• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Charlie Gard[W:193]

Re: Charlie Gard

X Factor said:
How about non terminal but increased suffering as time goes on, versus terminal, but but by all accounts not suffering and some experimetal treatment is available?
Click to expand...

I will give you an example. I was posting on a forum that was discussing people with terminal illness. A woman was spewing in anger saying that I would want her friend to get no care. Her friend was quadriplegic with intermittent breathing issues due to the level of cervical fracture. He also got intermittent "bedsores" . Who am I to decide what is suffering and what is not for a person who is able to tell us if he has "had it". If he decided no breathing tube...fine...if he decided he wanted a breathing tube fine. She assumed I would not be ok with the care...I see these patients all the time and can clearly tell you most have a perceived decent quality of life.

If they are not terminal, the patient can answer for themselves.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

year2late said:
I will give you an example. I was posting on a forum that was discussing people with terminal illness. A woman was spewing in anger saying that I would want her friend to get no care. Her friend was quadriplegic with intermittent breathing issues due to the level of cervical fracture. He also got intermittent "bedsores" . Who am I to decide what is suffering and what is not for a person who is able to tell us if he has "had it". If he decided no breathing tube...fine...if he decided he wanted a breathing tube fine. She assumed I would not be ok with the care...I see these patients all the time and can clearly tell you most have a perceived decent quality of life.

If they are not terminal, the patient can answer for themselves.
Click to expand...
Someone who is terminal can, many times, also answer for themselves. Are you saying someone terminal, by whatever definition you use (we're all terminal after all, given enough time), shouldn't get the breathing tube and care even if they wanted it? What if the doctors decided that it would really being the best interest of the terminal patient to end their suffering even if that's not what the patient wanted?
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Would it be fair to say that a terminally ill patient, or parent of a terminally ill patient should not expect quite the same consideration or legal protections for their lives as someone who isn't?
 
Re: Charlie Gard

X Factor said:
Someone who is terminal can, many times, also answer for themselves. Are you saying someone terminal, by whatever definition you use (we're all terminal after all, given enough time), shouldn't get the breathing tube and care even if they wanted it? What if the doctors decided that it would really being the best interest of the terminal patient to end their suffering even if that's not what the patient wanted?
Click to expand...

If someone is terminal, then it falls on the doctor to offer medically appropriate care.

For example, people who are terminally ill have surgery all the time. The question is why. If the goal is to prolong life and that will not be achieved with surgery, the answer is clear. If the surgery is to increase comfort in the last months of life - that is up to the patient to decide with the doctor.

My mom, for example, in addition to emphysema had lung cancer. Because of her age and multiple medical problems, there was never going to be a cure. If she was younger and healthier, she could have easily survived. She had a very targeted radiation to the tumor that was going to start occluding her right main stem bronchus. The 10 sessions probably bought her 5 months of quality of life before things really went down the toilet.

I am ok with treatment of terminally ill people as long as there is a reasonable goal.

For Charlie, he passed the point where there was any hope of a reasonable goal. Giving hope where there is no hope is not a goal.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

X Factor said:
Would it be fair to say that a terminally ill patient, or parent of a terminally ill patient should not expect quite the same consideration or legal protections for their lives as someone who isn't?
Click to expand...

Both should be offered medically appropriate care. Same for both.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Charlie has been genetically terminally ill since he was born. The series of severe seizures he had in January indicated that he also had suffered irreversible underlying brain damage. Since then, his death has been artificially staved off. Prolonged for six months.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Melanie Philips is a rightwing writer of some repute (in rightwing circles) who seems close to an epiphany in her last paragraph.

" ...I write a great deal about the ideological bullying of the left, the lies published by left-wing media and the inhumanity and irrationality of so much allegedly progressive thinking. But I have never witnessed such concentrated ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and unthinking cruelty as has been displayed by the American political right over the tragic case of Charlie Gard. ..."

A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom