First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply A Conservative's Criticism of the President
29002 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/18/17

uncletim wrote:

Plus if he is going to tweet something maybe check and make sure it's true

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/898254409511129088

Oh and advocating war crimes whither true or not is not very presidential


No, that's a legitimate criticism. Thanks for point that out. And this isn't sarcasm.
329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / A hookah bar
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/18/17

uncletim wrote:

Plus if he is going to tweet something maybe check and make sure it's true

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/898254409511129088

Oh and advocating war crimes whither true or not is not very presidential


Fair point, no disagreement there.
29002 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/18/17

BlueOni wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

As for the healthcare. I think the U.S. has a stronger moral compass than the U.K., enough to let the parents decide when they should pull the plug on their unresponsive child.


The reason the state intervened in Gard's case was that his doctors agreed he was suffering needlessly under a terminal illness for which there was no effective treatment available. Prior to that point they had petitioned for ethical permission to try a treatment that had been used in patients with other conditions, but were unable to secure that permission quickly enough to help Gard and never had an assurance the treatment would be effective anyway. A point was eventually reached where a consensus that Gard ought to be allowed to pass peacefully emerged among those who'd seen him. The parents, spurred on by insistence that the treatment might work from a man who hadn't even seen their son or read his medical records prior to offering an opinion, prolonged their child's suffering and allowed his condition to worsen while desperately pursuing appeals out of false hope.

That's what happened. Gard's doctors behaved ethically, the courts intervened within the purview of their appropriate authority given the particulars of the case and Gard's rights, and Hirano should've seen Gard (or at least read his records) prior to offering an opinion. This wasn't a moral failing on the part of the UK or the NHS. It was a tragic set of circumstances besetting an unsuspecting family where the available experts (possibly excluding Dr. Hirano) did exactly what they were supposed to do.


Hope against all odds? Yeah that sounds like the typical parent. To suggest the doctor's expertise should supersede the will of the parents is ghastly in a moral sense. It's perfectly logical sure, but if someone told me to give up hope on my kid and said they'll pull the plug whether they like it or not? My kid might not be the only one passing away that day...
runec 
40036 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/18/17

MysticGon wrote:
Hope against all odds? Yeah that sounds like the typical parent. To suggest the doctor's expertise should supersede the will of the parents is ghastly in a moral sense. It's perfectly logical sure, but if someone told me to give up hope on my kid and said they'll pull the plug whether they like it or not? My kid might not be the only one passing away that day...


How is that ghastly in a moral sense? The parents are not doctors. If the parents had refused a life saving treatment due to their belief would it be "ghastly" in a moral sense to intervene to save the child? You can't have it both ways.

If the parents cause undo suffering to their child the state does not stand idly by because that's the parent's will. If the parents were beating their children or subjecting them to daily bleach enemas because they believed it was the key to good health you would not say it was "ghastly" for the state to intervene.

Furthermore, you can't occupy a position of it being "ghastly" for doctor's expertise to supersede the will of the parents but also advocate that the state overrule the will of the parents in the case of abortion.


19419 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/18/17

runec wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Hope against all odds? Yeah that sounds like the typical parent. To suggest the doctor's expertise should supersede the will of the parents is ghastly in a moral sense. It's perfectly logical sure, but if someone told me to give up hope on my kid and said they'll pull the plug whether they like it or not? My kid might not be the only one passing away that day...


How is that ghastly in a moral sense? The parents are not doctors. If the parents had refused a life saving treatment due to their belief would it be "ghastly" in a moral sense to intervene to save the child? You can't have it both ways.

If the parents cause undo suffering to their child the state does not stand idly by because that's the parent's will. If the parents were beating their children or subjecting them to daily bleach enemas because they believed it was the key to good health you would not say it was "ghastly" for the state to intervene.

