4 ms·
Just to clarify, the state didn't kill him. They removed his life support, against the wishes of his parents and then prevented them from accepting help. He su
by jakeogh 8y ago
Just to clarify, the state didn't kill him.
They removed his life support, against the wishes of his parents and then prevented them from accepting help. He survived ~5 days without it.
While it's a sad story I agree, it's not the point. Giving the state the power to decide who lives and dies without a trial and conviction for a crime is something many of us had hoped was settled long ago.
- jakeogh 7y agoEDIT: There was a trial, I regret simplifying this down to murder.
- lazyasciiart 7y agoOk, let's try a nice straightforward story. A child is bitten by a dog that definitely has rabies (this can be established by autopsy). The child's parents refuse any treatment (vaccination). It is about a 99% chance that the child will die of rabies without the vaccination. Do you believe the state (or any other actor) should have any power to intervene?