Nutters who shoot grey squirrels

If you are arguing that this case is an example of where the parents should be given the right to decide what to do, you picked the wrong one.

I don't know, mate. I get why the UK system is set up with an advocate for the child and all that, but I disagree with taking the final decision away from the parents. I think part of the responsibility you accept with parenthood is that someday you might have to make a difficult decision among a number of bad options in a horrible situation.

I don't disagree that whatever they can do for this kid is probably not going to be enough, but I also know if it was my kid I wouldn't want some judge to decide what was going to happen to him.

Again though, I am not the medical expert to be deciding between doctors on one side versus doctors on the other. That's not the function of lawyers & judges.

How is it not? Judges make decisions after holding hearings with experts testifying on both sides of an issue all the time. How is this any different?

I don't know, mate. I get why the UK system is set up with an advocate for the child and all that, but I disagree with taking the final decision away from the parents. I think part of the responsibility you accept with parenthood is that someday you might have to make a difficult decision among a number of bad options in a horrible situation.

I don't disagree that whatever they can do for this kid is probably not going to be enough, but I also know if it was my kid I wouldn't want some judge to decide what was going to happen to him.

How is it not? Judges make decisions after holding hearings with experts testifying on both sides of an issue all the time. How is this any different?

What about the occasional parents who refuse to take their kid (who is really sick) in for medical treatment for religious reasons? Is it still up to the parents to decide to let their kid die (actually.....I guess in their heads they are leaving it up to God) because they think just praying is the right thing to do?

How is it not? Judges make decisions after holding hearings with experts testifying on both sides of an issue all the time. How is this any different?

Sure. Couple things.

First, take a smart diligent guy who the only thing he's ever done in life is study & practice law. Not just law, but specifically family law. Such as divorce & custody cases. Who gets the house, how much spousal support, what's a good custody arrangement... or the authorities coming in saying these parents are beating their kids, here's the evidence, we want to remove parental rights.

I have no doubt in my mind that the gentleman is very capable and is doing the best he can in a difficult circumstance. But... how in hell is it reasonable to have him hear from one of the most preeminent neurologists in the world saying one thing, versus a hospital saying another? The decision you're asking him to make has nothing to do with the law and he's no more capable of understanding the evidence much less deciding justly than any random person on the street.

Is he supposed to decide in favor of who has the best resume? Or who is the more convincing orator? Cause deciding on the science is not something he's capable or qualified to do. You might as well flip a coin. When you put a judge in that situation, you are actually saying you're incapable of making a decision, you may as well flip a coin, but we'd like to improperly abuse the integrity of this court in order to give the arbitrary decision it makes more credibility. Nine times out of ten, a judge is going to use any possible mechanism to run away from that position. When they're forced to make a decision, they'll try to find a way for someone else to interpret and decide between the experts. Or else they'll try to find some statement - like mistakenly believing the parents said they wouldn't want the kid to live this way - to tip the scale for them.

When society asks a court to do this sort of thing, that they are not qualified to do, it is the worst position we can put them in. Governments have responded by creating specialized courts for wills/trusts/estates/probate, bankruptcy, patent, chancery court for certain business and insurance matters, etc. Those courts exist because the cases are common enough to support judges with specialized training and experience. There is not a medical consent court with judges who are also doctors. They didn't try to decide this through arbitration where arbitrators with the specialized skills for the case could be selected. So we get this terrible situation where a court is asked to make a decision it should never be asked to make.


Secondly, the role of a judge is not to between these facts and those facts. We use juries for that whenever possible. At very least you get the decision of a group rather than one fallible person. That group at least expresses the representative will of the people rather than having a decision imposed by the state through the judge. And, when you force a judge to take sides on facts of a case, it often and inherently biases the rest of their duties. There are circumstances where you have to go to a bench trial, such as in those specialized courts where the judge has the expertise outside of law to understand the science like a jury never could. When that's not the case, and when the issue turns on decisions of fact rather than law, then if there's any human way to do it, you want to take that decision out of the hands of the judge. I know a whole lot of judges at all levels, and I guarantee you they are at the top of that list of people that want those fact decisions on things they aren't expert in taken out of their hands.


