Utopia Talk / Politics / Attn seb: RIP

obaminated Member	Sun May 06 18:40:32 Your idiotic argument for death panels. http://www...sign-papers-donate-organs.html
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun May 06 18:55:05 Good for him, I hope there are no aftereffects.
jergul large member	Sun May 06 18:59:36 Keep everyone on life-support always for as long as possible! Medical breakthroughs happen every decade. Some might be saved!
Seb Member	Sun May 06 19:04:35 obaminated: What point do you think you are making here? People are kept on life support while they have a prospective chance of recovery. In a private system, the definition for when it will be turned off is set in your contract with your insurers. In a public system, the definition is set by doctors who are under no incentives other than the patients health. In both cases these can be arbitrated through the courts. In the case of Alfie, it wasn't just brain damage. Brain-scans showed that almost all of his brain had degenerated to the point it was intra-cranial fluid and water. There is no miraculous recovery from that.
obaminated Member	Sun May 06 19:19:16 The obvious point, seb, is your defensw for experts in the Uk stalling alfie from being able to see experts in the US "because he is brain dead and can never come back" is clearly wrong.
Seb Member	Sun May 06 19:38:48 obaminated: Alfie wasn't blocked from seeing experts in the US, he was blocked from going to Italy where the only thing on offer was palliative care. Numerous medical opinions given the scans were provided to the court, and the court made a judgement. In Alfie's case, none of the foreign doctors who provided opinions provided an opinion that there was an alternative course of care based on the information available. In the case of Charlie Gard, the only doctors that indicated otherwise were those that who had not examined him or seen the detailed records. When the court provided these, the doctors revised their opinions. Courts do not take these decisions as lightly as you think they do - if there was evidence presented and medical opinion presented that offered a reasonable chance of recovery, then obviously that would be pursued as it would be in the child's best interest to do so. And given this kid was in a very different situation from Alfie, I don't see how this case proves anything.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun May 06 19:45:31 It proves the brain has an uncanny way of healing itself on rare occasions.
hood Member	Sun May 06 21:09:44 "In a private system, the definition for when it will be turned off is set in your contract with your insurers. In a public system, the definition is set by doctors who are under no incentives other than the patients health." This is false. In a private system, the definition is also set by doctors. The private system just stops paying after a while. A public system generally pays for a longer period of time.
hood Member	Sun May 06 21:10:34 Also, does nobody see the irony in titling this thread "RIP"?
CrownRoyal Member	Sun May 06 21:46:53 Lol
Seb Member	Mon May 07 03:55:54 Hood: When the money stops in a private system, hood, what happens?
Seb Member	Mon May 07 04:05:15 Or rather, if the hospital's policies are not in line with an insurers, what happens?
Sam Adams Member	Mon May 07 04:43:59 Obviously there must be some method in any system to pull the plug... because rescources are limitted. But the really objectionable part of british retardation in this case is the threatening of state violence to quiet those who disagreed.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 05:06:20 Hot Rod: Brains don't spontaneously condense out of water. It's one thing for a brain that's structurally there but damaged to improve, but if the brain has physically broken down to water?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 07 05:47:39 There are some of us, who find dignity in never giving up and fighting to the end. It is part of the values we try to live by and instill in our children. I am sure these concept, to go down fighting, to never give up, regardless of pain and discomfort, is completely alien for a "progressive" segment of humanity. It is this attitude towards life and what is or is not dignified that the courts decided on and for the citizen of UK. To summarize: Not a single test showed reaction to pain. This is where the court ruling showed uncertainty, that it could not be ruled out completely. You know like Alfie's recovery could certainly be ruled out... Provided such a grim diagnosis, people will chose differently. Some would end it quickly, some would fight, despite hopeless odds. Again ideas that will no doubt shock people like seb and jergul or be pathologized as something deviant or another. Despite his parents wishes, who knew their child better than the experts, his temperament and attitude, it was decided that Alfie would have preferred death. That he, despite Roman catholic parents, had a "progressive" view on life, discomfort and dignity. So for a lot of people, that is the principle at play, not how much rights parents have over their children. It was assumed that Alfie Evans would have reasoned like the courts and experts (if he had the capability to do so) over his predicament, and not like his parents or any of the other people who supported them. It was assumed that Alfie would have reasoned like Seb.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 06:18:03 Nim: But that's the crux isn't it: who gets to decide a child should continue to fight in considerable pain in a futile situation? Patents in that situation are not necessarily going to be able to make a decision in the child's best interest. In much the same way doctors are normally not permitted to treat their own child under most ethics codes, are you sure it's such a bad idea here to allow courts arbitration when there is disseent on the best interest of the child? Your argument that the parents know what Alfie would have wanted isn't that sound a legal principle. If parents can provide consent for children to undergo suffering automatically, where does that leave children of Jehovah witnesses who need a blood transfusion or risk death? Or children of fundamentalist Muslims that wish to cut the vagina? Surely they can say their children, being devout, would suffer and then who are we to gainsay the parents? We can't create a law that simply says "the state decided in all instances where Nim/society would disagree with the parents" it needs to be based on an objective set of principles. 're pain, both the sides witnesses agreed that pain was a possibility. Do it was not in dispute. The case the patents put did not rest on the basis that Alfie would feel no pain. And it is slightly ludicrous to argue that a definitive test should apply: honestly there's no way to tell what a person with only their brainstem I tact would experience. Finally, trying to link everything you like into some sinister agenda is silly. This isn't a "progressive" issue. The children's act was brought in by a very conservative govt.
