Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Civilwarbuff

The culture of death?

Recommended Posts

Civilwarbuff

Marc Thiessen: The culture of death is on the march across Europe. Soon it will be here, too

WASHINGTON -- Imagine your own beloved child was lying in a hospital with a mysterious brain disease. Should you, as the parent, be allowed to decide whether to continue treatment for your son or daughter? Or should the state have the power to overrule you and cut off life support over your objections?

The vast majority of Americans say the final decision should be left with parents. That's because, under our system, the purpose of the state is to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty. But in Britain, it seems, the state has the power to trample life and liberty and condemn a disabled child to death.

That is precisely what the British High Court of Justice did in the case of Alfie Evans, a little boy who suffered from a rapidly progressive terminal brain disease. Doctors at London's Alder Hey Children's Hospital concluded that further treatment was futile and asked the court -- over his parents' objections -- to order the removal of his ventilator. Alfie's parents pleaded for permission to transfer him to Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome, where doctors had agreed to take over his treatment at no cost. Pope Francis had arranged free medical transport, and the Italian government had granted Alfie citizenship to facilitate his transfer. A hospital in Munich had also offered to relieve British doctors of the burden of caring for Alfie.

But the court ruled that it was in Alfie's "best interests" to die. Doctors had told the court he might "be able to muster just a handful of breaths and survive just a few minutes if ventilation were completely stopped." In fact, he kept fighting to live for five full days without life support. A phalanx of police officers was posted outside his hospital, holding the child hostage in order to ensure that his mom and dad did not try to take him away while the death sentence was carried out.

More here:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/02/marc-thiessen-culture-death-is-on-march-across-europe-soon-it-will-be-here-too.html

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
1 hour ago, Civilwarbuff said:

The vast majority of Americans say the final decision should be left with parents. That's because, under our system, the purpose of the state is to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty. But in Britain, it seems, the state has the power to trample life and liberty and condemn a disabled child to death.

Another uninformed article that forgets the child and makes it about the parents against the state! 

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff
10 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

Another uninformed article that forgets the child and makes it about the parents against the state! 

It IS about the state against the parents unless you believe that a parent cedes their rights to the state when it comes to medical decisions?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
2 minutes ago, Civilwarbuff said:

It IS about the state against the parents unless you believe that a parent cedes their rights to the state when it comes to medical decisions?

No, it is about the parents against the child. 

 

I have explained that here:

and here:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff

Thank you for your opinion, but that is no excuse to allow medical personnel to ignore the desires of parents and terminate treatment unless the UK has laws that give such rights to them......if so then God help the parents in the UK.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Becky
Moderator
10 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

No, it is about the parents against the child. 

That is a ugly thing to say about his parents.  Making a claim the parents are against the child?  Had Moses' mother abided by the laws he would not have been. It was certain Moses would have died...  Mary & Joseph skipped off to Egypt to avoid the death of Baby Jesus . 

  • Like 2
  • Best Answer 2

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
Just now, Becky said:

That is a ugly thing to say about his parents.  Making a claim the parents are against the child?  Had Moses' mother abided by the laws he would not have been. It was certain Moses would have died...  Mary & Joseph skipped off to Egypt to avoid the death of Baby Jesus .

No it's not - and if you read what I have written you will see a great deal of sympathy for the parents in my post - but the basic fact is those parents were insisting that doctors continue invasive and painful 'treatments' that were doing the child no good - doctors have no obligation to relatives, their only obligation is to their patient! They have to, legally and professionally, act in the best interests of the patient.

 

Yes we have the medical expertise to keep the body ticking over almost indefinitely - but is that what was best for the child! I fully understand why they wanted the doctors to continue treating the child - but I also understand why the doctors did what they did - If someone asked me to cause a child pain by doing something to them that has no tangible benefit I would say 'no' as well - and I am pretty sure you would too - even if it was the parents asking you to!

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
17 minutes ago, Civilwarbuff said:

Thank you for your opinion, but that is no excuse to allow medical personnel to ignore the desires of parents and terminate treatment unless the UK has laws that give such rights to them......if so then God help the parents in the UK.

As far as I am aware in most countries of the world a doctors obligation is to care for their patient, and not the relatives. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
theophilus
4 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

As far as I am aware in most countries of the world a doctors obligation is to care for their patient, and not the relatives. 

 

 

When the patient isn't able to make choices for himself his relatives have a right to choose which doctors care for him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Becky
Moderator

 

@reformed baptist      We will always differ on this case.  We each are welcome to our opinions . I happen to believe God gave parents the responsibility of parenting .. He did not give it to the state . The parents chose to have the child in a state that has government control of health care so one must go along with those 'rules'. The offer or health care else where changes that situation. At no cost to the other citizens of the country . 

Now you have a couple post of my thoughts i will not continue.   Noting we, you and I , agree on many other things.. :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff
11 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

As far as I am aware in most countries of the world a doctors obligation is to care for their patient, and not the relatives. 

 

 

 

That is generally true with the exception of those relatives, including parents of minor children or children unable to make decisions in their own behalf, who exercise parental rights or possess legal instruments delegating such rights to them.  In any case parental rights over minor children should never be abrogated by medical personnel unless there is strong suspicion that such rights would harm a child.  No such suspicion exists in this particular case.

4 minutes ago, Becky said:
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
7 minutes ago, Becky said:

 

@reformed baptist      We will always differ on this case.  We each are welcome to our opinions . I happen to believe God gave parents the responsibility of parenting .. He did not give it to the state . The parents chose to have the child in a state that has government control of health care so one must go along with those 'rules'. The offer or health care else where changes that situation. At no cost to the other citizens of the country . 

