|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2017 16:01:31 GMT
Bullying is a fact of life. It changes in it's manifestations from early childhood to adult life, but it is still bullying. No matter how hard we try, we will never eliminate bullies. While I'm in favor of schools trying to control bullying, I also believe that its the schools responsibility to teach the victims of bullying how to deal with bullies. Bullying does not stop when you leave school. Dealing with bullies is a skill they will need the rest of their lives. The only way I've found to deal with bullies is you have to hit them back and hit them back hard. Not necessarily physically, but unless they immediately pay a price for their actions, they will just continue bullying. some years ago I did a talk on discipline that pointed out that people goes through developmental stages and some never outgrow the stage where the only discipline that works is immediate positive or negative reinforcement. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 30, 2017 16:07:39 GMT
Bullying is a fact of life. It changes in it's manifestations from early childhood to adult life, but it is still bullying. No matter how hard we try, we will never eliminate bullies. While I'm in favor of schools trying to control bullying, I also believe that its the schools responsibility to teach the victims of bullying how to deal with bullies. Bullying does not stop when you leave school. Dealing with bullies is a skill they will need the rest of their lives. The only way I've found to deal with bullies is you have to hit them back and hit them back hard. Not necessarily physically, but unless they immediately pay a price for their actions, they will just continue bullying. some years ago I did a talk on discipline that pointed out that people goes through developmental stages and some never outgrow the stage where the only discipline that works is immediate positive or negative reinforcement. Unfortunately, there seems to be way to many adults stuck in that stage. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2017 16:10:06 GMT
some years ago I did a talk on discipline that pointed out that people goes through developmental stages and some never outgrow the stage where the only discipline that works is immediate positive or negative reinforcement. Unfortunately, there seems to be way to many adults stuck in that stage. it has been a meme off and on that men should be more like cats or dogs - but people fail to recognize is that cats and dogs code of ethics is essentially based on "can I get away with it?" |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 30, 2017 16:21:10 GMT
The courts have to take into account the amount of pain and suffering the poor child is in and if the stress of a flight across the Atlantic would increase it, the potential for pain to be caused whilst undergoing this highly experimental procedure against the chance that this procedure would do any benefit.
It went to the highest possible court in Europe, and it was decided that this treatment would almost certainly do no good for poor Charlie Gard, and that the inherent stress of travelling and the suffering that he would undergo would not be humane.
There are those that argue that the doctor in Ameria offering this treatment is to some degree exploiting the grief of these poor parents, both on monetary terms, and in collecting data.
But Courts do make judgements that override parents all the while, a Father that thinks it's okay to smack his children about or a Mother that think that Female Genital Mutilation is a tradition in her culture, it's just a case of where do we set the boundaries that a court can intervene ?
The parents in this case may not be in the best place to make a rational judgment as to the best course of action for their child as sad as that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jun 30, 2017 16:26:09 GMT
you may remember I've mentioned I'm part of a group that is tracking trends in futile care. - perhaps best described as wasting medical resources keeping dead people undead. so as to the moral questions: does being a parent automatically confer the medical expertise to understand a child's condition, and make better decisions than the professional who is theoretically educated in understanding conditions? Is the change of the experimental therapy working more than just a blind hope and an empty promise? in a situation like this, there is no "win" possible. it is one of the prices we pay for advanced medical technology. while we can save more people, the ones we can't save trouble us all the more. I can see a medical institution saying we've done all we can and we won't do anything more. I can also see the courts siding with that decision. What I can not accept is the courts saying that parents can't seek other treatment, no matter how remote the results of that treatment may be. That's just not a decision the courts should be allowed to make. Yeah, that's the problem I have with this story. The parents raised the money to pay for the treatment by themselves, so it's not an issue of waste. In fact, regardless of the outcome, the results of the treatment might tell us more about it's effectiveness, and therefore something good might come out of this sad situation. When talking about waste, it's too easy to step from that to declaring him a "useless eater" and disposing of him. It's happened before. And it becomes easier to include more people in that group. The question to me is if the child is suffering and exactly how hopeless the condition is. There aren't necessarily clear answers in all aspects of medicine. By the way, I don't pretend to have all the answers to these questions. And an update on the story: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/charlie-gard-parents-more-time-life-supportThey're not going to take him off life support today. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2017 16:26:47 GMT