I get your gut reaction that we often turn to courts to decide our disputes. I'm saying when it is beyond what they're qualified to do we should not put them in that position.

In the US, it's a pure legal question of who has right of consent. I'm not saying that can't get real complicated, cause it can, but it is as much as possible asking courts to make decisions about the law rather than things they don't have the first clue about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about the occasional parents who refuse to take their kid (who is really sick) in for medical treatment for religious reasons? Is it still up to the parents to decide to let their kid die (actually.....I guess in their heads they are leaving it up to God) because they think just praying is the right thing to do?

It is more complicated than that.

They can't do nothing but pray while their kid is dying. That could result in murder charges. If they put a kid with a fever in the bath and delay going to the hospital, then it depends if that delay was reckless in the circumstance or not.

But, if they go to the hospital and refuse consent to a transfusion on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs, then that's their civil/human rights.

If the kid is awake and saying no those aren't my beliefs, I want the transfusion, then that's where you can get a kid arguing for the court to appoint a guardian ad litem to assume that right of consent from the parents.

But that happens where the parents disagree or the child disagrees with the parents based on their own independently operable constitutional rights.

I realize you'd like to make this about parents who you do not think are acting in the best interest of the child, but really it is about does the doctor or patient get to decide what happens to the patient's body.

In the US, that is as much of an absolute as we can make it, the individual controls their own fate. If that would result in their death or running up medical bills trying to preserve their life beyond what a doctor might decide for his own next of kin, then that is still the individual's choice to make.

In the UK, for all our similarities, this is a big difference. They prioritize society over the individual to an extent that a doctor could believe there is a circumstance where he should decide for the patient what is going to happen.

Can you imagine if I as a lawyer decided my client was guilty so against their instructions pled guilty? Or if I think we should settle and the client doesn't want to so we settle? Never in a million years would that be okay. Never would that illegal action by me be accepted, and then the court is going to decide if my view or the view of some outside lawyer is better for society or better for my client. No. They're going to throw me out, suspend my license, and reset that hearing with a new attorney, plus I'll get sued and I'll lose which I should.

This case is tragic, but it should not be that complicated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the one important bit you are all forgetting is that Charlie is suffering.  Yes, Camoscato, in every other situation the parents have the right to decide for the child and if the kid wasn't suffering they should be able to take him wherever they want for as long as they want.  But no parent has the right to make their children suffer.  That's what the courts are saying in this case and they are correct.

Mr. Texas, I think a judge can understand medical testimony enough to make a decision.  From the little I've heard of the medical testimony, it sounds like even I could make the call.  It's entirely possible that this expert could be completely correct in what he is saying and any person could easily judge what is correct.  Continued suffering vs a very low chance of getting slightly better and still suffering is not a hard call to make. 

I am still baffled about why this case is about society vs the individual?  I keep asking and you keep dodging.  In this case, society, through the courts, is jumping through hoops to do what is best for Charlie. 

The only people who's rights are being curtailed is the parents and it's entirely conmenplace to remove those kinds of rights from parents who are no longer capable of making decisions in the child's best interest.

I think the one important bit you are all forgetting is that Charlie is suffering.  Yes, Camoscato, in every other situation the parents have the right to decide for the child and if the kid wasn't suffering they should be able to take him wherever they want for as long as they want.  But no parent has the right to make their children suffer.  That's what the courts are saying in this case and they are correct.

Mr. Texas, I think a judge can understand medical testimony enough to make a decision.  From the little I've heard of the medical testimony, it sounds like even I could make the call.  It's entirely possible that this expert could be completely correct in what he is saying and any person could easily judge what is correct.  Continued suffering vs a very low chance of getting slightly better and still suffering is not a hard call to make. 

