Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Ross
  • 13,348 comments
  • 611,632 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%
  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Famine
No, not really.

I'm pointing out why it's very easy to see this case as "parents seeking life-saving treatment" vs. "state that thinks this child can't be treated and should die".

Nevertheless, the situation remains that the state enforce's the state's judgement on the state's rules. That's why it's rather easy to see the point that this is the state saying that (the doctors judgement that) death is the best interest of the patient, contrary to the wishes of the parents.

And in this case the parents were seeking alternatives to "no treatment" (beyond palliative), rather than the usual thing that crops up in this situation which is parents seeking to prevent treatment.

Indeed - and it's natural for parents particularly to have trouble with that conclusion.
I volunteer. Crossbow do you?

That rather leaves the question of euthanasia back open.
Click to expand...

But it's not. What am I misunderstanding. The didn't give a direct order. The state allows doctors to make an informed descision about a perdons life who cannot themselfs.

The doctors make the descision, the fact that police would enforce a legitemate verdict of the judiciary system where again the state can't interfere is irrelevant to the descisionmaking of the doctor.

Also why should the parents get to desceide whats best for the patient over the doctors.

To come to the conclussion that it's the states ordering the ending of a life versus the parents trying desperatly to save it you have to ignore a lot of checks and balances. These checks and balances is what makes me disagree with the idea that it's the state (with the implication of the state being the politicians)

My problem with the state vs parents perspective is that it implies politicians where directly involved with this case to steer the verdict to the current outcome.

Also this all just reeks of my child my choice which imo just is code for my property I can do what I want. Parents don't always have the best intrests of their kids in mind be it deliberatly or due to emotional factors.
 
Famine
Nevertheless, the situation remains that the state enforce's the state's judgement on the state's rules. That's why it's rather easy to see the point that this is the state saying that (the doctors judgement that) death is the best interest of the patient, contrary to the wishes of the parents.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why the wishes of the parents are being balanced like-for-like against medical assessment. Death was an impending inevitability for this patient. Like any parents would (as you say) the parents of this patient grasped at every straw they could to alter the outcome. However, one view was medically-informed and the other was not.

Famine
I volunteer. Crossbow do you?
Click to expand...

It makes no difference, "I" would be long gone.
 
Mr Tree
But it's not.
Click to expand...
You don't think it's easy to understand that people will see a medical decision that's based in law made by the state, ratified by a judgement from the state's judiciary and upheld by the state's enforcement, against the parents' wishes, as a parents vs. state situation?

Really?
TenEightyOne
I still don't understand why the wishes of the parents are being balanced like-for-like against medical assessment.
Click to expand...
It's because people don't like it when kids die; it doesn't work like that on TV. Someone finds a last-second solution and the kid lives. Also, doctors are unfeeling, and mother knows best and all that.


I haven't kept up with the case - I'm a heartless monster and I don't really care - but I'm not really sure what the Italian doctors were offering or why the family had to be legally prevented from taking the offer. Or why the child had to die in that hospital and not at home.
 
Mr Tree
That's a ery unnuanced way of looking at lawmaking.

For starters lawmakers are not allowed to make laws that are in conflict with it's state's constitution. When they do the judicial branch can overrule said law. On top of that there are ways to change the constitution but that should and most often does involve a 'super' mahority or some nind of hurdles before you can change it.

So no it's not just the rules of those in power now. It's the rules of those in power now combined with human rights and a constitution.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I think you're missing that your answer doesn't change the fact that the "state" makes the rules therefore anyone acting on behalf of the state is taking direct orders of said state.
 
Johnnypenso
I think you're missing that your answer doesn't change the fact that the "state" makes the rules...
Click to expand...

The state doesn't make all the rules that doctors follow unless a doctor's conduct falls into criminal categories - and those actions are capable of being fulfilled by anybody. Assault, for example. Murder, manslaughter, GBH, and so on. Doctors are just like police officers or builders, they're members of the general public. The specific regulation of doctors falls under the GMC, not the government.

Johnnypenso
...anyone acting on behalf of the state is taking direct orders of said state.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Judges act for the state (specifically the monarch) but judge against them at times (to governments' chagrin), the same is true of doctors. In this case the state provides some funding (not all funding) for a hospital where doctors work. Those doctors work within the normal code of ethics (not handed down by the state) while ensuring that they don't undertake any criminal actions such as the ones I mentioned above.
 
PeterJB
There's now a vacancy for the position of Theresa May's Old Job.
Click to expand...

I suppose it was inevitable, seems ridiculous that she wasn't aware of all the things that happened regarding the handling of the whole Windrush thing. It's seems to be an excuse people use a lot these days... I was in charge but knew nothing about what was going on!
 
"I never took the Windrush deportations seriously until it directly affected me keeping my job."

A very spot-on comment I saw about all of this but yeah, Theresa May herself deserves serious amounts of blame for this. As far as I know, the "accidental deletions" of protective legislation and documentations occurred on her watch around 2012.
 
Famine
You don't think it's easy to understand that people will see a medical decision that's based in law made by the state, ratified by a judgement from the state's judiciary and upheld by the state's enforcement, against the parents' wishes, as a parents vs. state situation?

Really?

It's because people don't like it when kids die; it doesn't work like that on TV. Someone finds a last-second solution and the kid lives. Also, doctors are unfeeling, and mother knows best and all that.


I haven't kept up with the case - I'm a heartless monster and I don't really care - but I'm not really sure what the Italian doctors were offering or why the family had to be legally prevented from taking the offer. Or why the child had to die in that hospital and not at home.
Click to expand...