The courts have to take into account the amount of pain and suffering the poor child is in and if the stress of a flight across the Atlantic would increase it, the potential for pain to be caused whilst undergoing this highly experimental procedure against the chance that this procedure would do any benefit. It went to the highest possible court in Europe, and it was decided that this treatment would almost certainly do no good for poor Charlie Gard, and that the inherent stress of travelling and the suffering that he would undergo would not be humane. There are those that argue that the doctor in Ameria offering this treatment is to some degree exploiting the grief of these poor parents, both on monetary terms, and in collecting data. But Courts do make judgements that override parents all the while, a Father that thinks it's okay to smack his children about or a Mother that think that Female Genital Mutilation is a tradition in her culture, it's just a case of where do we set the boundaries that a court can intervene ? The parents in this case may not be in the best place to make a rational judgment as to the best course of action for their child as sad as that is. one of the things the group I'm in tracks is doctors who make their living by selling false hope. the Bioquark group we talked about earlier is one such organization. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 30, 2017 16:27:46 GMT
The courts have to take into account the amount of pain and suffering the poor child is in and if the stress of a flight across the Atlantic would increase it, the potential for pain to be caused whilst undergoing this highly experimental procedure against the chance that this procedure would do any benefit. It went to the highest possible court in Europe, and it was decided that this treatment would almost certainly do no good for poor Charlie Gard, and that the inherent stress of travelling and the suffering that he would undergo would not be humane. There are those that argue that the doctor in Ameria offering this treatment is to some degree exploiting the grief of these poor parents, both on monetary terms, and in collecting data. But Courts do make judgements that override parents all the while, a Father that thinks it's okay to smack his children about or a Mother that think that Female Genital Mutilation is a tradition in her culture, it's just a case of where do we set the boundaries that a court can intervene ? The parents in this case may not be in the best place to make a rational judgment as to the best course of action for their child as sad as that is. Child abuse takes place every day and the courts should get involved. But cases like this are rare and the courts need to butt out. No law is being broken. This is one case where there is no right or wrong decision. In cases like this, the decision must be left to the family. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2017 16:36:14 GMT
I can see a medical institution saying we've done all we can and we won't do anything more. I can also see the courts siding with that decision. What I can not accept is the courts saying that parents can't seek other treatment, no matter how remote the results of that treatment may be. That's just not a decision the courts should be allowed to make. Yeah, that's the problem I have with this story. The parents raised the money to pay for the treatment by themselves, so it's not an issue of waste. In fact, regardless of the outcome, the results of the treatment might tell us more about it's effectiveness, and therefore something good might come out of this sad situation. When talking about waste, it's too easy to step from that to declaring him a "useless eater" and disposing of him. It's happened before. And it becomes easier to include more people in that group. The question to me is if the child is suffering and exactly how hopeless the condition is. There aren't necessarily clear answers in all aspects of medicine. By the way, I don't pretend to have all the answers to these questions. And an update on the story: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/charlie-gard-parents-more-time-life-supportThey're not going to take him off life support today. there is a key difference between "he's not going to get any better" or even "there's nobody home in there, any more" and "useless eater" for that matter, what is wrong with the doctor bringing the therapy to the patient, if the doctor is that confident in it? having been very peripherally in this sort of circumstance, I can say that one of the hardest things a physician can have to do is tell a parent their child is going to die and there is nothing that can stop it. it makes it even harder when people are on the sidelines offering to sell the parents a miracle. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 30, 2017 16:48:38 GMT
The law that is broken in the case is Human Rights Laws for the child not to have to undergo medical treatment that will not in the opinion of many Doctors and the Courts work, the stress of transporting him etc.
It is though one of those cases that requires the wisdom of Solomon, and there is no good outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2017 16:50:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 30, 2017 17:06:40 GMT
The law that is broken in the case is Human Rights Laws for the child not to have to undergo medical treatment that will not in the opinion of many Doctors and the Courts work, the stress of transporting him etc. It is though one of those cases that requires the wisdom of Solomon, and there is no good outcome. Unless I've missed something, I don't see where the child is in any great pain from this condition. So what's the rush to "put him out of his misery"? And it's interesting you bring up King Solomon. What was his decision? His decision was to favor the person that preferred the life of the baby over the one that preferred it's death. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 30, 2017 18:28:57 GMT
The over way to look at is he judged in favour of the best interests of the child.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 30, 2017 18:45:21 GMT
The over way to look at is he judged in favour of the best interests of the child. Yes, that's exactly what he did. And is sure death vs a very small probably of life, even if that life is of reduced capacity, the best interest of the child or is it just the more convenient decision? If the parents are fully capable of covering the expense and support associated with this procedure, the court has absolutely no business preventing them from doing so. And saying it's in the best interest of the child that he die has no merit. When ANY government starts to think they have the sole authority of who lives and who dies, it's time for a new government. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 1, 2017 6:41:23 GMT
The question is who gave the government the right to make such a decision?
