Precisely! This is why advocating for any new rights (ie: these minority rights on the left that are constantly being shoved down our throats) is foolish.

I think there is an honest question surrounding healthcare, although this is kinda changing topic.

I wonder is it reasonable to assign a right to healthcare

is it a right in itself or is it an extension of your right to preservation of life.

If you apply the previous maxim, you cannot surely say when you are stripped bare of all privileges that you are owed a right to be treated medically, you are the arbiter of your own ends, and you should be responsible for your own medical care.

I would say it would be an extension of your right to preservation of life. Furthermore, I don't think any medical healthcare professional should be entirely obligated to do so. It is your responsibility, as you said for your own medical care.

Well it follows that you have a right to preserve your own life and that arise in rights of self defence etc. So I would have to argue that there exists no right to receive medical treatment.

Since the onus is on you to resolve that yourself.

The question interests me particularly since I live in the UK where we do have a right to medical treatment.

Oh right

the whole charlie grad incident

well that's actually a seperate issue

And I studied both that case and the recent Alfie Evans case

The court rule was far more reasonable than the media makes it out to be

In the US you have the right to emergency medical care. The way I see it, is a medical professional would probably hold the right to preserve your life if they so wished to do so, but it is their right to do so, not their obligation.

@Wally I don't think Doctors have a positive duty to act though do they?

Thats the end problem though. The government will hold the ability to provide or cut off medical care if you have a right to it.

No. They do what they do for profit in this society as far as I can see.

I think it works better when you are personally responsible for your own treatment

@Blackhawk342 It's not government, but the judiciary.

If I explain the reason why the court ruled the way it did it'll help you understand it a bit better

and the judicicary is a branch of the _____

judiciary is a seperate branch

We call it the separation of powers, you know what I mean right?

Yes but the judiciary branch acts according in interpretation to policy.

In this case the ability to get treatment for onesself is far too important to let some moron in fancy robes make decisions on behalf of the people whose lives are on the line

The reason the courts ruled the way there did was founded in the Best Interests test, it operates in that anyone with wardship jurisdiction over another, ought to act in the best interests for the ward.

In Alfie Evans case, their parents petitioned to have him flown to Germany or Italy, to receive treatment there. It was put to the court that doing this would cause a great distress and pain to Alfie. Since the treatments offered by the hospitals overseas were no different from the current treatment options available in the UK, the court ruled that it would not be in Alfie's best interest to be transported to Germany or Italy.

You can argue that a court shouldn't be able to make decisions on behalf of the parents, that's reasonable.

That would beg a question of how do we assign wardship at all, why do parents get to decide the fate over autonomous children or incapacitated individuals.

The Charlie Gard scenario was very similar, but I cannot remember the exact events

That would not lie within any sort of rights. That would be a personal obligation (personal meaning that the person holding such obligation does so because they feel they need to, not out of any sort of forced or coerced obligation) to do so and feel it would be better of in their interest than in the child's or incapacitated person's best interest. Children are still of a developing mind, and do to this, and lack of experience, they require guidance from their parental figures. A person that is incapacitated is not of the right mind, or are unconscious. It is understandable that a person that cares for this individual would feel some sort of obligation to get that person out of harms way.

Sorry, I've no idea of these cases you are speaking of, and cannot address them directly in any matter as of right now.

That's okay, there were very high profile cases in the World media, but like I said it was reported on very poorly.

I see.

ive come to expect that from msm

Im back

Also the health is becoming a human rights issue. Vaccinations

Vaccinations moves into the category of greater good

But even here not all vaccines are free

I would have to pay £150 for rabies vaccinations

Yea. Itd be a problem if it wasnt enforced thoo

CDC and WHO are important