Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Oct 18 21:18:10 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Aeros! Death panels!!
Seb
Member
Mon May 07 17:01:29
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/jahi-mcmath-could-be-removed-from-life-support-despite-familys-wishes/2013/12/30/41f122f4-7191-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html?utm_term=.b4a83644eac1
murder
Member
Mon May 07 17:15:59

http://www...ry.html?utm_term=.b4a83644eac1
murder
Member
Mon May 07 17:19:32

"... and the family has apparently failed to find another facility willing to keep McMath’s body connected to a ventilator."

That seems odd. Surely there's some screwball Christian facility that will take her in.

Aeros
Member
Mon May 07 18:33:45
Yeah, but the hospital is under restraining order to not remove the ventilator. Seb should probably have done more research into this, and as the US Courts have issued an injunction preventing the removal life support pending the parents attempt to get the child removed to a different hospital willing to continue treatment.

Also, I can't read WaPo articles as I don't have a subscription and hit my monthly limit.
LazyCommunist
Member
Mon May 07 18:37:18
"Also, I can't read WaPo articles as I don't have a subscription and hit my monthly limit"

With Firefox right click on the link and select "open in new private window".

There's nothing wrong with stealing content from ultra capitalist Bezos.
Aeros
Member
Mon May 07 19:36:44
Wow, an article from 2013. Seb really had to reach. And had he checked, he could have found an article from a week ago that completely BTFO Seb's argument.

http://www...ospital-to-facility-in-nj.html


tl;dr, Kid is clearly brain dead. Hospital wants to pull the plug. Parents refuse to allow it. Court battle ensues, and US Courts side with the legal guardians.

Again, unlike in the UK, US Common law allows people to make their own mistakes in matters of legal question.


obaminated
Member
Mon May 07 20:03:08
Bravo Aeros.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon May 07 21:31:51
The hospital should be able to pull the plug at any time. We all pay for for these religious idiots and their science hating idiocy.
Forwyn
Member
Mon May 07 21:54:46
This thread should be archived, right alongside "I just read the title" Cuckhat's idiocy.

BTFO
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 01:10:30
Aeros:

I gave you some other links in the other thread. This actually just came up when researching life support costs.

Yes, courts grant injunctions while they reach a decision.

Your entire point is that families, not doctors or courts, should decide and courts deciding are death panels unique to socialised medicine.

This, plus the three other cases I posted, shows how much bullshit this is.
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 01:13:30
The chakrabarti case is not a final ruling, just requires that life support be retained until a final ruling or transfer.

Seb
Member
Tue May 08 01:14:44
In both these cases are these not death panels Aeros? With parents forced to petition while courts determine?
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 01:21:25
And if you don't like that, what about this one?

http://www...pport-20160826-snap-story.html
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 01:24:27
"Two year-old Israel Stinson, the curly-haired, angelic-looking toddler whose fight for life gained international attention, died Thursday after he was removed from a breathing ventilator against his parents wishes.
Now, supporters of the family are questioning why a Los Angeles hospital moved so quickly to remove him from life support immediately after a judge upheld the decision."

Apparently quack doctors from Guatemala "advised" the parents in this one.

Do you think the courts would have allowed transfer to Guatemala?
Forwyn
Member
Tue May 08 01:52:48
"Here, look at Commiefornia, its quite similar"
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 02:02:29
Federal judge
Forwyn
Member
Tue May 08 02:12:38
Wrong
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 02:25:31
After a federal judge rejected the family's lawsuit May 13, they flew Israel to a private hospital in Guatemala where doctors were willing to give him breathing and feeding tubes. Until that point, Israel had been surviving on a diet of dextrose, or sugar, according to his mother.
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 02:30:11
Or does that mean a federal judge declined to hear the case?

Forwyn
Member
Tue May 08 02:32:27
That's not when the ventilator was removed, retard.

"The family's struggle to save Israel ended when Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue ruled in favor of the hospital's decision, and immediately following the ruling, Israel's ventilator was removed."
Forwyn
Member
Tue May 08 02:34:17
If you were legitimately asking a question, subtract the "retard" in this case. But no, federal judge allowed hospital to remove life support but also allowed family to leave.