I am still baffled about why this case is about society vs the individual?  I keep asking and you keep dodging.  In this case, society, through the courts, is jumping through hoops to do what is best for Charlie. 

The only people who's rights are being curtailed is the parents and it's entirely conmenplace to remove those kinds of rights from parents who are no longer capable of making decisions in the child's best interest.

Suffering how. The medical consensus seems to be that he is not presently in physical pain. It is the position of the hospital that to allow a child to live in a severely disabled (but not painful) state would be suffering. That is a very dangerous and slippery slope to give over from patient to doctor the determination of what quality of life is acceptable.

It is also for the patient, and therefore for the parent, to say what amount of suffering should be weighted against what amount of hope through further treatment.

My understanding of the medical condition is there's a DNA fault impacting a number of cells, it can be bypassed to some meaningful effect by this drug in a not insubstantial number of cases, and that theoretically in the future these kinds of cases could be cured by cloning cell samples from the patient and implanting them as replacements. I don't think that's a realistic possibility for this kid, especially since it doesn't exist yet, but that is part of what this doctor is working on at Columbia.

If a parent chooses to allow their child to experience pain in order to get them treatment to improve their condition, that is absolutely a reasonable decision in the best interests of the child. In no way have those parents displayed a diminished capacity by which they are incapable of making a rational decision. Which is evidenced directly by the fact they made a rational decision. If a parent chose to let their child die rather than experience any pain, much less a lessened quality of life, then that decision would be much more suspect.

The simple fact is the London doctors made a decision. They were not able to convince the parents of that decision. So now they want to insert their will in place of the parents rights. Even in face of medical expertise that far exceeds their own. Those London doctors might very well be advising the best course of action. I may personally agree with their advice. But it is not their choice and should not be the choice of anyone but the parents so long as they are sane, not abusing the kid, and acting reasonably for the interests of the child - which they most definitely are.

We cannot be in the business of inserting our judgement for other people. Particularly where you are removing one of the most fundamental of rights to do so.

And no. There is absolutely no way that judge has the capability of understanding the nuanced intricacies of the medical information on one side versus the other. The fact that it is dumbed down to an understandable level by default means huge swaths of information are being glossed over and missed. My very good friend is a JD/MD with an LLM in health law and 20yrs of medical practice, and I would not trust him to make that judgement between medical experts at this level of complexity. I can promise you, he'd do everything he could to stay out of that position, and he's a million times more qualified to understand the cases being made.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If a parent chose to let their child die rather than experience any pain, much less a lessened quality of life, then that decision would be much more suspect.

Not necessarily. If the Charlie Gard situation was exactly the same with the exception that there were no doctors anywhere on Earth offering any treatment, and the choice was between palliative care or keeping the boy alive indefinitely using a ventilator and a feeding tube, allowing him to die would be totally reasonable.

Suffering how. The medical consensus seems to be that he is not presently in physical pain.

Huh?  Why do you think several courts, all of whom have had copious medical testimony, made the decision in the first place to allow Charlie to die?  Because he is suffering.   Do you  think that any sane individual would deny Charlie's parents the right to seek treatment for any other reason?  This is the real world, not some Alex Jones conspiracy . It doesn't require specialist knowledge in Charlie's disease to determine that.  Courts don't deny the rights of parents unless they have a very good reason, and Charlie's suffering is it. 

My understanding of the medical condition is there's a DNA fault impacting a number of cells, it can be bypassed to some meaningful effect by this drug in a not insubstantial number of cases, and that theoretically in the future these kinds of cases could be cured by cloning cell samples from the patient and implanting them as replacements. I don't think that's a realistic possibility for this kid, especially since it doesn't exist yet, but that is part of what this doctor is working on at Columbia.

All of this means nothing to Charlie, except to point out that the American doctor may have an interest in treating Charlie other than altruism.  Or he may just be a religious nutter who thinks all life is sacred at any cost.

Even in face of medical expertise that far exceeds their own.

