Comments have been disabled
Responses: 16
CPT Jack Durish
I don't believe that society/government has any right to interfere with the parenting of children unless their lives are endangered. In this case the parents are not withholding treatment but rather seeking every reasonable course of treatment. The fact that British Courts and the EU bureaucrats are interfering is the natural outcome of a nanny state placing itself above parental rights. It demonstrates a clear lack of respect for citizens (which is, of course, the hallmark of a nanny state/socialist government). In the military we spoke of lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. I would tell the British and European "authorities" to get the hell out of the way.
PO3 Donald Murphy
PO3 Donald Murphy
>1 y
1LT Sandy Annala - That is 100% correct. That's what I saw live on TV. No one was stopping them. Great Ormond rep on TV only ever said "we don't recommend it." They never said they couldn't go. They said the boy would not survive off of life support.
CPT Jack Durish
CPT Jack Durish
>1 y
PO3 Donald Murphy - Live TV? Too bad. You can't go back and listen to it again to see if you were mistaken. Now, just for chuckles, consider this: Why would a court be involved to tell the parents not to move the child and listen to the hospital's advice to let the child die? What is the cause of action that a court got involved? In other words, does it make sense for a court and the EU to say, "Sure, do whatever you want?"
PO3 Donald Murphy
PO3 Donald Murphy
>1 y
CPT Jack Durish - I'd recommend you scoot down the thread and ready Gunny John Olson's post. I know I learned a lot from it.
CPT Jack Durish
CPT Jack Durish
>1 y
Ed194d1f
PO3 Donald Murphy - No one is debating the severity of the child's medical condition. We are debating the defeatist attitude that the hospital insists that the parents submit. There are those of us who agree with Dylan Thomas...
MAJ James Woods
So many different viewpoints on this; there is no such thing as a right answer, only painful decisions. I support the parents in wanting to do everything for their child but to hear the medical community state nothing more can be done and the child is in pain only makes me want to see the terminal pain end. Everyone can have their opinion but in the end, the parents have to ask themselves at how long do you look for experimental treatment for this terminal condition and if he's in pain how long is that acceptable? Very tough and as a father I feel for them.
PO3 Steven Sherrill
1LT Sandy Annala It is always said when a child passes. In this case, that may well be in the best interest of the child. From the article it sounds like even with the treatment that the baby would receive, it is not going to cure him. The problem is that the article doesn't provide enough information. "Giving evidence via a telephone link from America, he said: "It may be a treatment, but not a cure. "(Charlie) may be able to interact. To smile. To look at objects." At ten months smiling and looking at objects is fine, but if at ten years he is in the same situation, that is not life, that is existence. I feel horrible for the parents. Anytime a family is faced with this type of decision it is heart breaking. My father in law died from Alzheimer's Disease. During his final days, the only response he had was to a balloon that would be drawn slowly across his field of vision. His eyes would follow the balloon. My poor mother in law thought it was a sign he was getting better. When the time came to take him off life support, she still refused to believe he was not getting better. The one thing he had that made it easier was an advanced directive. It doesn't matter what the cause is, no family wants to face the possibility of having to take a loved one off of life support. I hope that this family finds peace.

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close