Arnold Williams (notebuyer) wrote,
Arnold Williams


In my terms, this is a simple question.

So let's rephrase it as an ethics question, to disguise the truth.

Your child has come down with a terrible disease. Your local government has come to the end of its capacity to help your child survive with this disease, but you have come to understand that in another country, a treatment is being developed that might help.

You would like to take the child to that other country. Hope, even a slim one, looks better than despair.

The hospital has become aware of your wishes. They refuse to release the baby to you. They tell you that they want to cut off life support.

You apply to the courts. They also refuse. You appeal. Denied. You are told that you are interfering with your child's right to die with dignity.

They are not interested in doing anything further. The baby's life is to be sacrificed so that they can quit bothering about it. Actually doing something successful would be humiliating for the hospital at this point, and the doctors would feel sad. You wouldn't want doctors to feel sad, would you?

Discuss the parents' options at this point. Those who dismiss this as an "unreal possibility" may read the genesis of this problem here, with more details.

Those who say that moving to another country for surgery is unprecedented. Even dogs have more of a chance.

And those who say, in the face of this, that opposing state-run health care is somehow immoral, I would join with a friend to say that Giving the State the power over medical treatment decisions is not morally superior in any way whatsoever.

As a final, ironic note: the lawyer representing the guardian appointed by the state to supercede the parents' wishes prefers that the baby be put down like a dog. Not that ethical people have a problem with advocating for positions they do not support, right?

And we come to the end of the process: the people in power get their way, and the baby dies. The people in power usually get their way, and, make no mistake, they usually choose the evil choice if they can. After all, if you choose good all time, you're discriminating by definition, and discrimination is bad, right? You wouldn't want to be bad. You want to cooperate with the god of this world. Who could blame you for that?

And for those who think that we have dedicated doctors who ignore the wacked-out opinions of these "medical ethicists" let's just recall how it used to be before this category of professional pest was invented.

As noted, Single Payer Health Care is Satanic, and anyone who advocates for it is a bad person. and the examples keep rolling in.
Tags: ethics, medical ethics

  • Twitter posts

    I had one email about the twitter feed I had posted here, wondering why it hasn't been updated. And the reason is that Twitter has banned so many…

  • My tweets

    Sun, 18:24: RT @ KurtSchlichter: I have carefully examined my alleged privilege, and I have determined that every right, preference, advantage,…

  • My tweets

    Fri, 13:45: RT @ RealTT2020: Michelle Obama explains, "Barack has lead by example. When we took our trip to Africa & visited his home…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded