Re:A Common Blood Test Can Cost $11 or Almost $1k
by jakeogh on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @03:49AM
(#19795259)
Just to clarify, the state didn't kill him.
They removed his life support, against the wishes of his parents and then prevented them from accepting help. He survived ~5 days without it.
While it's a sad story I agree, it's not the point. Giving the state the power to decide who lives and dies without a trial and conviction for a crime is something many of us had hoped was settled long ago.
Re:A Common Blood Test Can Cost $11 or Almost $1k
by lazyasciiart on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @11:42AM
(#19798142)
Ok, let's try a nice straightforward story. A child is bitten by a dog that definitely has rabies (this can be established by autopsy). The child's parents refuse any treatment (vaccination). It is about a 99% chance that the child will die of rabies without the vaccination. Do you believe the state (or any other actor) should have any power to intervene?
Just to clarify, the state didn't kill him. He died of GABA-transaminase deficiency, which was only diagnosed after he died. The treatment that his parents wanted to try was a shot in the dark. No one knew what was wrong with Alfie.
You are arguing that taking a child from hospital, causing him more pain and suffering, putting him through a frightening and scary procedure, that has no basis in medicinal science (as there's no way to know if it'll cure an undiagnosed problem) is better than letting him die peacefully, safely and surrounded with love.
You can take a "life at any cost" point of view but the UK Court didn't. It took the view that a pain free and caring death was better than an agonising and highly unlikely long shot.