hood Member	Mon May 07 06:32:58 "When the money stops in a private system, hood, what happens? Or rather, if the hospital's policies are not in line with an insurers, what happens?" The private insurer stops paying and the hospital bills the patient. Private systems aren't voodoo.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon May 07 06:53:56 With socialism, you never run out of OPM.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 07:00:56 hood: What happens when the patient cannot pay? Life support is ungodly expensive.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 07:01:58 HotRod: With state funded systems, particularly direct funding like the NHS, the doctors and hospitals never have to make treatment decisions where money is a factor.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon May 07 07:06:12 That's what I said.
hood Member	Mon May 07 07:27:21 "What happens when the patient cannot pay? Life support is ungodly expensive." What scenario are we talking here? Patient has insurance, insurance stops paying and patient has to foot the bill? Hospitals will just keep going and just keep charging. They will then use those cases to argue why they need pay schedule increases. They also expect the patient to pay ever mounting medical bills over the long term. If patient cannot pay, they usually don't have insurance. Hospital still must provide services because they cannot by law refuse service in life threatening situations. If you're asking for the point at which a hospital will pull the plug on a patient, that I don't know. I work in back end health care. I have familiarity with payers, contracts, who is paying what, etc. I don't have a clue about the actual medical decisions. Overall, hospitals aren't going to just straight up let someone die. At best, it's horrible publicity that will get your owners in big shit. At worst, you've got a new owner because a next of kin sues your ass out of existence. If you're looking for some morality argument from me, that ain't my angle. Just pointing out that private insurers still deal with doctors and will often have licensed, practicing doctors on staff to contribute to making health related decisions.
Mexicantardnado Member	Mon May 07 08:06:49 Duuuuuur hood talk about his job duuuur no one cares duuuuuur dude, bro duuuur brah duuuur
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 07 10:18:29 Seb "Your argument that the parents know what Alfie would have wanted isn't that sound a legal principle." That is precisely the principle your society and every other society operates on, until certain criteria have been met. You and I may personally disagree with parents who indoctrinate their children with retarded things, but for pragmatic reason or others, we leave people alone when it comes to raising their children. You keep bringing up instances where there is unquestionable objective medical evidence that the parents wishes and decision is harmful for the child, refusing blood transfusion. This was not one of those instances. There was no evidence that his parents were causing him harm, indeed no evidence that Alfie felt _anything_ at all. You then go on and say that we can't not make laws that rule based on objective principles. I have no idea what you mean by this. There are objective facts to be found in medicine and more specifically on what is harmful and is not harmful to human beings. What we do not have objective evidence on and which the ruling was ultimately about, is dignity. What is and is not a dignified existence varies from individual to individual. Whether Alfie was the fighter his parents said he was, is something only he could have answered. But the states ruling is predicated on the assumption that such a temperament and POV on life, _does not_ exist. It is self evident that no one would want such an "undignified" existence among this crowd. That is false and should be obvious to everyone, far from every terminally ill adult contemplates suicide. >>Finally, trying to link everything you like into some sinister agenda is silly. This isn't a "progressive" issue.<< I guess it is all a great mystery to you then? That ideologies and values compete, differ and are at times irreconcilable seems obvious to me. Likewise that these efforts are driven by individuals and groups with agendas. Equally obvious that you and I may find them sinister as they violate principles we hold. When one puts it like I just did, it doesn't sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, it sounds like the real world.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 07 10:55:47 The other discussion about how the public vs private works is interesting, because my gauge is that an equal portion of Swedes have a rather dystopic version of the private system as ameicans do about vice versa. Which is quite the selective reasoning considering that, how poorly health care works in Sweden is an eternal political issue. There are instances of malpractice, bad treatments, mistreatment and people falling through the cracks, budget for needy getting slashed etc and so on every fucking month. But when it comes to whatabouting the USA, people tend to forget about it.
