Should Parents be Allowed to Pull the Plug on Their Children?

[Sirius_]

In a situation where a minor is alive but in very poor health, should parents be allowed to pull the plug on their children or should the consent of the patient be required?

[darklordoftech]

No way! Them being your kids doesn't give you the right to murder them.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, of course.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What the f##k. That's literally murdering a child because their parents said so, and anyone who would say yes is a horrible person. The idea that children are their parents property needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp and destroyed.

[darklordoftech]

What the f##k. That's literally murdering a child because their parents said so, and anyone who would say yes is a horrible person. The idea that children are their parents property needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp and destroyed.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What the f##k. That's literally murdering a child because their parents said so, and anyone who would say yes is a horrible person. The idea that children are their parents property needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp and destroyed.

So if a 6 year old, let's say, is brain dead or some other condition that we ourselves would favor getting the plug pulled for us, we have to let that kid just suffer and live on in that condition?  Why should a child be shown less mercy than someone making that decision for us, as adults, in cases where it's known we don't want to linger on and on with?

[Torie]

What the f##k. That's literally murdering a child because their parents said so, and anyone who would say yes is a horrible person. The idea that children are their parents property needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp and destroyed.

So if a 6 year old, let's say, is brain dead or some other condition that we ourselves would favor getting the plug pulled for us, we have to let that kid just suffer and live on in that condition?  Why should a child be shown less mercy than someone making that decision for us, as adults, in cases where it's known we don't want to linger on and on with?

Most would draw a huge distinction between being "brain dead," and basically having no sentience, and merely having "poor health." Regarding what adults do, their preferences vary widely. I would off myself in situations, where I suspect a vast majority of adults would not. Children should not have such preferences imposed on them.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What the f##k. That's literally murdering a child because their parents said so, and anyone who would say yes is a horrible person. The idea that children are their parents property needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp and destroyed.

So if a 6 year old, let's say, is brain dead or some other condition that we ourselves would favor getting the plug pulled for us, we have to let that kid just suffer and live on in that condition?  Why should a child be shown less mercy than someone making that decision for us, as adults, in cases where it's known we don't want to linger on and on with?

Most would draw a huge distinction between being "brain dead," and basically having no sentience, and merely having "poor health."

Ok let me rephrase.  I have a living will.  It says no feeding tubes/blah blah blah.  I made my choice that I don't want heroic life saving treatments.....if I'm that bad let me go. 

A child can't make those choices in advance.  So why can't the parents decide?

[Santander]

You don't "pull the plug" on someone who is in poor health. That is euthanasia, and something else altogether. Should parents be allowed to pull the plug on a child whose body is sustained only by artificial means and will not recover? Yes, of course. Who else would do it? The government?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You don't "pull the plug" on someone who is in poor health. That is euthanasia, and something else altogether. Should parents be allowed to pull the plug on a child whose body is sustained only by artificial means and will not recover? Yes, of course. Who else would do it? The government?

Ok that's what I mean, not just poor health.  Holy fyckballs some people........

[Torie]

What the f##k. That's literally murdering a child because their parents said so, and anyone who would say yes is a horrible person. The idea that children are their parents property needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp and destroyed.

So if a 6 year old, let's say, is brain dead or some other condition that we ourselves would favor getting the plug pulled for us, we have to let that kid just suffer and live on in that condition?  Why should a child be shown less mercy than someone making that decision for us, as adults, in cases where it's known we don't want to linger on and on with?

Most would draw a huge distinction between being "brain dead," and basically having no sentience, and merely having "poor health."

Ok let me rephrase.  I have a living will.  It says no feeding tubes/blah blah blah.  I made my choice that I don't want heroic life saving treatments.....if I'm that bad let me go. 

A child can't make those choices in advance.  So why can't the parents decide?

Well we are making progress now. If you propose limiting the parental directives to those that would be respected by the medical profession (and no docs will not off you just because you don't like the quality of your life), that seems sensible to me at first blush (at least until I see hypo that makes me uncomfortable). No heroic measures typically obtain, where it merely delays death by a bit.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What the f##k. That's literally murdering a child because their parents said so, and anyone who would say yes is a horrible person. The idea that children are their parents property needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp and destroyed.