They returned to a different hospital, wound up in the same situation, and it seems the hospital was basically waiting on a phone call from the court house to immediate disconnect.
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 03:04:01
Forwyn:

So, for the purposes of my argument, it's pretty clear this isn't a rogue decision of "commie" California but a common feature of all parts of the US courts.

If "death pannels" mean courts arbitrating on removal of life support, then the US has death panels.
obaminated
Member
Tue May 08 03:07:31
Seb pulled a full custer here.
patom
Member
Tue May 08 03:52:47
http://www...ma-organ/2018/05/07/id/858737/

This ought to keep the conversation going.
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 06:53:39
Obaminated:

I'm interested as to why you think that.

My goal was to show the US regularly has courts weigh in to make precisely the same kinds of decisions as Aeros think are somehow unique to the UK.

Why do you think this hadn't been shown.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 08 07:09:45
Again seb, its not the court ordered removal... its the threatening to jail people who disagree.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 08 07:18:24
And the banning of private funds. Obviously if the family wants to pay their own money, you let them.
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 07:53:39
Sam:

Nobody is threatened with jail. Nor are private funds. Generally there is no need for private funds as the state will fund you until such point the individual is dead.

The issue is when parents may wish to do something that doctors feel harms the patient.

This issue arises in the US also. But before then hospitals may petition and remove life support.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 08 10:44:35
"Nobody is threatened with jail. "

False. The local cops threatened to jail people just for talking about it. This lead to great lulz as 1000s of americans trolled them with impunity.
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 11:40:44
Not at all clear what you are talking about. Source?
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 11:40:44
Not at all clear what you are talking about. Source?
Aeros
Member
Tue May 08 17:41:03
I am sure you will find cases where the hospital is allowed to cut life support of a brain dead patient if they are no longer being paid for it.

Seb is really trying to split hairs here to argue that what the UK is writing into common law is equivalent to what the US is writing into common law, and this is not true.

While British courts are busy throwing comedians in jail for being offensive and allowing hospitals to arbitrarily let patients die over the wishes of their legal guardians, the US Courts are writing the exact opposite.

On the subject of Hate Speech, not only did the US Supreme Court extend legal protection to it, they went so far as to say that the entire point of protected speech is to protect speech that is viewed as hateful and offensive.

On the subject of parental rights, the US Courts have stated that it is up to the legal guardians to determine what ultimately happens to their children excepting only extenuating circumstances as prescribed by law. So if one State (Like Pennsylvania) says that brain death is death, the parents are allowed to move their child to a State that does not recognize this as death. More broadly, so long as the parents are willing to blow their money, it is not the Governments responsibility to prevent them from making their own mistakes.
Aeros
Member
Tue May 08 17:48:47
And this is the big difference between UK Common Law, and US Common Law.

UK Common Law believes it is the duty of the Courts to uphold the right of the State to protect the people from all the harm life may send their way. The State stands between the people and the cruelty of life.

US Common Law believes it is the duty of the Courts to protect the people from all the harm the State may send their way. The cruelty of life is lived and the State cannot stop people from living through that pain.

Its a fundamental psychological disconnect here that speaks to radically different views on what the purpose of Government is. It is why we have let known murderers go free on legal technicalities. The higher duty of US Legal jurisprudence is not to enforce the law upon the guilty, it is insure the law is not enforced upon the innocent. It might seem trite, but it is coded deeply into the American system.

Its why the US Has a fifth amendment granting people the right to not testify against themselves. Something the UK lacks, and it always amuses me listening to BBC radio when they try and wrap their heads around someone in America asserting their 5th amendment right. They always assume its a tacit admission of guilt. But that is not what it is. It is an admission that they are but one man arrayed against the power of the State and they have the right to not help the State in their own prosecution.
Seb
Member
Tue May 08 17:54:15
Aeros:

"Seb is really trying to split hairs here to argue that what the UK is writing into common law is equivalent to what the US is writing into common law, and this is not true."

It is exactly the same thing in this case.

"While British courts are busy throwing comedians in jail"
What has this got to do with end of life decsiiions?

"allowing hospitals to arbitrarily let patients die over the wishes of their legal guardians"

There is nothing arbitrary about it and the exact same decisions are occurring in the US.