Furthermore, you can't occupy a position of it being "ghastly" for doctor's expertise to supersede the will of the parents but also advocate that the state overrule the will of the parents in the case of abortion.




and on the case of Charlie Gard the citizen is denied the right to medical treatment by the State. slippery slope to-go
Posted 8/17/17 , edited 8/18/17

BlueOni wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

As for the healthcare. I think the U.S. has a stronger moral compass than the U.K., enough to let the parents decide when they should pull the plug on their unresponsive child.


The reason the state intervened in Gard's case was that his doctors agreed he was suffering needlessly under a terminal illness for which there was no effective treatment available. Prior to that point they had petitioned for ethical permission to try a treatment that had been used in patients with other conditions, but were unable to secure that permission quickly enough to help Gard and never had an assurance the treatment would be effective anyway. A point was eventually reached where a consensus that Gard ought to be allowed to pass peacefully emerged among those who'd seen him. The parents, spurred on by insistence that the treatment might work from a man who hadn't even seen their son or read his medical records prior to offering an opinion, prolonged their child's suffering and allowed his condition to worsen while desperately pursuing appeals out of false hope.

That's what happened. Gard's doctors behaved ethically, the courts intervened within the purview of their appropriate authority given the particulars of the case and Gard's rights, and Hirano should've seen Gard (or at least read his records) prior to offering an opinion. This wasn't a moral failing on the part of the UK or the NHS. It was a tragic set of circumstances besetting an unsuspecting family where the available experts (possibly excluding Dr. Hirano) did exactly what they were supposed to do.


You're a good writer BlueOni, your use of persuasive language reigns supreme in these forums but I think you're being intellectually dishonest. If you aren't, you're assuming that life is comparable in some way to non-life. A being of state can have many variations, while a lack of being (stateless) is axiomatically stateless. I'm also fairly sure that you're under the assumption of Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Don't make this a moral argument, your reasoning is most certainly grounded in preference not something that is fundamentally good and I'd love to hear it.
runec 
40036 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/18/17 , edited 8/18/17

Jamming777 wrote:
and on the case of Charlie Gard the citizen is denied the right to medical treatment by the State. slippery slope to-go


I point you to BlueOni's write up. If you think it was merely a case of the State denying medical treatment you're missing a lot of information.

That was also not a slippery slope as I was not arguing that any of that would be a consequence of anything. I was objecting to it being somehow morally "ghastly" to not respect the parent's wishes even in a scenario where their wishes would bring further harm. Which was the case here and why the doctor's acted as they did.

As they say: First, do no harm.
38304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/18/17 , edited 8/18/17

MysticGon wrote:

Hope against all odds? Yeah that sounds like the typical parent. To suggest the doctor's expertise should supersede the will of the parents is ghastly in a moral sense. It's perfectly logical sure, but if someone told me to give up hope on my kid and said they'll pull the plug whether they like it or not? My kid might not be the only one passing away that day...


I think you've misunderstood me a bit. It's not as much that the doctors' expertise ought to receive deference over all else, but rather that Charlie Gard had rights that ought to receive deference over those of his parents. In this case, Charlie was suffering and sick with a terminal illness, and when an assessment as to what could be done for him came out indicating that his suffering would continue indefinitely, that it would worsen as time passed, and that there was no known way to effectively avoid his death it was determined that Charlie's right to avoid his parents inflicting unnecessary harm upon him ought to exceed his parents' right to make medical decisions for their child. The doctors were, by the time the courts got involved, primarily serving an advisory role.


GrandMasterTime wrote:

You're a good writer BlueOni, your use of persuasive language reigns supreme in these forums but I think you're being intellectually dishonest. If you aren't, you're assuming that life is comparable in some way to non-life. A being of state can have many variations, while a lack of being (stateless) is axiomatically stateless. I'm also fairly sure that you're under the assumption of Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Don't make this a moral argument, your reasoning is most certainly grounded in preference not something that is fundamentally good and I'd love to hear it.


Firstly, thank you for the compliment.