It's not the government's child; it's the parents.
Literally, the child is the combined DNA of the parents, not anyone else's, and as such, can be said to literally be made of each parent.
Yet the government claims authority on such a very personal decision.
I don't want to see the kid suffer, but it's too easy to see the government overstep its authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 1, 2017 7:40:24 GMT
Yes but once the parents DNA have combined it's a new set of DNA that belongs to Charlie Gard himself, not the parents.
The Court has a duty to protect his rights even at the expense of the parents if that's what they think is best for Charlie.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 1, 2017 8:15:22 GMT
so as to the moral questions: does being a parent automatically confer the medical expertise to understand a child's condition, and make better decisions than the professional who is theoretically educated in understanding conditions? "In My Experience". Not always, but there are a few exceptions... When dealing with Autism, Yes it bloody well does. There are few general doctors out there who can understand the complex life strategies a parent develops when dealing with an autistic child, nor do they understand the complex method of communication needed to deal with an autistic person. The parent therefore knows everything pertaining to "That" child since day one. Therefore, the Expert. You need a parent of good intelligence, preferably above average intelligence, however, to make that work.... You will always get the "They are autistic" parent who uses that as an excuse to warrant bad behaviour. There are few exceptional professionals who specialise in autism, I have met a few, who do so by involving the parent in all decisions. In the case of Life and Death decisions, all parents will fight "tooth and nail" to keep the child alive. Its their job. Even if it makes sense, in the case of your own child, you are forced to be duty bound to fight the decision. That is part of the Human condition. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2017 8:38:53 GMT
so as to the moral questions: does being a parent automatically confer the medical expertise to understand a child's condition, and make better decisions than the professional who is theoretically educated in understanding conditions? "In My Experience". Not always, but there are a few exceptions... When dealing with Autism, Yes it bloody well does. There are few general doctors out there who can understand the complex life strategies a parent develops when dealing with an autistic child, nor do they understand the complex method of communication needed to deal with an autistic person. The parent therefore knows everything pertaining to "That" child since day one. Therefore, the Expert. You need a parent of good intelligence, preferably above average intelligence, however, to make that work.... You will always get the "They are autistic" parent who uses that as an excuse to warrant bad behaviour. There are few exceptional professionals who specialise in autism, I have met a few, who do so by involving the parent in all decisions. In the case of Life and Death decisions, all parents will fight "tooth and nail" to keep the child alive. Its their job. Even if it makes sense, in the case of your own child, you are forced to be duty bound to fight the decision. That is part of the Human condition. behavioral characeristics (I.E. the details of how a child on the autism spectrum interacts with others) is definitely a different matter, and a parent can have the experience to know better than a doctor. however, in the case of major illness or injury:  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 1, 2017 8:40:43 GMT
Bullying is a fact of life. It changes in it's manifestations from early childhood to adult life, but it is still bullying. No matter how hard we try, we will never eliminate bullies. While I'm in favor of schools trying to control bullying, I also believe that its the schools responsibility to teach the victims of bullying how to deal with bullies. Bullying does not stop when you leave school. Dealing with bullies is a skill they will need the rest of their lives. The only way I've found to deal with bullies is you have to hit them back and hit them back hard. Not necessarily physically, but unless they immediately pay a price for their actions, they will just continue bullying. In Remembrance of the few school bullies who made the mistake of targeting me, the hard take down also maybe required a few secondary hard take downs after the event to persuade them "Its better if you stay down". Back then, the accepted advice to school bullies was "Grow a pair"... not much help when the bully was twice your size was it?. I remember no support at all from most of the teachers who were keen to break up the fight but rather stupid in the demand that both sides apologise?. "I am so sorry that I collided with that piece of wood you were swinging at my head"?.. seriously?.. you expect them to say that?. In the case of my own kids, I astounded the teaching profession with the honesty of my kids, who would always tell truth about who and why a fight was started. In the case of one of mine who was repeatedly targeted by a certain ijurt, I finally invoked the Police. When it came to "Did you hit him back" question, they all sat in silence when I stood up and shook the hand of my child who answered "Bloody right I did..." They had the no retaliation rule. I dont. They had been warned. "This has been going on for 18 months now with this child targeting my kid, you the school have Failed to deal with it. My kid, my self, and his brothers are now fed up, which is why the