Who says?  You keep saying this, but you have no idea of the relative levels of medical expertise involved.

We cannot be in the business of inserting our judgement for other people. Particularly where you are removing one of the most fundamental of rights to do so.

That's ridiculous.  Society does this all the time.  We insert our judgment every day regarding parents who are abusive, or simply don't put their child in a car seat.

And no. There is absolutely no way that judge has the capability of understanding the nuanced intricacies of the medical information on one side

Of course he can.  The judge doesn't have to cure Charlie himself, he simply has to decide if the benefits of treatment offered by this doctor outweigh the amount of suffering Charlie endures and whether that is likely to get better. 

Quite Frankly, this Doctor might well testify that this treatment has a %10 chance of increasing Charlie's muscle control and be completely correct.  In real life, I think this is more or less what he is saying.  He also might testify that as a Catholic, he believes that Charlie should be able to fight indefinitely and that's why he thinks this treatment is worth it.  This is conjecture, but a reasonable possibility. 

The doctors from GOSH may testify that Charlie has massive brain damage that won't be cured by any treatment and the American doctor might agree . 

In that case, Any decision would be simple to make.  It's obvious that the treatment, even if successful would do very little.  Weighed against continued suffering , it's a no brainer. No advanced understanding of medical testimony required. 

Huh?  Why do you think several courts, all of whom have had copious medical testimony, made the decision in the first place to allow Charlie to die?  Because he is suffering.   Do you  think that any sane individual would deny Charlie's parents the right to seek treatment for any other reason?  This is the real world, not some Alex Jones conspiracy . It doesn't require specialist knowledge in Charlie's disease to determine that.  Courts don't deny the rights of parents unless they have a very good reason, and Charlie's suffering is it. 

All of this means nothing to Charlie, except to point out that the American doctor may have an interest in treating Charlie other than altruism.  Or he may just be a religious nutter who thinks all life is sacred at any cost.

Who says?  You keep saying this, but you have no idea of the relative levels of medical expertise involved.
That's ridiculous.  Society does this all the time.  We insert our judgment every day regarding parents who are abusive, or simply don't put their child in a car seat.

Of course he can.  The judge doesn't have to cure Charlie himself, he simply has to decide if the benefits of treatment offered by this doctor outweigh the amount of suffering Charlie endures and whether that is likely to get better. 

Quite Frankly, this Doctor might well testify that this treatment has a %10 chance of increasing Charlie's muscle control and be completely correct.  In real life, I think this is more or less what he is saying.  He also might testify that as a Catholic, he believes that Charlie should be able to fight indefinitely and that's why he thinks this treatment is worth it.  This is conjecture, but a reasonable possibility. 

The doctors from GOSH may testify that Charlie has massive brain damage that won't be cured by any treatment and the American doctor might agree . 

In that case, Any decision would be simple to make.  It's obvious that the treatment, even if successful would do very little.  Weighed against continued suffering , it's a no brainer. No advanced understanding of medical testimony required.

Did the London doctors say he was in pain or is what they said that they felt he was suffering? Did their lawyers say pain, or did they say suffering?

Because the physical evidence - brain scans - show definitively that he is not experiencing pain.

If the court believed there was pain, and suffering is the consequence of that pain, then that is a misapprehension and upends all of the decisions to date. However, that goes to show the judge was incapable of interpreting the brain scan for himself and as a result was misled, no doubt unintentionally.

The London doctors may have believed he was in pain, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. However, their primary position is that a blind deaf baby hooked to a respirator and feeding tube, where they believe nothing now or in the future will substantially improve the quality of life, is suffering because he has to live that way. Pain is not a central point of that argument.


You are attacking this doctor's medical judgement and questioning if he's got an ulterior motive based on speculation that he's catholic or somehow linked to a fundamentalist pro life movement? Look, if you're going to question his motives, you cannot come with baseless speculation.

