Well the socialized medicine death panel did their dirty deed in England

We actually don't know if he was feeling pain, what we do know is his brain damage was so severe that he was unable to breath on his own. Nothing was wrong with his lungs, he had to be on life support because of his brain conditions, and worse than this, the doctors concluded that he would never be able to recover. Meaning for the rest of his life he would be on life support.

The meaning of the term "brain dead" has a fairly broad meaning, but it usually refers to when the brain is damaged to the point that it is unable to sustain life. Different parts of the brain can cease from functioning, so it doesn't necessarily mean that the subject cannot feel pain

 

Really. Brain dead means lack of awareness, TCassa89.

When a patient is unconscious they don't feel pain either. That's why surgery is done under anesthesia.

I think you know the problem with the conflict in the prog claims here, do you not?

 

Cure to what degree? From the life quality of an avocado to a mango? And one this can feel pain and suffering to boot?

 

Again, the term brain dead isn't always used the same way.When a patient's brain is no longer able to sustain life, but their body is being kept alive by machines, that patient is often times referred to as being brain dead.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death#cite_note-Dorlands-6

If you want to argue that a subject should not be considered brain dead if they feel pain, that is fine, but the fact still remains that the term is still often used by medical communities to describe a subject whose brain cannot sustain life. How the term is used is less important, what is more important is the doctor's conclusion that this child had no hope of recovery. Meaning he had no chance of being able to survive off of life support.

 

Keep making things up in your head, you are in excellent company on this thread. Now enough of you, you are boring.

 

I think you're beating around the bush. Progs have been attempting to claim that it is 'inhuman and cruel' to attempt to save this child's life in the US, with a treatment which was paid for via charitable donations, because the child 'feels pain'.

The argument is a canard, and beating around the bush indicates that.

 

No the argument is quite simple, in uk law the childs well being trumps the parents rights, you do not like it tough, it is not your country.

 

This is one of the dumbest posts on the site.
I would not trust any doctor who makes a diagnosis or recommends any procedure without examining the patient.

 

It wasn't progressives who determined the child could not recover, it was the doctors who examined him. Those doctors even invited the American doctor to visit the hospital and examine the child himself, but he never did. It is also important to note that this procedure had never even been tested on a patient with this child's conditions. Had it actually worked, it would have been a major medical breakthrough

The problem here is you are relying on information from political sources instead of reading what the medical sources are saying. The reason why this procedure is not taking place is because the doctors who examined him made the conclusion that there was no chance of recovery.

 

If you wish to, you can have it as a signature line if you want, get a tee shirt made up.

Much rather you used something I did say, rather than what you made up again.

 

Why not just admit the truth, and stop pretending you don't know that doctors do not have to "visit" patients to know every detail of their condition? Why let politics push you into denying the obvious truth?

 

Why?

 

The parents think torturing the child for no gain is a good thing. They do not have the child's interests in mind. They have their own feelings in mind.

 

Do you believe that the child is "brain dead" or not?

 

I have been consistent in my posts that he is brain damaged. The doctors involved in the case are very clear that he is capable of feeling pain.

 

Then if they were humane they would have put a bullet in the kids head weeks ago - right?

 

Who has made that argument exactly? Do you have some kind of disorder that prevents you from debating with any degree of integrity?

 

The are administering what obviously amounts to palliative/hospice type care which means that they are making his passing as comfortable and pain free as possible. If the baby was in a place where assisted death was an option, that would be something that the parent's would likely have the final say on.

 

Because.

 

It is preferable - even with Telehealth, which because of distance we do use, there is a GP at the patient end who can carry out any examination that is required by the consultant - and even then it is not uncommon for patients to have to be flown to the nearest Tertiary centre for full examination

 

Pain responses have little to do with higher cognitive function. Many are spinal reflexes

 

Don't expect liberals to accept this. If doctors in magical single payer systems couldn't fix this kid, then these greedy American doctors certainly could not.

Oddly enough, those same Brits in power use their money to seek treatment in the superior US medical system.

 

Keep making things up in your head, you are in excellent company on this thread. Now enough of you, you are boring.

 

So Charlie told the state he prefers death to life?


.

 

Gee, the British must be ready to just chuck their universal healthcare. Wait, they aren't?