hood Member	Mon May 07 11:12:55 Yeah, if you go to any company providing insurance, you'll find a chief medical officer. Ex: https://www.aetna.com/about-us/aetna-leadership.html Scroll down into executive vice presidents and you'll find Harold Paz. They undoubtedly have more underling (i.e management but not executive) doctors providing guidance and expertise to the medical based decisions. Granted, those doctors generally don't have enough sway to change monetary policy. But they definitely have effects, from as big as being able to get better surgery types covered (ex from my personal life: mom had to have the lens in her eye replaced, insurance covered more than just barebones replacement and while she had to pay extra, was able to get top-end lenses and now doesn't need glasses anymore), down to the small things like having flu shots covered or being able to get physical therapy for what might seem like a miniscule "owwie." Physicians would undoubtedly be in the meetings in setting life support policies.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 12:55:13 Hood: My point is not moral. My point is that once insurance stops, it quickly becomes unaffordable. Which puts the hospital in a position of either terminating support or taking unlimited costs or horrendous publicity. So I suspect there is strong incentives on hospital's to align their policies with insurance companies on end of life decisions. And as ever, any disputes to be handled in court but i imagine more around a question of liability than best interests. Either way, the fundamental argument around "death pannels" was that taxpayer cost controls would kick in with the state deciding to withdraw care. Financial concerns seem more likely a pressure in the privatised system. The reality is that the two cases that have come up since the US right wing think tanks started using the UK system as a proving ground have hinged on disputes between doctors and parents over palliative care in end of life situations. Which is a different scenario than the one envisaged by the term "death pannels", and may also a feature of the US system (see Terri Schiavo), and a consequence not of socialused Vs privatised but doctors duty of care to patient and hypocratic patch conflicting with parental/ gaurdian responsibility. That is my point, and if you don't fundamentaly disagree with it, can I suggest given your tendency to get frustrated easily, to not engage further.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 13:09:06 Nim: I think we are talking exclusively about what those criteria are and when they have been met though. "You keep bringing up instances where there is unquestionable objective medical evidence" Nim, courts will order a blood transfusion even when there is only a risk of harm of not having it. Further, the whole point of a court is to weigh the evidence. And the court will consider mental harm. The fact a court will hear evidence shows that it's not "unquestionable". The point about any ruling is that based on the evidence, the court finds beyond all reasonable doubt harm outweighs benefit. It seems like you are not arguing about the right of the court to decide, but rather asserting that the courts (all four of them) in this case reached the wrong conclusion based on the evidence presented. Those are two very different arguments. that the parents wishes and decision is harmful for the child, refusing blood transfusion. In this case Alfie's parents agreed that it was not safe to discount Alfie feeling pain. I don't think you properly appreciate the implications of this. As both sides agreed with this, it was not in dispute so the court was not in a position to consider alternative views. This is specifically noted by the judge. You may personally argue that Alfie couldn't feel anything at all, but neither side felt that was an argument for the court to consider. Gtg, more later.
