(no subject)
Here's an interesting story: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-21T115708Z_01_DIT142341_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-BRITAIN-BABY.xml
So a baby is born premature and the parents want to try and save her. But in Jolly Ole' England, it ends up in court and a judge decides that the DOCTORS have the right to let her die if her condition worsens. For two years the parents fight while the baby's life hangs in the balance, finally getting a court ruling overturning the previous. So the doctors are now "allowed" to resuscitate the child if they feel like it. Or not, if they feel it's "against their conscience".
This is like a reverse of the Shaivo case. The similarity here is that the government is sticking its arm elbow deep into the medical lives of it's citizens.
I don't know what else to saw, but I don't like this. Since these people are ENGLISH, there's probably a good reason that the article doesn't mention, but its a scary precedent.
So a baby is born premature and the parents want to try and save her. But in Jolly Ole' England, it ends up in court and a judge decides that the DOCTORS have the right to let her die if her condition worsens. For two years the parents fight while the baby's life hangs in the balance, finally getting a court ruling overturning the previous. So the doctors are now "allowed" to resuscitate the child if they feel like it. Or not, if they feel it's "against their conscience".
This is like a reverse of the Shaivo case. The similarity here is that the government is sticking its arm elbow deep into the medical lives of it's citizens.
I don't know what else to saw, but I don't like this. Since these people are ENGLISH, there's probably a good reason that the article doesn't mention, but its a scary precedent.