The guy's name has been out there for a week now. You can research him and his family to your heart's content. The fact is he's the son of Japanese immigrants and far as I can see never been linked to any religion or pro life movement. It's probably more likely that he's agnostic, as a great many research scientists are.

Maybe you are misinterpreting the situation here since this became national news with the pope and Trump getting involved, but that's not when this doctor entered the equation. What happened was the hospital said they saw nothing further they could do, the parents didn't accept that, and they went looking for the foremost expert in the world. Who happens to be this guy, and who happened to disagree with the hospital.

He's the son of Japanese immigrants. He is Harvard and Columbia educated, professor & medical chief at Columbia over brain surgeons and neurologists, plus runs a couple cutting edge labs. He has spent 30yrs focused on this specific small subset of conditions. Following his Columbia educated neurologist father's life's work.

The guy and his team have greater expertise and experience with this condition than anyone in the UK or US. I'm sure there are some who'd claim him a peer, but they are not working for GOSH. If this doctor doesn't treat this patient, there are thousands more he can and will treat. If this treatment works on others, and evidence from prior patients is it will, he'll be in the running for a nobel. If the theoretical follow on capable of curing the condition ends up working, then that prize should be a lock. He is beyond brilliant, and in the balancing of experts it is no contest.


Public policy cases are never about the people involved, they are about what the public policy should or should not be. The people involved are merely a vehicle.

I don't actually care about this kid. I feel sorry for him, but his life or death means nothing to me. If I were the parent in this position, I'd let the kid go, but that'd be my choice. I do care deeply about fundamental individual rights being trampled on when someone else thinks they should be able to decide for others.

You say we insert our judgement for others all the time, such as where parents have been abusive. Yeah. We do. When evidence is presented to the court showing they've been abusive then the state by law can revoke their parental rights.

You see how that works? You have rights. They are absolute and cannot be taken from you by government or society unless you do something, proven by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that would in some limited circumstance revoke that right from you.

Just because some doctors disagree with their choice doesn't mean they get to take that choice away and make it for them. If it is a reasonable choice for Charlie's situation, and if there is a chance of improvement (even if cure or recovery are out of the question) then it is a reasonable choice, then that choice is owned by the parents.

You keep saying 10% recovery of motor function is the prediction if it were to work. That is not true at all. The doctor has said 11-56% chance it'll work. That has been misstated in some sources as 10%. In no case has he said what percentage of motor function might be restored. I've already cited that evidence to you.

So, if your point is to concoct some imaginary situation where some pro life fundamentalist doctor with no special expertise showed up here at the end saying he might maybe possibly be able to restore as much as 10% of motor function with this snake oil he's developed and we can never ever let anyone die cause god says so... well that's 18-layers of bunk. What's the point of that fictional scenario changing the facts to favor your point of - I don't know, winning a discussion with me or whatever it is you're wanting out of this. What's the point of that?

I deal in facts. I take the facts I'm given, be they favorable or not. If new facts come along then I try to figure out if they're right or wrong regardless if they help me or not, then modify my position to reflect the facts as they are. You can't just be close minded to things you don't like. You can't take things you do like as gospel without finding out if they're right or not. And you sure as hell cant hurl fallacy laden speculation at credible evidence to try to balance the scales. I'm not perfect, not always right, and do try to present facts in a way that's favorable to my position, but I try to do that ethically, with intellectual honesty, and reasonably. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not necessarily. If the Charlie Gard situation was exactly the same with the exception that there were no doctors anywhere on Earth offering any treatment, and the choice was between palliative care or keeping the boy alive indefinitely using a ventilator and a feeding tube, allowing him to die would be totally reasonable.

If no doctor anywhere is offering a reasonable alternative then there is no reasonable alternative.

It's not that choosing death is always wrong. It most certainly is sometimes right. But always choosing death over life is going to be more suspect than life over death.

