Skip to comments.Judge rules boy's life support can be switched off despite parents' hope of miracle
Posted on 08/13/2012 3:43:08 AM PDT by markomalley
A judge has ordered that doctors can switch off a young boys life-support system even though his devout Christian parents pleaded for him to be kept alive in case of a miracle.
Mr Justice Ryder said there was no hope of the eight-year-old recovering from lung failure after a tragic decline in health and it would be wrong to keep him alive and possibly in pain on a machine.
He paid tribute to the boys parents and teenage sister, who told the High Court that they believed he was still conscious and that there was still a chance of divine intervention saving him.
But the judge said that with a heavy heart he had to agree to the hospitals request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment as doctors and nurses agreed that all further interventions would be futile.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
> So the State can order the death of this boy, despite the
> parents’ wishes.
Romney-care at work in Massachusetts.
It will be even worse under 0bama-care, if you can imagine it.
This happened in London under their government-run health care.
It sounds like there is nothing wrong with the boy’s brain. That he probably just needs time for his lungs to heal.
Heavenly Father Glorious King, Good Shepherd
Grant that this child may awaken and demonstrate he should be cared for and not suffocated by the doctors and nurses charged with his recovery.
In Jesus Holy Name
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
So that's how it works now with government healthcare. A judge weighs the benefits and burdens of keeping someone alive.
When the government pays the medical bills, they can decide when you are too expensive to keep alive. And the ungodly media crucified Sarah Palin for correctly pointing out that this will happen under ObamaCare as well.
Would this family make the same decisions about their child's medical care if they were paying the medical bills themselves?
It's not about Death Panels, it's about allocating that money more efficiently - for things like gender reassignment surgery that matter to the far left, not for something as trivial (to the far left) as saving a child's life.
THIS illustrates what is ment by the term ‘Death Panels’ used when discussing ObamaCare/Socialized Medicine.
Shades of Schiavo?
I second your amen!!
I guess this boy didn’t quite “pencil out”.
“It’s not about Death Panels, it’s about allocating that money more efficiently - for things like gender reassignment surgery that matter to the far left, not for something as trivial (to the far left) as saving a child’s life.”
Or paying for and encouraging illegals to breed here.
Would this family make the same decisions about their child’s medical care if they were paying the medical bills themselves?”
Um, you’re joking, right? What parent wouldn’t move mountains to save their child?
Your thoughts are sick. Your utilitarian view of human life is warped & not in-line with conservative values.
I speak as the father of a child who died of cancer following five years of treatments in multiple hospitals. I can assure you that the cost would be least concern of his parents, regardless of who is paying. I often tire of Democrat anecdotes about the poor folks who lost their house because of medical bills. To us, it always seemed something of a no-brainer that you are better off broke than dead. But a state-run medical-legal regime that "Weigh(s) up the benefits and burdens of keeping the boy alive" will never, ever reach that same conclusion. To the government, it's always about dollars and cents.
“Would this family make the same decisions about their child’s medical care if they were paying the medical bills themselves?”
Are they even allowed to do this on their own at their own expense?