Now, to business. I recounted the material facts accurately and without bias, I outlined the problems with Dr. Hirano's behaviour and its impact on Charlie Gards' parents' decision making, I noted that the state has the legal authority to intervene in ways that countervail parents' instructions under certain circumstances for a child's benefit, I pointed out that this is one of those instances, and I said that I agree with the reasoning underlying the argument that it was one of those instances and that the doctors and courts had all acted appropriately. Charlie Gard was terminally ill, suffering and slated to suffer more as time passed, and had no prospects for treatment. I hold that under those circumstances he has a right to pass with as little suffering as possible. He was headed toward statelessness no matter what anyone did. The only variable, the only thing subject to change, was the amount of suffering he would have to endure before that happened. Had Charlie been old enough (and aware enough) to make that decision for himself I'd say he should've been allowed to, but since he wasn't a decision had to be made on his behalf (as is commonly done for children below the age of medical consent).
329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / A hookah bar
Offline
Posted 8/18/17 , edited 8/18/17

BlueOni wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Hope against all odds? Yeah that sounds like the typical parent. To suggest the doctor's expertise should supersede the will of the parents is ghastly in a moral sense. It's perfectly logical sure, but if someone told me to give up hope on my kid and said they'll pull the plug whether they like it or not? My kid might not be the only one passing away that day...


I think you've misunderstood me a bit. It's not as much that the doctors' expertise ought to receive deference over all else, but rather that Charlie Gard had rights that ought to receive deference over those of his parents. In this case, Charlie was suffering and sick with a terminal illness, and when an assessment as to what could be done for him came out indicating that his suffering would continue indefinitely, that it would worsen as time passed, and that there was no known way to effectively avoid his death it was determined that Charlie's right to avoid his parents inflicting unnecessary harm upon him ought to exceed his parents' right to make medical decisions for their child. The doctors were, by the time the courts got involved, primarily serving an advisory role.


GrandMasterTime wrote:

You're a good writer BlueOni, your use of persuasive language reigns supreme in these forums but I think you're being intellectually dishonest. If you aren't, you're assuming that life is comparable in some way to non-life. A being of state can have many variations, while a lack of being (stateless) is axiomatically stateless. I'm also fairly sure that you're under the assumption of Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Don't make this a moral argument, your reasoning is most certainly grounded in preference not something that is fundamentally good and I'd love to hear it.


Firstly, thank you for the compliment.

Now, to business. I recounted the material facts accurately and without bias, I outlined the problems with Dr. Hirano's behaviour and its impact on Charlie Gards' parents' decision making, I noted that the state has the legal authority to intervene in ways that countervail parents' instructions under certain circumstances for a child's benefit, I pointed out that this is one of those instances, and I said that I agree with the reasoning underlying the argument that it was one of those instances and that the doctors and courts had all acted appropriately. Charlie Gard was terminally ill, suffering and slated to suffer more as time passed, and had no prospects for treatment. I hold that under those circumstances he has a right to pass with as little suffering as possible. He was headed toward statelessness no matter what anyone did. The only variable, the only thing subject to change, was the amount of suffering he would have to endure before that happened. Had Charlie been old enough (and aware enough) to make that decision for himself I'd say he should've been allowed to, but since he wasn't a decision had to be made on his behalf (as is commonly done for children below the age of medical consent).


Well stated. People tend to act more on emotion and not logic. Morally I'm sure that this issue was a complete and utter nightmare to handle.

Posted 8/18/17 , edited 8/18/17

BlueOni wrote:

Firstly, thank you for the compliment.