If you had doctors saying we should keep this kid alive indefinitely even though they're in pain, connected to feeding tubes/etc, and will never get better... while the parent is saying let them die... then why are those doctors right in that case yet the doctors in the Gard case are also right? And the parents in both cases are wrong? By the way that is a real case on the radio in England last week involving a severely disabled 10yo girl with a mom that'd like to pull the feeding tube and let her go.

If the answer is the patient or parent always has right of consent as long as it agrees with the doctor's recommendation, but if there is disagreement then the doctor wins, then that is wholly unacceptable and a violation of fundamental rights. That's what UK courts are struggling with right now, and they haven't yet turned the corner that has me going on here about.

The US solution is very good and simple to apply. Big underlying structural difference in how we each approach individual rights. That keeps the UK from jumping quickly to the US position, but I'm confident in time they'll get there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the physical evidence - brain scans - show definitively that he is not experiencing pain.

Based on what? Going by your own argument throughout this thread, the only person competent to make any judgments about the case is the doctor from the US. There is no judge, no doctor, no journalist, or anyone else anywhere who can comment, because none of them are experts.

So I don't understand why you expect Jim or me or anyone else to take your word for any factual statements you're making about the kid's current condition or the possibility of success or failure of a course of treatment. You don't have the requisite knowledge or experience to comment.

But always choosing death over life is going to be more suspect than life over death.

Is "always" in the right place in that sentence? I ask because I didn't say parents should always choose death. My point is that there may be cases in which parents, acting reasonably, would choose to let their child die rather than proceed with what they believe to be is a futile course of treatment that would cause their child to suffer.

In response to that, what I think you meant is "choosing death over life is always going to be more suspect than choosing life over death".

If that's what you meant, you should be careful, because in your earlier response you wrote:

If I were the parent in this position, I'd let the kid go...

You're going to lose your parental rights if choosing death makes you a suspect parent.

If you had doctors saying we should keep this kid alive indefinitely even though they're in pain, connected to feeding tubes/etc, and will never get better... while the parent is saying let them die... then why are those doctors right in that case yet the doctors in the Gard case are also right? And the parents in both cases are wrong?

You're misunderstanding my position. I actually agree with you, and think the parents' wishes in the Gard case should be the deciding factor.

That keeps the UK from jumping quickly to the US position, but I'm confident in time they'll get there.

Haha! Yeah. If there's one thing British people love, it's changing things to be more like the US.

Heard an NPR report about this:

The Case Of Charlie Gard Divides Doctors And Parents
http://one.npr.org/i/538251426:538251427

OK Mr. Texas, for someone who claims to deal in facts you sure are talking a lot of nonsense.  In true Trumpian style, you continue to say the same junk over and over again without any proof.  I'm just going to go through and point out some of the obvious BS:

Because the physical evidence - brain scans - show definitively that he is not experiencing pain.

Pure and absolute BS.  I am almost certain that brain scans can't show this, and if they did, why was this in the original judgement?

"The domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.”

That quote is not from People Magazine, but rather the European Court of Human rights.  Do you think they are stupid?  That they don't know about brain scans?  Or is this an Alex Jones conspiracy where the courts are out to steal babies?  AFAIK, no doctor, other than the US one who had not even examined Charlie when he said it had ever said he is not in any pain.   

If you have evidence to the contrary, post it or stop saying it.  And it can't come from People Magazine reporting second hand about a CNN report. 

The guy and his team have greater expertise and experience with this condition than anyone in the UK or US. I'm sure there are some who'd claim him a peer, but they are not working for GOSH. If this doctor doesn't treat this patient, there are thousands more he can and will treat. If this treatment works on others, and evidence from prior patients is it will, he'll be in the running for a nobel. If the theoretical follow on capable of curing the condition ends up working, then that prize should be a lock. He is beyond brilliant, and in the balancing of experts it is no contest.

