Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Advertisements
In a recent case an American Judge in Nashville, Tennessee went against the parents wishes and sided with the hospital in the case of a young child Steffen Rivenburg Jr - why didn't we hear Americans talking about this case.
It's funny how the American Right highlights one case and criticises our system yet ignores such legal cases in their own country such as the very recent case of Steffen Rivenburg.
How come Steffen didn't make the international news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WSMV - 8th June 2017
A 7-month-old boy has died after a judge denied an appeal filed by the parents to keep him on life support at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
The child's biological parents filed court orders to keep their son on life support, but a Montgomery County, judge denied appeals, deciding the doctors know what's best.
The family said the baby should have had a heart transplant, but doctors at Vanderbilt Children's Hospital cared for the child and said he couldn't handle a transplant.
Just because it didn't receive mention here at C-D doesn't mean it hasn't been the source of discussion by Americans. You *do* realize there's 320 million of us, and that not everyone is a member of C-D, right?
Additionally, just because some people had strong opinions of the Gard case doesn't mean it was a concerted effort by any one group to "criticize your system". You sound like you are desperately seeking an argument here. Desperate being the key word.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine
Just because it didn't receive mention here at C-D doesn't mean it hasn't been the source of discussion by Americans. You *do* realize there's 320 million of us, and that not everyone is a member of C-D, right?
Additionally, just because some people had strong opinions of the Gard case doesn't mean it was a concerted effort by any one group to "criticize your system". You sound like you are desperately seeking an argument here. Desperate being the key word.
Never heard anything on the scale of Charlie Gard, don't recall ant tweets fro Trump or the Vatican getting involved, or any criticism by the right on the scale of Charlie Gard.
Some Americans may have been aware of the case but the Charlie Gard case was used by the 'Right' in the US as a means to attack socialised medicine, the British Courts and the heartless NHS with it's death panels.
Perhaps the Rivenburg case just didn't fit their narrative and political ideology.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey
Because in the former case, the state assumed custody of the child to forcibly prevent the parents from seeking alternative treatment elsewhere even though they had the financial resources and willing volunteers. They were not even allowed to take their child home so he could die there. None of these elements are present in the latter case. That's kind of an important difference, don't you think?
The state did not take custody of the child, hospitals in Britain can not override a parents wishes only a Court of Law can do that and it was the same in this case.
Furthermore heart transplants are far more common and less experimental than an unproven treatment in relation to very rare mitochondrial disorders.
Surely this baby would have a better chance than Charlie Gard who was terminally ill what ever treatment he received.
Never heard anything on the scale of Charlie Gard, don't recall ant tweets fro Trump or the Vatican getting involved, or any criticism by the right on the scale of Charlie Gard.
Some Americans may have been aware of the case but the Charlie Gard case was used by the 'Right' as a means to attack socialised medicine, the British Courts and the heartless NHS with it's death panels.
Perhaps the Rivenburg case just didn't fit their narrative and political ideology.
You're demonstrating woeful ignorance on several fronts here and making it abundantly clear that you are seeking another "us vs them" controversy. Is life in Britain that boring? Surely there's a better use of your time then this petty antagonism.
Never heard anything on the scale of Charlie Gard, don't recall ant tweets fro Trump or the Vatican getting involved, or any criticism by the right on the scale of Charlie Gard.
Some Americans may have been aware of the case but the Charlie Gard case was used by the 'Right' in the US as a means to attack socialised medicine, the British Courts and the heartless NHS with it's death panels.
Perhaps the Rivenburg case just didn't fit their narrative and political ideology.
Because in the former case, the state assumed custody of the child to forcibly prevent the parents from seeking alternative treatment elsewhere even though they had the financial resources and willing volunteers. They were not even allowed to take their child home so he could die there. None of these elements are present in the latter case. That's kind of an important difference, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Never heard anything on the scale of Charlie Gard, don't recall ant tweets fro Trump or the Vatican getting involved, or any criticism by the right on the scale of Charlie Gard.
Some Americans may have been aware of the case but the Charlie Gard case was used by the 'Right' in the US as a means to attack socialised medicine, the British Courts and the heartless NHS with it's death panels.
Perhaps the Rivenburg case just didn't fit their narrative and political ideology.
Or perhaps it's because in the latter case the state didn't forcibly assume custody of the child to foreclose all other opportunities for the patient to receive treatment.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey
Because in the former case, the state assumed custody of the child to forcibly prevent the parents from seeking alternative treatment elsewhere even though they had the financial resources and willing volunteers. They were not even allowed to take their child home so he could die there. None of these elements are present in the latter case. That's kind of an important difference, don't you think?
The state did not assume custody, in the UK a Hospital can not override the parents wishes, only a Court can do that, and it's the same in the US.
Or perhaps it's because in the latter case the state didn't forcibly assume custody of the child to foreclose all other opportunities for the patient to receive treatment.
The Courts can only determine custody not the hospital, and the Courts assumed custody in the US case giving the hospital the right to turn off life support and to deny a heart transplant against the parents wishes.
The state did not take custody of the child, hospitals in Britain can not override a parents wishes only a Court of Law can do that and it was the same in this case.
Furthermore heart transplants are far more common and less experimental than an unproven treatment in relation to very rare mitochondrial disorders.
Not only DID they override the parents' decision in the Charlie Gard case, they fought tooth and nail to make sure nobody else was going to respect the parents' wishes either.
How common or proven one treatment is over another is irrelevant. If the Gards were willing to try it, had subject-matter experts in the medical field willing to assist, and had the money to pay for it, it was none of the hospital's or the courts' goddamn business if they sought that treatment elsewhere.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey
Not only DID they override the parents' decision in the Charlie Gard case, they fought tooth and nail to make sure nobody else was going to respect the parents' wishes either.
How common or proven one treatment is over another is irrelevant. If the Gards were willing to try it, had subject-matter experts in the medical field willing to assist, and had the money to pay for it, it was none of the hospital's or the courts' goddamn business if they sought that treatment elsewhere.
It's spelt out clearly enough as to the position of the parents, the hospital and Courts in the proceedings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Justice Francis - High Court - 24th July 2017
Thirdly, I think it my duty to comment briefly on the absurd notion which hasappeared in recent days that Charlie has been a prisoner of the National Health Service or that the National Health Service has the power to decide Charlie’s fate.
This is the antithesis of the truth. In this country children have rights independent of their parents.
Almost all of the time parents make decisions about what is in the best interests of their children and so it should be.
Just occasionally, however, there will be circumstances such as here where a hospital and parents are unable to decide what
It is precisely because the hospital does not have power in respect of that child that this hospital makes an application to the court, to an independent judge, for a determination of what is in that child’s best interests.
Our judges are fiercely independent of the state and make decisions, having heard evidence and having considered the law.
Our law inrelation to children in circumstances suchas this is governed by section 1 of the Children Act 1989 which contains a proposition which I suggest would be hard to criticise.
Section 1 provides as follows:
“when a court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”.
I do encourage the many commentators who wish to opine on this case to have regard to what I said int hat April judgment and to what was said subsequent to it by the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and the European Court of Human Rights.
My task has been to consider what is in Charlie’s best interests and it is that that I have done. The hospital trust correctly applied to the family division of the High Court for the exercise of the High Court’s independent judgment.
It's spelt out clearly enough as to the position of the parents, the hospital and Courts in the proceedings.
So in other words, the state assumed custody of the child to foreclose any chance the parents had to seek treatment elsewhere, even though they had subject-matter experts willing to treat the child and the means to pay for that treatment. (And yes, the courts are a creation of and an arm of the state. If you think otherwise, try defying a court order and see who comes around to enforce it.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
