A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
dont understand what the italian plan is, keep her on life support until an increasing number of epilectic siezures renders her braindead together with multiple organ failures till she dies?
Further examples of Christians being pro-life but not anti-suffering.
Pro birth. Not pro Life.
At thins point I am starting to think they are more pro-suffering
See: 'murican pro-life lobby including republicunts
ALS is another terminal disease that causes suffering. Does the NHS also turn off the ventilators of ALS patients to end their suffering?
If not, what is NHS's rationale for treating ALS patients differently?
Adults are capable of understanding and consenting to their own suffering and babies can not.
Plenty of adults are incapable of providing consent, for example those with Down syndrome, severe autism, or Alzheimer's disease. Normally, the parent/guardian, children, or siblings are responsible for providing consent when a patient is incapable of doing so.
If a severely autistic man were diagnosed with terminal cancer, do you think it would be appropriate for the NHS to ignore the decision of his parent/guardian and refuse to provide life-prolonging treatment in order to end his suffering?
Doctors and the legal system decide these things and not anyone connected to the NHS but yes. There is a point in cancer treatment where it is more humane to just stop life prolonging treatment and just focus on pain relief. If the patient cant make that call someone else needs to and if the Guardian refuses then doctors and judges should step in.
Despite how it's often framed, the NHS doesn't get to make recommendations one way or the other in this kind of case. Once the patient's doctors are no longer sure that it's in their best interest to continue being kept alive, they make the legal system aware, and a court will take evidence from the patient (if they're in a fit condition to give any, which they usually wouldn't be), doctors, family members, relevant experts, and any other appropriate witnesses, to determine what is and isn't in the patient's best interest. One the court has made a decision (which might involve a lengthy appeals process if the family are upset about the initial decision), the NHS does what the court tells it to. If the patient is capable of experiencing anything other than pain, it's unlikely that it'll be in their best interest to die, so the court will order them to be kept alive.
It's relatively common for anti-abortion and anti-state-funded-healthcare political campaign groups from the US to pay for expensive lawyers to argue in favour of keeping child patients alive and persuade the parents to keep appealing as upset parents saying the state killed their baby makes an evocative headline that can easily be pivoted to make the most merciful option look cruel and callous, and sway people's votes.
There's a chapter on this in one of The Secret Barrister's books - I think the second one.
However, Mr Justice Peel concluded that a transfer to Italy would not be in her best interests, while three other appeal judges turned down the family’s permission to appeal a ruling which said that Indi’s life support could not be removed at home.
Doctors treating Indi had told the courts that the treatment she was receiving was futile and causing her pain, while her parents disagreed.
One of the specialists told the court: “She is a little girl we have tried to treat to the best of our abilities. The terrible reality is that she is dying.”
Also I have to say, the comments on that news article are surprisingly calm, caring, and reasonable. I'm used to there being a mess in every news article comments
Man this sucks so hard for the parents, I completely empathize. That being said, they are wrong, and regrettably there was nothing to be done but ease her passing quickly.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A terminally ill baby has died during the night after her life support was removed following a lengthy legal battle between her parents and the NHS.
In a statement released through Christian Concern, Mr Gregory took aim at the NHS and the legal system for taking away his daughter’s “body and dignity”.
The NHS and the Courts not only took away her chance to live a longer life, but they also took away Indi’s dignity to pass away in the family home where she belonged.
Indi, who had been born on 24 February, had to receive around-the-clock treatment for her condition, which prevented cells in the body from producing energy.
Last week, the Italian government had granted the infant citizenship to allow her to receive emergency treatment at the Bambino Gesu Paediatric Hospital in Rome.
Her parents had also failed to persuade the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, to overturn the treatment decision.
The original article contains 433 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Whoa... I'm no doctor, but when I read
"condition, which prevented cells in the body from producing energy"
that doesn't sound fixable. I do remember what ATP is and why its important.
A terminally ill baby has died
Then it goes to say..
The NHS and the Courts not only took away her chance to live a longer life
Ummm, i don't think they did
they also took away Indi’s dignity to pass away in the family home where she belonged
Ok, i can understand this one a little. What was the plan though, move her and the whole hospital room that's keeping her alive to the home, then switch it off?