1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Yep. Shows the hazards in having Big Government making medical choices for people.
     
  2. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Sweet ghost of Reagan, that's a silly and short-sighted interpretation of how we got here.
     
  3. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    If the doctors are right and the attempted care would only cause more suffering for Charlie Gard, is it really a cautionary tale?
     
  4. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

  5. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

  6. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    Read some on this story before doing your fucking thing.
     
    YankeeFan likes this.
  7. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member


    I did. It's a brutal case. If you have a specific problem with my statement, feel free to state it. But that might require taking some sort of stand and we all know avoiding that is "your fucking thing."
     
    jr/shotglass likes this.
  8. Elliotte Friedman

    Elliotte Friedman Moderator Staff Member

    Rick, I read a ton on this issue. I was really disturbed by it. It comes down to this: In Britain, doctors have an incredible amount of legal power. More than parents. It's awful. You're a parent. You would do anything you could to help your child. They were blocked. It wasn't about proper care. It was about protecting power.

    It also came to light (later in this case) that the lawyer publicly assigned to the family is a major advocate of assisted-dying legislation. Terrible conflict of interest.
     
  9. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    It's a fair question, isn't it?

     
  10. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    Yeah, like my milquetoast approach to abortion.
     
    YankeeFan likes this.
  11. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member


    Posted this the other day. Thoughts, Tootsie Pop Owl?

     
    YankeeFan likes this.
  12. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    I take quality of life of disabled children *incredibly* seriously, as you can imagine.

    Like I said, this is a brutal case. Trying to use it to extrapolate out to broad principles is not easy. I definitely don't think it has much use as a political football over government-directed or free-market health care.

    I'm open to the argument that this case was decided wrongly. But when you try to draw it out into some larger principle, I'm not sure I like any of the places it takes you. Do you want me to agree that parents should have an inviolable right to subject their children to experimental medical treatment at the expense of prolonged suffering? That the government should be the final arbitrator of all care decisions? Do you want me to put together some precise formula at which I'm comfortable balancing pain and lack of quality of life versus short extensions of life?

    I'm not comfortable with any of those arguments.
     
    cyclingwriter2 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page