police are here, I am now leaving with my child, who will NOT be facing any sanctions for fighting back, I leave you [the school] to answer to the police on charges of assault and how you wish to deal with it as I AM pressing charges, and if that is what it takes to get things done around here, expect more of the same... The police pressed charges, the bully was interviewed under caution, with of course his parents in attendance, and that was the very end of it, other than the older brother in my household "Taking a walk" a few days later to where he knew that kid to be and warning them "If I ever see you again..." Take them down hard. To that advice, I also add, collect evidence, report, repeat, keep up the "good" work, and play the rules.... And then at some point let holy hell rain down on the heads of those who let it pass, invoke police, other authorities, and press hard. Keep pressing. NEVER accept the "No retaliation" rule, as the police are fully aware of "Self defence" and will support that. But beware on how you reply, never leave yourself open for a "reply"... And in the case of the kid [when we were both eleven ish?..]who was downed by a left hook of mine screaming "This aint over" at the back of my school uniform as I was about to go home, he learnt I have a turn of speed and a good kick to the gentemans sausage area with a reply of "It is now...." [yeah I pinched that from the 1966 football final], I never heard from him again... I did hear that my Dad had received complains from his Mum, but had dealt with them with "Do you wish charges to be pushed?.. just tell me when you kid is available for arrest...." There are times you need the Police, and I am happy to let them finalise the final event in things. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 1, 2017 9:12:30 GMT
The question is who gave the government the right to make such a decision? It's not the government's child; it's the parents. Literally, the child is the combined DNA of the parents, not anyone else's, and as such, can be said to literally be made of each parent. Yet the government claims authority on such a very personal decision. I don't want to see the kid suffer, but it's too easy to see the government overstep its authority. The authority of the Gobmint is to make a decision when two parties cannot agree. Thats all. They are not experts themselves, so have called many many many on both sides to collect evidence, from both sides, of the for's and against of all possible outcomes. Their "Duty of care" is in this case to the child. Will the child ever recover enough to be able to breathe on its own, will it ever make conciousness, will it ever be able to indicate its own wishes. Can it ever feed its self. This is not a question of "Full recovery", its more a question of "Life worth living for the child". Even if that child is never independent. If that child is in constant pain, what type of life is that?. Does that child have any form of brain function... will "treatment" increase that brain function, will that treatment increase the suffering?. In ALL cases, no positive proof has been shown that there can be a definitive betterment of the childs condition by further treatment. Difficult decision to make. The doctors say they can no longer help. The parents "Demand" that they do.... Who is more right in that case?. The final european court decision is to agree with the medical profession in UK that they can no longer help, and to not have direct evidence presented to them that the shipping the child overseas will "Definitely" help, being its an experimental procedure that hast been "passed" as yet as usual practise, they can see no definitive benefit to the child health by prolonging the presumed suffering. This is the european gobmint decision, the highest there is, in my own opinion, for once, they are not the ones playing "god" of any denomination here, they are just the ones who have made the final call on a decision by two differing arguments. The arguments of the whole of the UK medical profession and european medical profession in unison against the parents. The medical profession can not promise results, the American procedure can only promise possible results "At Best", less chance of a full recovery than winning the euro millions twice on the run, as its still an "Experimental" procedure, that may just as well harm as help. This is exactly the same in ethics as forcing the "Final answer" on the surgery looming over my Spine, it can be done, but may leave me paralysed from the waste down... Do I want to take that risk?. For me, whilst I can still walk, maybe not. If it were my only option, then maybe. If it were to make my condition possibly WORSE than it already is?.. and thats a 50:50 chance "at best"?..... Would you say yes?. Someone else may, but not me!. If it were my child?.. I have to ask, at what point do I decide they have suffered enough already.... no more experiments please..... And no, I do not have any answers, just a deep sorrow that anyone should have to ask those questions. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 1, 2017 14:06:38 GMT
This isn't the way I've read the story. The parents are not demanding that the doctors do anything. All they are asking is to be able to take THEIR child to a specialist here in America that says there may be a slim chance that he can help. They aren't being fooled. They know it's a long shot. They are not asking someone else to pay for it, just the chance to try.
This is a very sad and tragic situation, but this so called Human Rights court is making it far worse by sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. It's no wonder Great Britain decided to pull out from under these idols.
|
|
