contradict you, it is to point-out where the slippery-slope leads, which is waaay farther than what you illustrated. )
Salut, Namaste, & Kaizen, eh?
_ /\ _