I see why people feel that way. I don't agree because painting it as such is way to simplistic.

It's all about checks and balances until a child is involved and then it's parents know best. Something I can't accept, the idea that parents know best is pure ********. I'm.not saying most parentd don't want whats best for their children. If you don't buy into this unemotional doctors vs parents know betrer idea how can one accept the simplistic view of state vs parents?
 
Mr Tree
I see why people feel that way. I don't agree because painting it as such is way to simplistic.
Click to expand...
Okay, so why the disagreement? Quick reminder:
Famine
I'm pointing out why it's very easy to see this case as "parents seeking life-saving treatment" vs. "state that thinks this child can't be treated and should die".
Click to expand...
I'm not pointing out that this case is that.
 
Famine
Okay, so why the disagreement? Quick reminder:

I'm not pointing out that this case is that.
Click to expand...

Not sure then. I don't agree with people who look at it that way. There is a diffrence between beeing able to see where people come from and agree with that position.

If you just tried to point out why people see it that way I don't think we disagree. I was under the assumption you agreed with the state versus parents position in it's most simplistic form. Which you don't seem to from your last posts.
 
TenEightyOne
The state doesn't make all the rules that doctors follow unless a doctor's conduct falls into criminal categories - and those actions are capable of being fulfilled by anybody. Assault, for example. Murder, manslaughter, GBH, and so on. Doctors are just like police officers or builders, they're members of the general public. The specific regulation of doctors falls under the GMC, not the government.



Not necessarily. Judges act for the state (specifically the monarch) but judge against them at times (to governments' chagrin), the same is true of doctors. In this case the state provides some funding (not all funding) for a hospital where doctors work. Those doctors work within the normal code of ethics (not handed down by the state) while ensuring that they don't undertake any criminal actions such as the ones I mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Semantics. If something is allowed in the Code of Ethics by definition it's legal and thus state sanctioned. Doctors only have leeway to make decisions that are legal they don't have free reign to do as they please without consequence. State sanctioned.

Mr Tree
I see why people feel that way. I don't agree because painting it as such is way to simplistic.

It's all about checks and balances until a child is involved and then it's parents know best. Something I can't accept, the idea that parents know best is pure ********. I'm.not saying most parentd don't want whats best for their children. If you don't buy into this unemotional doctors vs parents know betrer idea how can one accept the simplistic view of state vs parents?
Click to expand...
Painting it as such is way too simplistic but the generalization that doctors are unemotional and therefore make better decisions isn't?
 
Johnnypenso
Semantics. If something is allowed in the Code of Ethics by definition it's legal and thus state sanctioned. Doctors only have leeway to make decisions that are legal they don't have free reign to do as they please without consequence. State sanctioned.
Click to expand...
That means that any decision anyone makes about anything ever is state sanctioned if it falls within legal boundaries, which is nonsense. The judiciary and the executive arm of government are separate for very good reasons. To determine that a child is in a persistent vegetative state is not a political act.
 
Last edited:
It gets worse for the Tories.

You can blame Labour for whatever you like but I don't think blaming them for hepatitis is going to stick.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ign-tactic-blaming-labour-hepatitis?CMP=fb_gu

Also.

31870362_2539612139511150_5255383023460810752_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Johnnypenso
Semantics. If something is allowed in the Code of Ethics by definition it's legal and thus state sanctioned. Doctors only have leeway to make decisions that are legal they don't have free reign to do as they please without consequence. State sanctioned.

Painting it as such is way too simplistic but the generalization that doctors are unemotional and therefore make better decisions isn't?
Click to expand...

Yes that one is too. One needed to get to the state vs parents view.

I never used unemotional doctors argument. I did say they are better able to distance themselfs then the parents. What I did use to justify it is their medical expertise something I'll stand by.
 
I wondered what would happen to us at Eurovision this year :rolleyes:. A protestor got on stage and grabbed the mic from our entry Surie. Pretty sure it was something about Brexit, didn't hear what he was shouting.
 
Robin
I wondered what would happen to us at Eurovision this year :rolleyes:. A protestor got on stage and grabbed the mic from our entry Surie. Pretty sure it was something about Brexit, didn't hear what he was shouting.
Click to expand...

I truly pray that it was Fat Les doing Vindaloo...
 
As if Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Israel, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine entering means that yes, Eurovision does equal the EU. :rolleyes:

Pathetic.
 
Robin
I wondered what would happen to us at Eurovision this year :rolleyes:. A protestor got on stage and grabbed the mic from our entry Surie. Pretty sure it was something about Brexit, didn't hear what he was shouting.
Click to expand...
From what I have read, he shouted. 'Nazis of the UK media, we demand freedom.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44097050

He has a fair point tbh, our media is horrendously biased, it isn't far off propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
As if Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Israel, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine entering means that yes, Eurovision does equal the EU. :rolleyes:

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It seems that any associate of EBU can apply to enter (or can be invited to enter), they all fund the EBU I guess.

What's more annoying is that "UK" is recognised as a country and the actual countries don't get to enter individually.
 

Similar threads

mef
  • Poll
Digital IDs and how they will be used to control us
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
MatskiMonk
MatskiMonk
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
SilentPL
Thread deleted with no notice
Replies
4
Views
1K
SilentPL
SilentPL
Scaff
Assetto Corsa Evo Car Wishlist
Replies
8
Views
2K
Oggmeista
O
Dotini
  • Poll
The Trump Impeachment Thread
69 70 71
Replies
2K
Views
87K
TexRex
TexRex

Latest Posts

Back