Did you make all that up from the People Magazine article?  The only person who said he is the foremost doctor in this subject is Charlie's mother and she doesn't know jack.  I don't know the relative levels of medical expertise, but at least I admit it.  You have no idea and are presenting your assumptions as fact.  Post the proof or please stop saying this.  Just because he's the "professor of neurology at New York’s Columbia University Medical Center" doesn't mean he knows any more than the doctors at GOSH.  Maybe they've got the former CHIEF Professor of neurology at New York’s Columbia University Medical Center?  You don't know, and for you to keep repeating this claptrap is disingenuous. 

You keep saying 10% recovery of motor function is the prediction if it were to work. That is not true at all. The doctor has said 11-56% chance it'll work. That has been misstated in some sources as 10%. In no case has he said what percentage of motor function might be restored. I've already cited that evidence to you.

Here's what was said in court:

Speaking by video-link from the US, a professor of neurology, who could not be named for legal reasons, said: “I estimate the chance of meaningful success [of the treatment] to be at least 10%.”

He clarified that it was a “conservative estimate” of improvement in muscle strength. He said there was a small but significant chance of improvement in brain function, observing that he had “overreached” when he had said at the April hearing that it was likely Charlie’s brain damage was irreversible.

He told the court that new data showed that for five patients – of nine with a different but similar deficiency who had the same therapy it was proposed to give Charlie – the outcome had been reduced time on a ventilator. One person came off the machine completely. “Our understanding of therapies has evolved over the past few months,” the professor said. " 

The doctor refused to say the percentage of improvement expected to Charlie's brain damage.   I don't see anything about %56.  Did that come from People Magazine as well?

None of that sounds very persuasive or any different than what we already knew.  There is a small chance he'll get better muscle control, not much chance his brain is going to be fixed. 

From the Guardian:
Katie Gollop QC, representing Gosh, said: “The evidence relied on heavily, as I understand it, is not new.”

No wonder the doctors at GOSH did not change their minds and pointedly made a statement afterwards saying that their opinion had not changed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/18/charlie-gard-doctors-remain-unconvinced-flying-visit-us-neurosurgeon/ 

So, if your point is to concoct some imaginary situation where some pro life fundamentalist doctor with no special expertise showed up here at the end saying he might maybe possibly be able to restore as much as 10% of motor function with this snake oil he's developed and we can never ever let anyone die cause god says so... well that's 18-layers of bunk. What's the point of that fictional scenario changing the facts to favor your point of - I don't know, winning a discussion with me or whatever it is you're wanting out of this. What's the point of that?

Well, we don't know about the motivations from the doctor, but the rest is not far from the result we got.  I don't get the impression that the court was impressed but we'll find out soon enough. 

I deal in facts. I take the facts I'm given, be they favorable or not. If new facts come along then I try to figure out if they're right or wrong regardless if they help me or not, then modify my position to reflect the facts as they are. You can't just be close minded to things you don't like. You can't take things you do like as gospel without finding out if they're right or not. And you sure as hell cant hurl fallacy laden speculation at credible evidence to try to balance the scales. I'm not perfect, not always right, and do try to present facts in a way that's favorable to my position, but I try to do that ethically, with intellectual honesty, and reasonably. 

I don't know about that, you seem to think that expert testimony means nothing and that no judge can decide anything complicated.  Once again, you remind me of the current state of debate in the US where truth means nothing and anybody can say any old crap they like, even the President.  They can't even talk about global warming without having to get Kim Kardasian's opinion that the earth is actually flat. 

Guys, I posted an article with plenty info and there's plenty more out there establishing what I said.

I don't have time for this right now. I have a bar exam next week. I'll be more than happy to discuss the finer points with you after that's over, but I just can't right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Over on the Early Retirement forum they would have somebody pop up by now that would call an end to this argument and shut down the thread. Neither of you are right.....or wrong. Both points of view are at least somewhat valid. Like Brexit, some people are convinced it is good....others that it is horrible....even though there is no way to really know ahead of time, but they are convinced that they are right. There is no way to really know what the best thing for the kid is.....sometimes life just sucks. For this family.....things suck.

Let it go......