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

So certain things must be enforced on the basis of health

People have to remain healthy for everyone to stay healthy is what im trying to say.

The problem arises in that you don't want to have an enforced nanny state

like we have here

Somewhere in the middle really

It's difficult because damage to third parties can be hard to calculate.

But complications are arising.

Homeless ppl spreading diseases etc

In an ideal capitalist system, you would have to compensate others for the damage you do to them, such as pollution or spreading disease.

That is why even strong libertarians like Milton Friedman see a need for the state there.

But, it's hard to measure damage to another sometimes, such as the amount of pollution you cause.

But wherever we can keep the state out of people's lives, we should.

Especially moralizing legislation. If people would not engage in some "greater good" under a free system, then that means you have to force it onto them if the state mandates it. You cannot position yourself as the moral superior and at the same time force people to be moral. That is what the state proclaims to do all the time, though.

Hete is another thing. The average median is about what you can value a human life. What they could be expected to both earn in a lifetime. The problem is most people can cause more damage around them or to themselves that far exceeds that value in any economic system

It breaks both the free market and socialism

That's not the only value.

I would still be valuable to my family if I was sick and could no longer work.

People think that we no longer value human life in a capitalist system.

But a capitalist system only expresses the values people place on things within it.

My family still values me. I have value and that value is expressed in the money they would exchange for my life.

Capitalism expresses whatever values the people within it hold it.

It's like electricity. It's not good or bad. It's whatever people choose to do with it.

I agree with that. In a free market the cost of living shouldnt exceed values