WildRose
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,754
Interesting that so many Americans think money is the issue. It isn't of course, but it certainly shows the difference in healthcare systems.
The WaPo opinion AxelAnnie linked to stated the opinion that a parents' motive is the most pure.
He has strong moral compass? And you make this assumption based on what? Because he is a psychiatrist? So in your view, all psychiatrists have strong moral compass? What about other doctors, do they all have strong moral compass, or is it just psychiatrists?He is a psychiatrist....and a a man who is articulate, has a strong moral compass and a rather unique ability to get to the core of an issue as well as to separate his opinion and personal beliefs from his analysis of an issue.
Really? Gersh. The fact that he is a psychriatist has had a to do with this. What a ridiculous conclusion. I have been reading his column and listening to him on tv for years. Just as he did hereHe has strong moral compass? And you make this assumption based on what? Because he is a psychiatrist? So in your view, all psychiatrists have strong moral compass? What about other doctors, do they all have strong moral compass, or is it just psychiatrists?
The WaPo opinion AxelAnnie linked to stated the opinion that a parents' motive is the most pure. Also from the Op-Ed:
Reading that, I wonder if the parents' motive for keeping Charlie alive really is pure or if it's merely selfish.
It said most pure usually.
He is a psychiatrist....and a a man who is articulate, has a strong moral compass and a rather unique ability to get to the core of an issue as well as to separate his opinion and personal beliefs from his analysis of an issue.
Read: the unique ability to say what you think, but with an MD after his name.He is a psychiatrist....and a a man who is articulate, has a strong moral compass and a rather unique ability to get to the core of an issue as well as to separate his opinion and personal beliefs from his analysis of an issue.
So if the wall is NOT to keep brown people out, why aren't we worried about people entering through our lengthy NORTHERN border? Plenty of people entering there, but I'm guessing they are mostly wealthy Asians and white people, not poor Hispanics.- The Wall is also not about “race” but about the right of a sovereign country to protect its borders, prevent illegal entry, in some instances to reduce crime, and in case of Mexico linked to a specific need or lack of need for unskilled labor, and last but not least fair treatment of foreign residents of ALL races and countries of origin who applied for legal entry and waiting their turn.
- The need to place a Wall on the Mexican border has to do with the fact that majority of border offenses take place in that geographic location.
- The fact that illegal entry is committed by “brown people” is circumstantial due to demographics of Mexico and southern Central American countries. This is not different than measures to prevent Asian “anchor baby businesses” and scrutiny of Russian visas in the 1990’s due to high crime and mafia threats.
- A counter argument to the assumption that “this wall is to keep brown people out” is quite obvious: the Left/Dems specifically want “certain groups” to enter USA even illegally in hope to increase its voting base.
He is a psychiatrist....and a a man who is articulate, has a strong moral compass and a rather unique ability to get to the core of an issue as well as to separate his opinion and personal beliefs from his analysis of an issue.
Of course, he only has a "strong moral compass" because he agrees with your point of view.
He's a psychiatrist. He is completely irrelevant to this discussion. (Not to mention, he's a TV psychiatrist? Whoop, that gets even better...)
So if the wall is NOT to keep brown people out, why aren't we worried about people entering through our lengthy NORTHERN border? Plenty of people entering there, but I'm guessing they are mostly wealthy Asians and white people, not poor Hispanics.
That to me shows that the wall on our southern border is largely about race and class.
<back to the topic>
So if the wall is NOT to keep brown people out, why aren't we worried about people entering through our lengthy NORTHERN border? Plenty of people entering there, but I'm guessing they are mostly wealthy Asians and white people, not poor Hispanics.
That to me shows that the wall on our southern border is largely about race and class.
I was horrified with in the previous hearing you had their doctor saying no hopes but folks saying let's experiment anyway.
I don't know if I would want all kinds of treatment if it were my little one.
However I am super uncomfortable with the STATE being the final say makers especially since the parents say they only want to try for a few months they are not talking years.
True. A moral compass comes from within a person.Side note......there is no profession that guarantees a strong moral compass. Sad but true.
Recall the psychiatrist in girl with the dragon tattoo although fiction, it gives a fairly realistic possibility.
Please provide a link to support your assertion about what Charlie feels.According to the medical experts, Charlie will continue to be able to "feel pain" as these "procedures" continue.
How can his parents believe that they are acting in his "best interests", if that is true?
When will a decision be made in the case?
Whatever it is, I doubt that the parents will accept it; since they have already been protesting/leaving the courtroom whenever they hear testimony which is distressing, or with which they disagree.
But it is the High Court that is being asked to review all the evidence and make a decision - not the Government which is what I assume you mean by STATE. The Government has absolutely no hand in this decision - as it should be. I would also not be sure that the parents only want to try for a few months and that is one of the things the courts have to take into account - whether it is going to cause Charlie more harm than good being used as a human guinea pig - which is what is really being suggested here.
There are no winners here - it is a sad situation.
High court represents the government.
The parents seem to think the treatment may help. A little so does the one doctor from the US the doctor is from Columbia not exactly a quack. He also says we don't know if Charlie is in pain.
Look I think GOSH is likely right but I am reluctant having someone other than family make that call.
Not to mention quality of live questions can be used against the disabled. Which is another reason I am concerned about the potential of abuse. Look Charlie's advocate is a assisted suicide supporter.
High court doesn't represent the government. High court represents the law. Government and law are two different things. If government and law were the same things, your president would not be losing every time someone takes him to court.High court represents the government.
The parents seem to think the treatment may help. A little so does the one doctor from the US the doctor is from Columbia not exactly a quack. He also says we don't know if Charlie is in pain.
Look I think GOSH is likely right but I am reluctant having someone other than family make that call.
Not to mention quality of live questions can be used against the disabled. Which is another reason I am concerned about the potential of abuse. Look Charlie's advocate is a assisted suicide supporter.
High court represents the government.
The parents seem to think the treatment may help. A little so does the one doctor from the US the doctor is from Columbia not exactly a quack. He also says we don't know if Charlie is in pain.
Look I think GOSH is likely right but I am reluctant having someone other than family make that call.
Not to mention quality of live questions can be used against the disabled. Which is another reason I am concerned about the potential of abuse. Look Charlie's advocate is a assisted suicide supporter.
I know that sometimes people assume that the system in other countries is like that of the US and get it wrong. But that's not even an excuse here: not only does the high court not represent the government in the UK - it doesn't represent the government in the US, either! When I lived in the US, we certainly learned about the separation of powers and the roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branch. Did they not cover that in your civics class?High court represents the government.