"On the subject of parental rights, the US Courts have stated that it is up to the legal guardians to determine what ultimately happens to their children excepting only extenuating circumstances as prescribed by law"

Which is exactly the UK position you retard. The two cases that have been brough up here have been extreme extenuating circumstances where the Parents have wanted to do things that, in the view of the doctors would cause *harm* to the children. Doctors have a legal and ethical obligation to represent the interests of their patients, not the parents. The courts have, after hearing many different sets of evidence, been persuaded that this is the case.

And in both cases, the people who have been convincing the parents to pursue a course of action that would cause undue suffering to the children have been demented US action groups seeking to perpetuate this myth making you are now spreading in order to further their US political agenda.

It's disgusting.

"it is not the Governments responsibility to prevent them from making their own mistakes."

Which brings us back to the idea: are children the property of their parents and at what point are parents mistakes considered to inflict unacceptable suffering on their children.
Aeros
Member
Tue May 08 18:14:34
"And in both cases, the people who have been convincing the parents to pursue a course of action that would cause undue suffering to the children have been demented US action groups seeking to perpetuate this myth making you are now spreading in order to further their US political agenda."

You will get no disagreements from me, but that is not the POINT. Again, the POINT is not to enforce the law upon the guilty, it is to prevent the law from being enforced upon the Innocent. Yes, these cases are horror shows, but to allow the Government to set legal standards and precedents for determining something as fundamental and allowing the death of a child is even more horrific. US Courts are correctly terrified of the long term consequences of such a precedent.

"There is nothing arbitrary about it and the exact same decisions are occurring in the US."

You are confusing State Courts, with Federal Courts as documented in posts before this one. The issue of what constitutes legal Death is a State matter, and not a Federal matter. Thus each State has a different definition to what constitutes Death. As such, it boils down to money. Poor parents in States that recognize brain death as death will lose. Parents with means and the ability to appeal to Federal magistrates will win. Is it fair? not really. But again that is not the point. The point is to insure dangerous precedents are not written into the law. State level laws can be changed. Federal level precedents are much more difficult to change. As such the Federal Courts always defer to the right of the legal guardians, and to their right to relocate their child to a State with different laws pertaining to death. If they don't have the money to do that, well sucks to be them. But if they do, well then whatever. The consequences of the particular case are not the concern, the concern is what precedent gets set.

"Which brings us back to the idea: are children the property of their parents and at what point are parents mistakes considered to inflict unacceptable suffering on their children."

In these cases the matter is not so cut and dry as when we have clear cases of physical abuse, or religious practices denying necessary medical care. Situations that have also bedeviled US Courts. Both those situations are clear indications of negative parental activity. Deliberate infliction of harm upon the child, who as a citizen, is permitted to appeal to the Court for protection. Which the Courts grant in cases where parents are stripped of their legal guardianship.

In these cases however the child is incapable of making such petitions. More broadly, they are also not in situations where the parents are inflicting harm, other then the perceived harm of prolonging their lives. The US Courts do not want to set a legal precedent where they can strip a parent of their legal guardianship in the absence of these factors in favor of arbitrarily set standards of what constitutes "death". Something in and of itself is a metaphysical conundrum given advancements in modern medicine. What may seem clear cut in this scenario may not be so clear cut in another, and such dangerous precedents done with good intention now can be used to exact a litany of horror later.

The US Courts are haunted by Buck v. Bell. One of the worst decisions ever made by the US Courts on the subject of a medical question. They are not going to trust the good intentions of science or doctors ever again. Not after that horror show.
Seb
Member
Wed May 09 01:32:52
Aeros:

It's exactly the point. The only reason the courts are involved at all is because a bunch of US lobbyists have preyed upon grieving parents to convince them there is some hope of miracle cures, when the overwhelming view of the medical community is that such "treatment" will cause harm to the child.

Think about that for a second. You have US lobbyists attempting to contact parents into inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on their own kids.

And they at doing that solely to try and force these legal disputes where the court steps in simply and solely so they can say "death pannels", even though these disputes have nothing to do with social health care, nothing to do with financial considerations (as per the original argument made with death panels), and are the same kinds of court ruling the US has (though in the US more often driven by the lack of finance).

And you are supporting them, and repeating their message.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed May 09 02:18:59
When conservatives lobby they are preying on the weak.
When progressives lobby they stand up for the weak.