So if a 6 year old, let's say, is brain dead or some other condition that we ourselves would favor getting the plug pulled for us, we have to let that kid just suffer and live on in that condition?  Why should a child be shown less mercy than someone making that decision for us, as adults, in cases where it's known we don't want to linger on and on with?

Most would draw a huge distinction between being "brain dead," and basically having no sentience, and merely having "poor health."

Ok let me rephrase.  I have a living will.  It says no feeding tubes/blah blah blah.  I made my choice that I don't want heroic life saving treatments.....if I'm that bad let me go. 

A child can't make those choices in advance.  So why can't the parents decide?

Well we are making progress now. If you propose limiting the parental directives to those that would be respected by the medical profession (and no docs will not off you just because you don't like the quality of your life), that seems sensible to me at first blush (at least until I see hypo that makes me uncomfortable). No heroic measures typically obtain, where it merely delays death by a bit.

Yeah I'm not saying pull the plug for a case of pneumonia or the flu........

[JA]

Yes. Survival of the fittest. I don't want any weak links in those with my genetic inheritance.

[beaver2.0]

Unsure.

[Sirius_]

For clarification, by “poor health” I mean only being kept alive by artificial means, not something like the common cold.

[dead0man]

yes, of course (not a monster)

[Santander]

yes, of course (not a monster)

It's like, who the hell else is supposed to make the decision? The only alternative I can think of is the government, which is rather horrifying.

[dead0man]

indeed.  The question isn't "should parents be forced to kill their sick kids?".  "ALLOWED TO" is the verbage.  Except for the authoritarian statists and dumb people without kids, I can't think of any group that would vote "no" here.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

You don't "pull the plug" on someone who is in poor health. That is euthanasia, and something else altogether. Should parents be allowed to pull the plug on a child whose body is sustained only by artificial means and will not recover? Yes, of course. Who else would do it? The government?

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Santander.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

indeed.  The question isn't "should parents be forced to kill their sick kids?".  "ALLOWED TO" is the verbage.  Except for the authoritarian statists and dumb people without kids, I can't think of any group that would vote "no" here.

Because apparently not murdering kids isn't an option.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You don't "pull the plug" on someone who is in poor health. That is euthanasia, and something else altogether. Should parents be allowed to pull the plug on a child whose body is sustained only by artificial means and will not recover? Yes, of course. Who else would do it? The government?

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Santander.

[dead0man]

indeed.  The question isn't "should parents be forced to kill their sick kids?".  "ALLOWED TO" is the verbage.  Except for the authoritarian statists and dumb people without kids, I can't think of any group that would vote "no" here.

Because apparently not murdering kids isn't an option.

what part of "allowed to" means "must do" to you?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

indeed.  The question isn't "should parents be forced to kill their sick kids?".  "ALLOWED TO" is the verbage.  Except for the authoritarian statists and dumb people without kids, I can't think of any group that would vote "no" here.

Because apparently not murdering kids isn't an option.

what part of "allowed to" means "must do" to you?

It doesn't. I don't believe parents ever have the right to murder their children.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

indeed.  The question isn't "should parents be forced to kill their sick kids?".  "ALLOWED TO" is the verbage.  Except for the authoritarian statists and dumb people without kids, I can't think of any group that would vote "no" here.

Because apparently not murdering kids isn't an option.

what part of "allowed to" means "must do" to you?

It doesn't. I don't believe parents ever have the right to murder their children.

So, if the child is in a vegetative state with no chance of recovery, they should be left on life support until the machines break? Or are you proposing that kindergarten students compose a living will?

[dead0man]

indeed.  The question isn't "should parents be forced to kill their sick kids?".  "ALLOWED TO" is the verbage.  Except for the authoritarian statists and dumb people without kids, I can't think of any group that would vote "no" here.

Because apparently not murdering kids isn't an option.

what part of "allowed to" means "must do" to you?

It doesn't. I don't believe parents ever have the right to murder their children.

And that's a totally acceptable position to take (for a person that doesn't have kids that has a problem thinking things through and authoritarians...you're both, yes?).  But that's not what you said in your last post.