| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| long time no see |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 09:36:57
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,30100-1287326,.html
The Mother of this Disabled 15 year
wants to have her womb removed.
This seems fair and she has the Doctors
on her side.
Of Course many Catholic Types are very against
this.
|
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 13:57:48
True ... it can be but it will not be because British Law is based on case law and precedence. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 13:47:34
Yep, keep it wooly then lawyers can earn big bucks by screwing everyone!
It can howevr be very specific when it wants to. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 13:44:46
No, the law is designed to guide the general rather then the specific. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 13:32:18
"The law is an ass"
If the judge rules in favour then to prevent setting a precident for case law he should make a ruling that barring any future reference to this case. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 13:10:35
I know you do and it is exactly people like Paul that could be operated on if this precedence is set. |
| thedelboy |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 11:34:13
I do think about as it could affect Paul |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 11:13:31
Think about it though thedelboy. |
| thedelboy |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 11:07:07
I bloudy well hope not |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 11:04:52
quote:
Originally posted by thedelboy
there is a law in britain that says a disabled person has the same rights as an able bodied person .so precedent is already set
Except that this precedent will be for non essential invasive medical intervention (amounting to mutilation) where the person concerned cannot give informed consent.
So in effect a precedence will be set for mentally disabled individuals to be treated differently from non mentally disabled individuals. |
| thedelboy |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 10:42:53
surely every case is different?
if so it should be dealt with on merit!
I do agree it will send a dangerous message,
bloudy social services may try to have promiscous girls to have a hysterectomy or even boys with learning problems or even downs syndrome to be chemically castrated.
there was a case in th US that a set of parents tried to stop thier daughter (who had downs syndrome )from marrying a lad with downs syndrome,it went as far as the supreme court boy and girl were duly married and from what I believe they now have a healthy child!! the american downs society fought for thier right to marry and now they help with the care of not only them but also the child.
there is a law in britain that says a disabled person has the same rights as an able bodied person .so precedent is already set |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 09:59:48
Has anyone ever heard the adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ... Yes, I have no doubt that there are extremely altruistic motives behind this case and that the parents and all concerned are sincerely and honestly and profoundly concerned with the welfare and well-being - past, present and future - of this lovely girl.
However for all that the law addresses the specific in this case, the precedent will be set for the general and that is where the real danger is. All cases that can potentially set a precedent are about more then the specifics of the case. |
| thedelboy |
Posted - 09/10/2007 : 09:50:42
If anyone has seen Denholm elliots film "Room with a view" then you would understand where the parents are coming from!ok it is slightly different but to me the principle is the same,the child can not give consent to any sexual practice and would not be able to tell if someone had taken advantage of her,so the parents are worried that she could become pregnant (If she did it would probably kill her)I think the thing about periods is a way to cover thier real fears.the parents ARE doing this for the daughters sake not thiers |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 22:20:14
You would have thought so would you not Daveb ... trouble is that where the law is dependent on precedent to interpret it, it is never quite that straight forward. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 19:55:09
From the point of view put forward by the parents it would seem that it is best for this girl.
That should be the important thing.
B******ks to precidents and ethics.
If we must consider them.
The precident is judge each case on its merits.
The ethical view must look at the needs of the individual.
Not the wider picture in these cases. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 10:56:46
I would Hope permission is granted. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 10:46:39
The facts are an issue for the courts to decide. The ethics are something else entirely though still very much part of the case itself in that it may well set a precendent in law which could cause all sorts of issues to arise later. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 10:37:10
Yes the Mother has been on Sky News
and Radio 5.
But many spoke against this case
without viewing all the facts.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 10:29:51
It is also an important case that could set precedents. It isn't whether you see ethics coming in to it or not LTNS. Ethics are part of the issue whether you see it or not.
|
| long time no see |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 09:58:59
Of course it is not just them.
The Legal Permission is the final stage.
I do not see this as Ethics
because the Family and Doctors are for it.
It is a Important case that could
help many others. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 09:49:48
It isn't just Catholic types that are against this LTNS. There are many issues that this case raises not least of which is to what extent we can determine whether to allow non-essential medical procedures to be carried out on individuals that cannot give their consent. |