Looks like the motivation behind lobbying is in the eyes of the beholder.
Seb
Member
Wed May 09 04:06:23
Nim:

You are the one generalizing here.

Lobbying is fine. This is a specific case though.

But ask yourselves why lobbying US federal govt requires interventions in individual UK cases?

Their only interest is to try and generate conflict between parents and the legal system so they have a case study.

And what they are trying to convince people to do is considered in the overwhelming body of medical opinion to be harmful to the children.

But hey, if you want to get behind these guys because you feel they are your tribe and can't see how unethical this is (And contrary to conservative principles) then that's your problem not mine.
Seb
Member
Wed May 09 04:30:55
Aeros:

You are also fundamentally wrong about the role of the courts.

Doctors have a duty of care for their patients

Parents have a duty of care for their children

When these conflict, the courts decide what is in the best interest.

The principle is children are not property of their parents but entities in their own right, and decisions concerning them must be taken in their best interest.

The government/state isn't a party to the case. Nor is this a function of statutory law.

The courts obligation isn't about putting the state over the parents, but the rights of the child above the rights of the parents.

And everyone is subject to the law.

Now; in the US you have armed facists marching under Nazi flags marching in the street, a healthcare system that allows the termination pf life support to those on a vegitative state (not brain death), where people die from lack of basic medical treatment like insulin jabs.

Your president seems highly likely to be a criminal on many accounts. Your justice system allows police to kill non violent suspects, coerces people to plea guilty through financial pressures (so much for trial by your peers). And a fetishization of guns that allows mentally ill to get guns and tolerates regular massacres of living, healthy children.

I really don't think we need lessons from you, and I think you have your own, bigger challenges to work through.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed May 09 04:35:43
We can make those arguments in the for any of the things you lobby, in fact we do. That social issues may transcende borders, well that is part of this age.
John Adams
Member
Wed May 09 05:35:20
"You are also fundamentally wrong about the role of the courts.

Doctors have a duty of care for their patients

Parents have a duty of care for their children

When these conflict, the courts decide what is in the best interest.

The principle is children are not property of their parents but entities in their own right, and decisions concerning them must be taken in their best interest.

The government/state isn't a party to the case. Nor is this a function of statutory law.

The courts obligation isn't about putting the state over the parents, but the rights of the child above the rights of the parents. "

What you and Aeros said in regards to this is essentially the same.

Aeros' pointed out the role of courts and why there is intervention, as well as you did. That the legal rights and protection of the child is forefront and supersedes the parentship. The saying goes "The child belongs to the State."

There is no secret that there are lobbying firms, or separate entities that get involved more partially for political affirmations and social reform. But it also attaches itself to the emotion, psychological, and religious bond that they have for their child.

Aeros: "They are not going to trust the good intentions of science or doctors ever again. Not after that horror show. "

If this was based on the eugenics program that was the forefront of medical advancement during that time, then yes. But it is also used for various enforcement and a tool for now for inmates to get probation credits.

Each time this is referenced it is usually reviewed upon negatively. However, also used to advanced to protect the rights that involves due process and it is involuntary.

However, as for the topic. This isn't one of those that necessarily haunt the decision making. Or even the concept of removing defective from the gene pool. You have more of a case referring to the 1984 case in NY State when it was declared that a person may be deemed legally dead if the person is 'brain dead.'
Seb
Member
Wed May 09 09:19:15
Nim:

You can say that anything I lobby for that I've identified a family in a foreign country and intervened to pursuade them to take action that will harm their children in order to create a legal conflict that I can then exploit as a case study in dysfunction?

Well, you could try and argue that, but I don't think you really would.
Seb
Member
Mon May 14 12:15:51
John;

To summarize the post of wrote before downtime, I rather read Aeros to be arguing repeatedly that this is about public health policy and bureaucrats making decisions.

It's not. It's about rights of children Vs rights of parents, which is essentially the same in both the UK and US.

My point here is that there is a great degree of skepticism that Aeros should be applying. These activists are fommenting the dispute here, providing misleading and arguably fraudulent medical and legal advice to parents at the worst moment of their lives. They are not invested in a good solution, but to create a scenario they can use as a cautionary tale against socialised health care when fundamentally these cases are nothing to do with socialised healthcare.

