they can use and twist that logic in any manner they wish once they decide what "dying with dignity" means.
I'm differentiating between deciding that it will be better to let the child die with dignity, and not allowing parents to "torture" their child. While I think neither is the case, I can understand how some might agree with the latter, but will never understand anyone who think the first.
Your distinction is exactly what they want people to believe and is what makes this scarer. They wouldn't be able to get away with saying his life is meaningless but they can hide behind the backwards argument that they are objective and taking the more humane path, saving him from his parents emotionally charged decision.For all those saying this would never happen in America, it will. They'll use the same (or similar) tactical argument.
Regardless of the reasoning, I think the case is disturbing. I was just giving my 2¢ but it doesn't change the fact that this child could die at their command. I don't remember all the details, but we had a case here in America, Terri Schaivo.
+1. The doctor has a duty to the patient, not to the parents. The issue is the legal weight given to that duty, as opposed to parents' duties and rights.Anyway, my point from that article was not the UK's specialist - we knew they felt that way, otherwise there would be no case in the first place. My point was that the US doctor - the one that was offering the Gards the treatment - sounded very wishy washy in the quotes from testimony.
Actually in this scenario since it's a minor who cannot legally make their own decisions the doctors have a duty to the parents
And RBG should follow this courts ruling, now that she can no longer be a productive member of society
it's good to be a Lubavitcher
Keeping someone alive is now called abuse?What about for the elderly?