Now, to business. I recounted the material facts accurately and without bias, I outlined the problems with Dr. Hirano's behaviour and its impact on Charlie Gards' parents' decision making, I noted that the state has the legal authority to intervene in ways that countervail parents' instructions under certain circumstances for a child's benefit, I pointed out that this is one of those instances, and I said that I agree with the reasoning underlying the argument that it was one of those instances and that the doctors and courts had all acted appropriately. Charlie Gard was terminally ill, suffering and slated to suffer more as time passed, and had no prospects for treatment. I hold that under those circumstances he has a right to pass with as little suffering as possible. He was headed toward statelessness no matter what anyone did. The only variable, the only thing subject to change, was the amount of suffering he would have to endure before that happened. Had Charlie been old enough (and aware enough) to make that decision for himself I'd say he should've been allowed to, but since he wasn't a decision had to be made on his behalf (as is commonly done for children below the age of medical consent).


After writing an absolute monster of a comment that would of convinced half of Crunchyroll that I've gone off the deep end I decided to opt out of that and write a much more condensed and friendly comment. So to be short, I disagree with your 'moral' belief that the alleviation of pain via death is the 'morally' right thing to do, even if death is eventual. I don't disagree with the decisions of the court, the state and the doctors legally. Sorry for the considerable confusion, I do have an actual personal opinion but I rarely share that with people.
3283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 8/18/17 , edited 8/18/17
The concept of this thread is amusing. And even before I saw the "what would you say if you had the president's ear" framing, my thought was precisely this:

I have no mouth. And I must scream.
38304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/18/17 , edited 8/18/17

gwargan wrote:

Well stated. People tend to act more on emotion and not logic. Morally I'm sure that this issue was a complete and utter nightmare to handle.


That's no joke. This case is undoubtedly being added to ethics courses' syllabi the world over because it's both very visible and very complex.


GrandMasterTime wrote:

After writing an absolute monster of a comment that would of convinced half of Crunchyroll that I've gone off the deep end I decided to opt out of that and write a much more condensed and friendly comment. So to be short, I disagree with your 'moral' belief that the alleviation of pain via death is the 'morally' right thing to do, even if death is eventual. I don't disagree with the decisions of the court, the state and the doctors legally. Sorry for the considerable confusion, I do have an actual personal opinion but I rarely share that with people.


I didn't mean to upset you, but there's really little chance of avoiding it when such a complex, morally charged subject comes up.

You're right, Hedonistic Utilitarianism is one of my influences (that's given away by my talk of variables and suffering I'm sure). Once I knew it had been determined that Gard's suffering would only increase and his condition would only worsen regardless of whether he was subjected to experimental treatment or not I figured it would be better for him and more ethical if he were allowed to pass.

Nevertheless, I am aware that this perspective has problems and that there are alternative points of view that can arise because of those problems. For example, one might note that suffering is subjective and argue that I cannot adequately quantify Charlie's suffering since he was unable to communicate it to us, and as a consequence I may have been assessing that suffering as more severe than Charlie himself might have considered it. Based upon the fact that my assessment was made with imperfect information one might consider it invalid as a basis for the decision to allow Charlie to pass being ethical.

That's why I brought up the age of medical consent and stated that I'd have been fine with Charlie making that determination for himself if he'd met or exceeded it, because at that point Charlie could be trusted to make judgments like that independently. We don't allow young children to make medical decisions independently even if they strongly object to the choices we make for them because they are inherently incapable of making the sort of high level rational assessments they would need to in order to be trusted to make those choices themselves, and surrendering that standard would inflict far greater harm upon society and its children than allowing the state to make a determination on Charlie Gard's behalf even with imperfect information. It's an imperfect world, and decisions have to be made with incomplete information every minute of every day. That's something we all have to make peace with.

Now, you might disagree with that, and argue that death is such a uniquely severe and permanent consequence that society should never be able to determine that it is the best course for a patient to allow them to die without their expressed consent even if they are a minor or in a vegetative state from which they are unlikely to ever recover. That's why I brought up that Gard's death was inevitable, that no matter what anyone did or didn't do Gard was going to die. Death was not a variable in the ethical considerations, it was not something the state was deciding ought to be inflicted upon Gard when it could otherwise be avoided. It was an inevitability. That matters to me, and not to you. That's a legitimate point of disagreement between us.