hood Member	Mon May 07 13:09:35 I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that doctors are absolutely involved in private market decision making for health insurers. Also: "My point is that once insurance stops, it quickly becomes unaffordable. Which puts the hospital in a position of either terminating support or taking unlimited costs or horrendous publicity." This is the US we're talking about. Hospitals will get their blood money from next of kin. That rarely ever gets publicized. Yes it becomes very unaffordable. But the younger generation has years and years to milk $$$ from.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 14:37:32 Re a set of objective principles, I mean a clear set of principles we can as a society agree on. For example "best interests of the child". We may then disagree about what course of action is in the best interests of the child, but we can agree the outcome that would be in the best interests of the child. What is in dispute is the course of action that achieves this. I disagree completely that the current framework is a part of "progressive" politics.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 14:46:50 Hood: I don't think I ever suggested they weren't. My point was that contrary to the whole "socialiaed care = death panel" arguments, the financial incentives for withdrawal of life support are likely to be more strongly felt in private insurance systems. I said "the definition of when it will be turned off" - I.e. policies for when to withdraw lifesupport - will be set by hospitals which have a strong incentive to align with insurers to limit their liability. Doctors will determine if these criteria are met, yes. So you appear to be disputing a misconception of my argument. Note, I'm not calling you a liar. You are merely mistaken.
hood Member	Mon May 07 16:43:35 Except you are still inaccurate. See my "also" part of the above post.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 16:52:00 Hood: Families wealth isn't infinite. Assuming family can afford the huge cost of life support for more than a few weeks seems an unrealistic assumption in most cases.
hood Member	Mon May 07 17:00:34 Are you really unfamiliar with debts, loans and repayment plans?
Seb Member	Mon May 07 17:00:43 Cost of life support in icu is 2000 to 4000 USD per day.
hood Member	Mon May 07 17:02:40 Completely immaterial.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 17:15:46 Hood: That's 50 times the cost of servicing my mortgage per month. Hardly immaterial. And I'm in the 94th percentile in post tax income. I doubt that's a remotely sustainable financial proposition for most families.
hood Member	Mon May 07 17:46:10 That doesn't matter to the hospital, which is the pertinent information. Hospital will keep providing care and keep charging. If the family cannot pay lump sum, they will take monthly payments. Not sure how this concept is so foreign to you that you begin arguing family income.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 17:53:05 Hood: I don't think you understand the point. In almost any case, six months is going to stack up more cost than any family will ever be able to repay. And if the family cannot or will not agree and the cost exceeds the assets of the estate - who eats the loss?
hood Member	Mon May 07 18:39:02 I have covered that already. You should pay attention.
obaminated Member	Mon May 07 20:05:08 I love that Seb pivots his argument to a financial issue. If I have the money, let me pay the money. You, a government middle man, don't get to tell me "hey, you shouldn't spend that much on keeping your child alive."
Seb Member	Tue May 08 01:47:57 Obaminated: Nope, missed the point entirely. I'm saying the original argument encapsulated by the term "death pannels" was that bureaucrats would define end of life based on cost of treatment. However financial incentives are stronger in the US system. Meanwhile the cases Aeros objects to are not about how healthcare is financed but actually about medical ethics and are features of both US and UK approaches. Hood: If you think you have, you haven't done so clearly. Do you agree that where insurers do not cover life support, most families generally are not able to do so for any length of time, and that this creates a strong financial pressure on hospitals to align their policies with insurance cos to ensure alignment and minimise financial risk?
hood Member	Tue May 08 07:27:27 Not at all. If you're unable to read fairly simple sentences, that isn't my problem. You have adeptly demonstrated an extreme lack of cognitive ability, specifically in comprehension. Try reading. Feel free to start from the beginning of the thread. If you can't pick up on it, well then maybe you should just kill yourself out of shame.
Seb Member	Tue May 08 07:32:05 Hood: Strike.
hood Member	Tue May 08 07:37:31 Tourette's much?
Seb Member	Tue May 08 07:39:26 You've dodged around the issue: Doctors are involved: nobody claimed otherwise. When insurance doesn't pay, you say families will. We've established that's very quickly becomes unaffordable. Your argument is that hospitals will simply just pay until they don't. We've seen hospitals deciding to withdraw treatment and being sued. Sure hospitals can't stop treating people who are alive and uninsured. Hence brain death. And I'd argue that the number of miraculous recoveries from brain death may be due to ptotocols for diagnosing it because of financial pressures. I imagine insurers play a role in shaping the protocols for diagnosing it In hospitals. You've not directly assessed this point. Just attempted to dodge the issue by invoking bottomless pocketed families and bad PR.
hood Member	Tue May 08 07:54:12 I most certainly have addressed your point. You just do not read or comprehend (see: ridiculous comment about "bottomless pocketed families," a construct you made up and assigned to me as an argument I made). I have no intention of repeating myself in circles as you try to dance around. Nor do I intend to entertain your dishonest arguments for as long as you wish to make them. You're the only person with this issue. You have it with multiple people. Any timetable on when you're going to stop living in your hot-rodian fantasy world and realize that your communication skills rival that of a raccoon?
obaminated Member	Tue May 08 08:10:27 Whyd you go with raccoon?
hood Member	Tue May 08 08:12:12 They always look guilty and they are stereotypically obsessed with trash. Seems seb-like.