Now you have a couple post of my thoughts i will not continue.   Noting we, you and I , agree on many other things.. 🙂

No, we might not agree - I'm not convinced that means my opinion is 'ugly' though. 

 

And I do think my question is valid - because it put's us in the place of the doctor. It is so easy to look in and pass judgement on a situation but it usually looks very different from the inside. 

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
29 minutes ago, Civilwarbuff said:

That is generally true with the exception of those relatives, including parents of minor children or children unable to make decisions in their own behalf, who exercise parental rights or possess legal instruments delegating such rights to them.  In any case parental rights over minor children should never be abrogated by medical personnel unless there is strong suspicion that such rights would harm a child.  No such suspicion exists in this particular case.

Every time those doctors stuck a needle in the child they caused him harm - and they were doing much more then that - now, that is the risk doctors have to weigh up with every patient does the benefit of the treatment outweigh the harm of the treatment - in many cases the answer is yes, and they treat the patient - in the case the answer was 'no, the benefits of the treatment did not outweigh the harm  caused by those treatments' 

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
42 minutes ago, theophilus said:

When the patient isn't able to make choices for himself his relatives have a right to choose which doctors care for him.

Maybe - but the doctors obligation is still primarily to the patient and not the relatives is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist

Let's change the situation... 

 

Here is a child whose life is in danger, and they can be saved through a simple blood transfusion - but the parents won't allow it because they are JWs - would you expect the doctors to respect the parents views and allow a child (that could easily be saved) to die?

 

I would expect those doctors to act in the best interests of the child

 

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff
5 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

in the case the answer was 'no, the benefits of the treatment did not outweigh the harm  caused by those treatments' 

So just curious....what harm was being done to him?.....specifics please.  I mean the intubation and suction outweighs the harm of death from suffocation, the feeding tube outweighs the harm of death from starvation, the IV outweighs the harm of death from dehydration would you not agree?  I can't speak to any other treatments he was receiving since those are not detailed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff
11 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

Maybe - but the doctors obligation is still primarily to the patient and not the relatives is it not?

No, not maybe.....absolutely and absent relatives it is the courts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff

 

6 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

Let's change the situation... 

 

Here is a child whose life is in danger, and they can be saved through a simple blood transfusion - but the parents won't allow it because they are JWs - would you expect the doctors to respect the parents views and allow a child (that could easily be saved) to die?

 

I would expect those doctors to act in the best interests of the child

 

Lets not derail the thread, this not about JW's........

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
10 minutes ago, Civilwarbuff said:

So just curious....what harm was being done to him?.....specifics please.  I mean the intubation and suction outweighs the harm of death from suffocation, the feeding tube outweighs the harm of death from starvation, the IV outweighs the harm of death from dehydration would you not agree? 

No I wouldn't agree! 

 

What benefit is it to keep the lungs working artificially, as opposed to allowing then to stop functioning naturally in way that any discomfort could be controlled. 

5 minutes ago, Civilwarbuff said:

Lets not derail the thread, this not about JW's........

An interesting response - and also  a very instructive one! This thread  is about your demand that parents have absolute rights - so please answer the question - would you expect that doctor to allow that child to die, or to override the parents demands? If your being consistent you have to say,  "the doctors must let the child die because that is what the parents want" - but that doesn't sound quite so good does it? 

 

Unless this question is answered, I have nothing more to say on this matter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff
3 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

No I wouldn't agree! 

 

What benefit is it to keep the lungs working artificially, as opposed to allowing then to stop functioning naturally in way that any discomfort could be controlled. 

Yes, suffocation IS such a pleasant way to die🤔.  We don't suffocate people with terminal illnesses.....Once a patient is intubated they don't get it pulled until death otherwise a person is causing or contributing to the death.

 

14 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

An interesting response - and also  a very instructive one! This thread  is about your demand that parents have absolute rights - so please answer the question - would you expect that doctor to allow that child to die, or to override the parents demands? If your being consistent you have to say,  "the doctors must let the child die because that is what the parents want" - but that doesn't sound quite so good does it? 

 

Unless this question is answered, I have nothing more to say on this matter

Please feel free to start another thread on JW's and blood transfusions and I will be happy to join you.....but as I said this is not about JW's.  If that terminates your participation so be it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
44 minutes ago, Civilwarbuff said:

Please feel free to start another thread on JW's and blood transfusions and I will be happy to join you.....but as I said this is not about JW's.  If that terminates your participation so be it

Your refusal to answer this question speaks volumes! 

 

It is the same law that governs both situations - once you put parental rights above the welfare of a child this is exactly the situation you will have Doctor's unable to save the lives of children because the parents don't like the treatment! But if that is what you want for my country then you're right we have nothing else to say to each other! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff
1 minute ago, reformed baptist said:

Your refusal to answer this question speaks volumes! 

Well, that's a new one.  With my introverted nature I have never been accused of speaking volumes......LOL

6 minutes ago, reformed baptist said:

Your refusal to answer this question speaks volumes!  

 

It is the same law that governs both situations - once you put parental rights above the welfare of a child this is exactly the situation you will have Doctor's unable to save the lives of children because the parents don't like the treatment! But if that is what you want for my country then you're right we have nothing else to say to each other!  

 

 

My position of minimizing harm should have answered your question....please start another thread if you want to discuss JW's or other things outside the OP.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist

No - I'm done! 

 

I can't force you to see the implications of your demands.  

Share this post


Link to post
davidtaylorjr
2 hours ago, reformed baptist said:

but the basic fact is those parents were insisting that doctors continue invasive and painful 'treatments' that were doing the child no good

Actually, there were quite a few doctors who were convinced the boy could not feel pain so this isn't really the best argument.  The welfare of a child is the responsibility of the parents, that is a God-given responsibility.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...