The reality seems to me you are more likely to have life support removed before all options are exhausted in the US simply given the different paryies and incentives.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon May 14 13:10:07
I have no idea what that even meant. So to clarify.

You are viewing the motivations behind the support for this issue very cynically, ditto was my answer. "We" view the motivations behind your words with the same cynicism. Part of the post modern progressive take over attempt, by enabling a victimhood mentality, producing weak people to prey on (vote for you). And of course killing people who refuse to... I can go on all night, design a nice conspiracy theory that you are useful idiot for.

As powerful a tactic as that may be IRL, shaming people for their opinion by weaving conspiracy theories around their opinions, this is the wrong place and I am the wrong person, if you think I have fucks to give you. It just exposes huge flaws in your game here. Remember I explained this to you, it must have been 5 feminism threads and all the Islam threads ago.

The idea is that people can't have a different opinion that you and The State, anyone who does is deviant. Go back a few Alfie threads and see where I called it. The dominant powers use of pathology for deviant opinions. Obviously no one really believed these things, they are the workings of lobby groups and other such evil things. What a good and orderly world we live in, everything fits and everything makes sense..to me.

Seb
Member
Mon May 14 13:58:42
Nim:

I'm not viewing it cynically I think, when the group in question is issuing press statements very much presenting it as a consequence of social healthcare when the funding is not at all relevant, one does have to question why they got involved in the first place.

Their interest is in attacking social healthcare as a model - which they wouldn't be able to do if they won, right?
Seb
Member
Mon May 14 14:01:39
Rather, the entire model of lobbying looks inevitably cynical.

Find accessible (i.e. English language) social healthcare system; find or engineer a parent/child rights conflict, take conflict to court, use publicity to claim social care = death pannels even though same conflict would occur if privately funded.
Seb
Member
Mon May 14 14:02:50
These are specific accusations, not general ones. So no, I don't think you could easily level them at "my side" whatever you (probably wrongly) imagine that to he.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 15 05:08:07
There is about as much sinister with lobbying as it is with political parties, unions or the democratic process. So I disagree categorically. That all these mechanism can be abused by people whose agenda and goals are contrary to yours or even "sinister", have to be seen for what they are.

Then again this is what you wrote earlier in this very thread.
"Lobbying is fine."

Lobbying broadly is something we all are engaging in on a small scale at work/home/family or in larger political settings. In that process we regularly try to get other likeminded people to join us. The audience needs to be accessible etc. and so on. Often this is organized. Nothing strange or sinister, this is all in the eyes of the person who feels that they and their way of life is being assaulted.

This is not the first time, Islam, immigration, feminism, gender issues. In those discussion, you and people like you fairly quickly stray into "I wonder what motivates these opinions, must be racism, sexism" etc and so on. Like the people who think the moon landing was fake and 9/11 was a conspiracy, sufficiently irregular things need explanation. In this case, sufficiently (to you) irregular opinions need an explanation. And since these opinions, and the people who hold them, indeed are an irregular occurrence for you, one lacks the understanding to frame their opinions outside a sinister framework. You know compassion, understanding and inclusion.

The other day seb you used UP as a source for your opinion about how "men" are and behave. I think we can safely assume that this is the only place where the topics I previously mentioned have been discussed by you with someone who disagrees fundamentally with your views.
jergul
large member
Tue May 15 05:17:25
"Artisan lobbyist" argument ftw!
Seb
Member
Tue May 15 06:02:15
Nimatzo:

I'm not talking about Lobbying in general. I've lobbied government back in the day (on tuition fees).

I am talking about a very specific pattern of lobbying that is unethical in it's approach.

I'm not sure why you are talking about lobbying in general, especially as we both agree that there is nothing wrong with making representations to government in itself.


"I think we can safely assume that this is the only place where the topics I previously mentioned have been discussed by you with someone who disagrees fundamentally with your views."

Really? Why do you think it is safe to assume that. Your wrong, but I would love to unpack why you think that is the case. You may not recall, but actually you have had good confirmation this is not the case. But leaving faulty memory aside, I'd love to hear your explanation of why given the info available to you, you think such a conclusion is safe?

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share