Again, I don't mean to upset you with my perspective on the matter, and I'm sorry that I did and likely have again. But that's the nature of such conversations. They're very heated by default. I hope you understand that I'm not coming from a place of malice or apathy. I've thought long and hard about this, and though we don't agree I'm sure you have as well.
Posted 8/18/17 , edited 8/19/17

BlueOni wrote:
I didn't mean to upset you, but there's really little chance of avoiding it when such a complex, morally charged subject comes up.

You're right, Hedonistic Utilitarianism is one of my influences (that's given away by my talk of variables and suffering I'm sure). Once I knew it had been determined that Gard's suffering would only increase and his condition would only worsen regardless of whether he was subjected to experimental treatment or not I figured it would be better for him and more ethical if he were allowed to pass.

Nevertheless, I am aware that this perspective has problems and that there are alternative points of view that can arise because of those problems. For example, one might note that suffering is subjective and argue that I cannot adequately quantify Charlie's suffering since he was unable to communicate it to us, and as a consequence I may have been assessing that suffering as more severe than Charlie himself might have considered it. Based upon the fact that my assessment was made with imperfect information one might consider it invalid as a basis for the decision to allow Charlie to pass being ethical.

That's why I brought up the age of medical consent and stated that I'd have been fine with Charlie making that determination for himself if he'd met or exceeded it, because at that point Charlie could be trusted to make judgments like that independently. We don't allow young children to make medical decisions independently even if they strongly object to the choices we make for them because they are inherently incapable of making the sort of high level rational assessments they would need to in order to be trusted to make those choices themselves, and surrendering that standard would inflict far greater harm upon society and its children than allowing the state to make a determination on Charlie Gard's behalf even with imperfect information. It's an imperfect world, and decisions have to be made with incomplete information every minute of every day. That's something we all have to make peace with.

Now, you might disagree with that, and argue that death is such a uniquely severe and permanent consequence that society should never be able to determine that it is the best course for a patient to allow them to die without their expressed consent even if they are a minor or in a vegetative state from which they are unlikely to ever recover. That's why I brought up that Gard's death was inevitable, that no matter what anyone did or didn't do Gard was going to die. Death was not a variable in the ethical considerations, it was not something the state was deciding ought to be inflicted upon Gard when it could otherwise be avoided. It was an inevitability. That matters to me, and not to you. That's a legitimate point of disagreement between us.

Again, I don't mean to upset you with my perspective on the matter, and I'm sorry that I did and likely have again. But that's the nature of such conversations. They're very heated by default. I hope you understand that I'm not coming from a place of malice or apathy. I've thought long and hard about this, and though we don't agree I'm sure you have as well.


Do not worry, the position I was arguing was one of negation and rejection not one of assertion and approval so it did not upset me. My actual opinion is amazingly complex and isn't appropriate for open forums. For this reason I'll end my tirade with a question challenging your consistency but before that I'll talk to you about your Hedonistic Utilitarianism. The problems you highlighted are common criticisms of generic Hedonistic philosophy but my main problem with Hedonistim is its attempt to quantify 'good' itself with pleasure. Defining 'good' as anything other than itself is in my opinion fallacious.

Now with the question. If a disabled man or woman suffering from retardation was placed in the same scenario as Gard would a) The state be equally able? and b) Would they be justified in your opinion?

Best wishes.
20208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/18/17 , edited 8/19/17

BlueOni wrote:



You're right, Hedonistic Utilitarianism is one of my influences.


Utilitarianism is shit. Greater good for the most amount of people is one of the most bullshit things I've heard. "End justify the means". When the situation changes so does the morality.

IDK why would anyone believe in that.
16357 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 8/18/17 , edited 8/19/17
I would have to suggest to Trump to start suing everyone. Sue the media, the journalists, the politicians. Everyone.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.