There's nothing in the article not everywhere in all the other articles I've read that says why the UK had to let a baby die when their parents wanted to keep him on life support.
What other reasons would you attribute to?
When doctors says that a patient is brain dead, they want to get rid of the patient to give another patient space (cut the cost). That's usually the only reason.
That's also the reason that in many countries some people advocate denying health care to fat people and smokers... cut cost.. save money to treat others...
the reason is arguable, I would say the reason is because the court system found keeping a brain dead baby alive to be cruel and so decided to override the parents, you may not agree with them... but it is clearly not money since another nation offered to cover that by moving the baby to Italy, offering it full care AND citizenship
you say nowhere int he article was a reason given, but you cna put these together
"Medics caring for him at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool have said further treatment is futile, and the toddler's life support was withdrawn Monday after a series of court rulings sided with the doctors and blocked further medical treatment."
"Under British law, it is common for courts to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the treatment of a child. In such cases, the rights of the child take primacy over the parents' right to decide what's best for their offspring."
"The evidence is that he is unlikely to have pain, but that tragically everything that would allow him to have some appreciation of life, or even the mere touch of his mother, has been destroyed irrevocably,"
put that together and it is clear to me why it wa ordered, I am not sure I agree with the order, but I can see the reason... that the court found the parents desperation to be causing a perverse cruelty to the child
AGAIN, I am not saying I agree with them... but I can SEE where they are coming from
the money issue is irrelevant because of these quotes:
"Britain's Court of Appeal on Wednesday rejected a new bid by the parents of terminally ill toddler Alfie Evans to take him to
Italy and continue his life support against the wishes of his doctors and judges."
"Alfie's parents continued their fight to take him to Italy to be cared for at the Vatican's children's hospital, which has said it is willing to take him."
"Italy has a military plane on standby to transport Alfie to Rome if the courts allow it. Alfie has also been granted Italian citizenship to facilitate his arrival and transport."
it COULD be argued that it is an issue of national pride, in that Britain has put its foot down and said no, so if Italy is allowed to take the child, and celebrated for it, or if the child somehow wakes up it will all make Britain look bad... so that COULD be argued, not money, but perhaps something that started with money and then became an issue of nationalism
I would argue that this wouldn't make sense either as the incident has spurred far more outrage, and as such, trouble than simply giving him to Italy would have done
this is the hard kind of issue I do not want to touch, because I have mixed feelings... I am pro-choice, but I am also conflicted about it
for example.. I know a girl who was sort of my childhood girlfriend (you know, before you know what that means) who has had 4 kids from different fathers, and only the youngest is still with her, the oldest is at college, the next 2 oldest are with their respective and different fathers, the father of the oldest isn't in her life at all, but before college she had moved in with a friend to be away from her mom... before this mom had her 4th child she was pregnant with a different child, the father of that child (another different father) had a bad break up with her after she was pregnant and so she got an abortion... the father was a bit crazy, and the mother, as I have shown, is very selfish and irresponsible, so that child would have had a mess of a life, but so did her other kids that got to live... so the whole situation just makes me a bit ill
I don't get all moral and holier than though about it, but I just mostly ignore the mother now, I don't outright reject her as her whole family ar every important family friends of my family, and I don't want to cause a rift because of her that will kill my relationships with her mom and sisters who I am much closer to than I was to her anyways (after childhood of course)
to me, I think the importance of beign pro choice even in this case is that women's needs are ignored in many parts of the country and world, and the second you start invading that area you cause unforeseen and bigger problems... problems that I am not equipped to tackle in any way, as such, I stay out of it, it is an issue that has yet to directly effect me, and it is an issue with merits and faults on both sides that I am unequipped to properly navigate
I feel that my place in such an argument could only cause more harm than good... as is I think the case for most of us here
I am not religious, and as such I do not feel that life is sacred in any way... I DO think that abortion should ALWAYS be a hot button issue that is constantly being reevaluated, I DO think that even if life isn't sacred, that it is an ethereal property of sorts, and shouldn't be toyed with by those who do not own it (as in, I do not own your life, so I have no right to TAKE IT or negatively affect it against your will and actions)... I also think the same applies to parents, but pregnancy is a different issue, because for me to deny an abortion to a woman is to ignore her right to protect her own life, and since i do not own her life or her future child's, I have NO say in it
but I don't also assume that a parent has the right to the life of their own child... a child is its own entity with the rights to its own life...
the question always remains as, what constitutes the shepherding of a life you do not own, and what about a life that you do not own having an unwanted effect upon yours
a life is more than just your state of being alive after all... so who the f' am I, somebody who cannot be pregnant, to tell somebody who is, what they can or cannot do for the sake of their own life, does pregnancy incur a 9 year prison sentence... and then what about in the case of rape/incest/molestation?
I think EVERYONE who takes a strong stand on either side of the issue is suffering an overwhelming amount of hubris