We should side with life. Every time.

Yep, thou shall not wage war!

Thou shall not force me into war.

We should side with life. Every time.

Yep, thou shall not wage war!

---

When we start making exceptions why would we not make the exception for that Faith that says no to operations or blood transfusions? We start down the slippery slope and every last weird idea that comes up must be allowed.

Life is precious. It is rare. It has reason even if not fully understood. If we are to make a mistake lets make the mistake on the side of life.

We should side with life. From the time of conception to that of natural death life should be treated with the utmost care. Brain dead is natural death.

We should side with life. Every time.

I would say that in principle yes. But in this case the under age child was unable to make, or not allowed to make, his own decision upon the way forward. Therefore his mother exercised what she saw as her parental right, to make that decision for him. However that was legally challenged in court with the outcome that we all know.

But, the current controversy regarding voluntary euthanasia, is clouding the issue of life. Should ill health, or age, or an individuals personal wishes be a factor? Should perceived future quality of life be taken into account? I just hope that I am never ever faced with the decision to switch a life support system off.

We should side with life. Every time.

Ditto ...

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

In the UK there is no upper age limit for serving on a jury for a criminal case, but you can be excused from jury service if you are 71 years of age or older and you do not want to serve on a jury. In the case of a civil trial you have to under 65.

Generally speaking you are not called if you are over 65 so that lets me out :-)

Of course the thorny question now remains doesn't it? Should the child be taken into care, or left in the charge of his mother. I'm only grateful that I won't be a court judge having to decide that.

Jury duty summons for Chris S ... :)

---

Of course the thorny question now remains doesn't it? Should the child be taken into care, or left in the charge of his mother. I'm only grateful that I won't be a court judge having to decide that.

I'm glad to see that the courts have decided that the treatment is to continue, I've lost far too many friends over the years who have decided that the first round of a treatment was good enough.
I do however have sympathy for the mother who must now feel very confused at the least, probably angry. But let us hope and pray that the full package of treatment works properly and the lad is restored to full health and without any lasting side effects.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Summing up, the judge said: The mother has been through a terrible time. This sort of thing is every parent's nightmare. But I am worried that her judgement has gone awry on the question of the seriousness of the threat which Neon faces.
The alternative treatments put forward were complementary and alternative medicine. Nothing put forward has undergone rigorous clinical trials.

So it seems commonsense prevails at last.

Further treatment

It appears the operation went well

Operation

In this sort of moral dilemma there are times when society, in this case represented by a judge, has to act to protect the life of a child.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

I actually agree with the Judge. But we have also had cases where Jehovahs Witnesses have refused blood transfusions, and people have died. That one is a real can of worms ....

If medical treatment is available shouldn't it used to preserve life?

Who owns your body? If a minor, do your parents own you? If an adult does society own you? This is the real question being asked.

So if you want to suicide is society going to force you into treatment? If a minor can you parents discard you like chattel?

Yes a very thorny issue and you haven't even brought the issue of who pays into it yet.

---

I recall a case in Rockford Illinois a dozen years or so ago where a JW couple refused treatment for their son for lymphoma, which would have required him to receive blood products. A judge stepped in at the request of physicans and appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child. In the end the child was treated and received blood and survived.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

We have had that same thing here. Kids die . As a parent why would you not want to try to save them.

---

[/quote]

Old James

I actually agree with the Judge. But we have also had cases where Jehovahs Witnesses have refused blood transfusions, and people have died. That one is a real can of worms ....

If medical treatment is available shouldn't it used to preserve life?

That is a good question. He should have had the radiations after the first surgery, Then maybe it would not have grown back.

One parent say yes have the operation the other says no. the poor kid will die without it. So I would say yes the judge made the right call.

---

[/quote]

Old James

So, is this right or wrong?

Operation