Seb Member	Tue May 08 08:15:12 Hood: hood Member Mon May 07 16:43:35 Except you are still inaccurate. See my "also" part of the above post. Seb Member Mon May 07 16:52:00 Hood: Families wealth isn't infinite. Assuming family can afford the huge cost of life support for more than a few weeks seems an unrealistic assumption in most cases. You then proceeded to raise families again, even after I demonstrated how unrealistic that is. You are evading the point, and it's not clear what you are objecting to.
hood Member	Tue May 08 08:34:48 "You then proceeded to raise families again, even after I demonstrated how unrealistic that is." Where did you demonstrate that it is unrealistic for a hospital to charge (to pull a number out of my ass) $1000/month for the next 30 years to whoever inherited the bill?
Seb Member	Tue May 08 09:02:18 Hood: Where I pointed out that the cost was up $4000 a day. So your $1000 dollars a month for 30 years buys under 8 days of life support. 15 at the lower end.
Seb Member	Tue May 08 09:02:47 To which you said "immaterial".
hood Member	Tue May 08 10:47:46 Well, see, if you think 1000*12*30/4000=8, you just can't math. To which I say: not at all surprised.
Seb Member	Tue May 08 11:17:51 Hood: Quite right. Sorry, you can buy three months. That fundamentally changed things doesn't it.
Seb Member	Tue May 08 11:24:39 This is what I mean by being a process monkey. It's immediately obvious without doing the math that 4000usd /d isn't sustainable. The fact I need to do the calculation to get you to acknowledge the point is sad. And yes I cocked up doing the mental arithmetic forgetting to multiply by 12. But the point stands. We are talking about maxing out a rich families finances over a lifetime in a matter of weeks. So no, the hospital cannot keep charging the family and sorting out a plan. They are going to bankrupt the family. So, actually, yeah, they at going to end up (and do end up) requesting permission from the courts to remove life support (or the family will agree due to not having the financial wherewithal) if there is legal grounds to do so - hence brain death.
hood Member	Tue May 08 11:42:37 Not to get dragged back into an argument with a raccoon, but methinks you're conflating opinion with fact here. I am sharing facts. You seem to think they represent my opinion on what should happen. I have not shared an (on topic) opinion in this thread.
Seb Member	Tue May 08 11:47:15 Hood: So, when I said that in an insurance based system insurers would inevitably define end of life criteria, you said this was false. I've explained why I think that (tl;Dr, treating people beyond a point becomes financially unsustainable and only the insurers, ultimately, can finance that). You don't appear to have offered a compelling reason why thats not the case.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 09 07:49:36 "In this case Alfie's parents agreed that it was not safe to discount Alfie feeling pain. I don't think you properly appreciate the implications of this." Yes pain is very very bad, we would rather not feel pain. So what? Do you any doubt, on whether we experience and endure pain differently? We endure, we fight, we live and die. The courts decision is impossible without the assumption that we don't. That everyone would chose the same path given the same diagnosis. This isn't the case.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 09 08:12:24 Risk of death, as is the case of not having a blood transfusion, is very very different from risk of pain. Not a good example, specially since I am not arguing that parents have absolute rights over their children. So what evidence was there that Alfie was in such pain that death was the better option? And what evidence is there he was not up for a hopeless and painful fight? None. And this is what the 4 courts ruled on, based on the medical professions inability to completely exclude pain and suffering. Apparently the courts are oblivious to how much of medicine is navigated with uncertainty and obscured by lack of knowledge. The basis for pulling the plug or really any expert opinion is and will to a large extent be a judgment call, based on the best available evidence at the time. You and I seem to come to different conclusions on what to do, when the risk to exposure is death and the future is uncertain. You say die, I say hold on. We seem to value life very differently. You say we need to be safe lest we risk inflicting pain. I say we need to be safe lest we inflict death. I think death is generally a worse outcome than pain. And how much pain we are willing to endure before we rather die, varies wildly.
