Cliff
Distinguished Member
Tragic situation. He is being kept alive at Great Ormond Street. The UK doctors want to switch off the machines so he dies. This has been upheld by British courts. The parents don't have any say? They can't take the own son back home to die.
Let's put aside the cost argument. Also let's put aside the 'sensible' decision that we, as a 3rd party can say coldly, he has no hope, let's switch off the machines, its better for all. They have raised 1.4 million pounds and want to take him to America for treatment. It will probably be fruitless but is that the decision for the state?
It is the parents child! There is a bond. Surely they should have the choice what to do. Why does the state take ownership? The parents will suffer the grief.
Let's put aside the cost argument. Also let's put aside the 'sensible' decision that we, as a 3rd party can say coldly, he has no hope, let's switch off the machines, its better for all. They have raised 1.4 million pounds and want to take him to America for treatment. It will probably be fruitless but is that the decision for the state?
It is the parents child! There is a bond. Surely they should have the choice what to do. Why does the state take ownership? The parents will suffer the grief.