Seb Member	Mon May 14 12:21:44 Nim: Like I said, you are not appreciating the significance of both parties agreeing it not safe to discount suffering. If both parties agree, then the court isn't being asked to rule on that, and cannot decide to base a ruling based on an issue here. Your argument, that if Alfie is brain dead then he cannot suffer so it would be safe to undertake further procedures, was not before the court do the court could not rule on that basis. The choice wasn't "pain is better than death", the ruling was "as there is no medical treatment offered that would improve his condition, further treatment is *unnecessary* suffering". Even the Italian option was merely palliative. Yes, it's a judgement call. That's why we call them judges.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 14 12:47:23 Pain and suffering is irrelevant for the previously mentioned reasons. "that if Alfie is brain dead then he cannot suffer" That if all the test came back negative and death is final, then scientific certainty regarding what can and can not be discounted regarding pain and suffering, is irrelevant for previously mentioned pain and suffering reasons being irrelevant. We experience pain and suffering different. The court has no place here, until you can provide the type of evidence that you were so quick to give us with blood transfusions, an instance where we agree. No such evidence exists.
Seb Member	Mon May 14 16:24:31 Nim: You are not really making much sense. Why do you think pain and suffering are irrelevant? Both plaintiffs thought it completely relevant, and I don't really understand at all why you think a judge should discount that given he isn't being asked to rule on that basis. Generally, when you start a court case, you don't want the judge to go off an rule on a completely different issue which neither of you disagree with. That's no basis for a sound legal system, where you have no idea if a judge is going to pull the run from under you by introducing an entirely different set of issues than the one you are entering into a dispute over.
Seb Member	Mon May 14 16:24:50 *both parties!
Seb Member	Mon May 14 16:28:15 Both sides were explicitly arguing the case: "what is in the best interests of the child" The argument for taking the risk of causing suffering has to be matched by the possibility of improving the childs condition. Both sides agreed there was a risk of suffering. The point of dispute was whether there was a viable option for improving the child's condition. Overwhelmingly, the medical evidence suggested not. So the proposition was "take actions that will likely do harm, but confer no benefit" - which is against the best interests of the child.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 15 04:32:09 1. Parents right to their children shall only be overruled when there is evidence of harm. 2. Our ability to tolerate pain and suffering is different. 3. Nothing indicated he even felt pain. The uncertainty (which exists all over in medicine) is perfectly irrelevant. When it comes to a life and death situation, it is better to err on the side of life and not railroad people. Pain is temporary, death is permanent. You can always die, later. It is the same moral argument one would/could make against the death penalty. In our prisons there are many irredeemable (terminal) and violent people, they cost a lot of money, probably more than someone on life support. They also regularly inflict violence on the people employed to take care of them. Something the terminally ill do not usually. There are very good moral and economical arguments to execute them. They are not going to get better, they are suffering in prison and they are also inflicting suffering on others. Plug these people into the chair. Socially dead people are comparable to brain dead people, I don't really see brain activity as an issue in this case. The harm to the rest of society > brain activity. But I do not trust any system that is to arbitrate over who lives and who dies. Since I believe life has intrinsic value, any erosion of that is a step down the ladder to hell. Uncertainty in fairness, evidence and flaws in the system and our holes in knowledge will without a doubt send innocent people to their death. "Both sides agreed there was a risk of suffering." Oh noes! This would be much less fun if you were not the SJW snowflake who thinks people should be sent to jail for making jokes that offend. You are consistent in your aversion to risks of suffering. Completely oblivious that this view differs. Apparently Alfies parents where not in your camp on this issue.
Seb Member	Tue May 15 06:05:38 Nim: "1. Parents right to their children shall only be overruled when there is evidence of harm. 2. Our ability to tolerate pain and suffering is different. 3. Nothing indicated he even felt pain." *sigh* From the point of view of the court, point 3 is contrary to the evidence presented by both sides - which stated in their arguments they felt that the child probably did feel pain. I know that is not the argument you would make, and you would likely present evidence to that effect. But if both parties to the court submit that, then the judge is not free to invent such evidence and introduce it into his deliberations. I really don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: