Discussion
FN2TypeR said:
Breadvan72 said:
The parents' lawyers acted without charge. Once the case was before the Court there was a public interest point to be determined, and the parents were too angry and perhaps too inarticulate to represent themselves . Thus I suggest that the lawyers acted commendably by acting or free, albeit that the parents' position was not a position that the Court should have favoured. As this thread shows, however, it will naturally be assumed that the lawyers just scooped up most of the donated money. Any chance of an apology to the public spirited lawyers for the slur? Er, not much.
Broadly reviled profession in lack of sympathy shocker!PurpleMoonlight said:
Boring_Chris said:
I don't disagree with that.
But would you approach the parents right now and accuse them of being 'deluded'?
Of course you wouldn't.
Right now would be pointless but somebody should have several months ago.But would you approach the parents right now and accuse them of being 'deluded'?
Of course you wouldn't.
You are entitled to your opinion I get that, but in this instance you are wrong. There was never any hope for this poor child and the parents were deluded believing there was.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 30th July 19:13
My issue is with dismissing them as simply 'deluded'. No matter what the dictionary definition of the word is; it's reductive and insensitive. They're grieving parents clutching at anything to save their terminally ill son... who here can relate to what they must have been going through? I certainly cant, and so I have a little more sympathy to write them off as simply 'deluded'.
There's a culture on this forum that seems to find virtue in being callous. There's virtue in being objective. They aren't the same thing.
Edited for s
te grammar by Boring_Chris on Tuesday 1st August 11:55
te grammar by Boring_Chris on Tuesday 1st August 11:55Edited by Boring_Chris on Tuesday 1st August 11:56
Breadvan72 said:
FN2TypeR said:
Breadvan72 said:
The parents' lawyers acted without charge. Once the case was before the Court there was a public interest point to be determined, and the parents were too angry and perhaps too inarticulate to represent themselves . Thus I suggest that the lawyers acted commendably by acting or free, albeit that the parents' position was not a position that the Court should have favoured. As this thread shows, however, it will naturally be assumed that the lawyers just scooped up most of the donated money. Any chance of an apology to the public spirited lawyers for the slur? Er, not much.
Broadly reviled profession in lack of sympathy shocker!
The true filth of the earth, true.
Boring_Chris said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Boring_Chris said:
I don't disagree with that.
But would you approach the parents right now and accuse them of being 'deluded'?
Of course you wouldn't.
Right now would be pointless but somebody should have several months ago.But would you approach the parents right now and accuse them of being 'deluded'?
Of course you wouldn't.
You are entitled to your opinion I get that, but in this instance you are wrong. There was never any hope for this poor child and the parents were deluded believing there was.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 30th July 19:13
My issue is with dismissing them as simply 'deluded'. No matter what the dictionary definition of the word is; it's curt, reductive and insensitive. They're grieving parents clutching at anything to save their terminally ill son... who here can relate to what they must have been going through? I certainly cant, and so I have a little more sympathy to write them off as simply 'deluded'.
There's a culture on this forum that seems to find virtue in being callous. There's virtue in being objective. It isn't the same thing.
I don't think I've seen you acknowledge this. Why not?
Breadvan72 said:
Any question as to the best interests of the child was a public interest question, with the Judge as the designated guardian of the public interest. The parents had a bad point, but as the point was before the Court and had to be determined because of conflict between parents and hospital, it was in the public interest for the apparently not very well educated or articulate parents to have proper representation, and so some lawyers took the case on pro bono. Sometimes pro bono work is grandstanding, but often it isn't. My own pro bono cases, for example, tend to be far from glamorous and garner no publicity.
Most proper (that is: non Shiner-fakey) human rights lawyers whom I know do not have sad and sorry lives. They do not spent their time spouting semi literate rancour on car websites, but instead do something that gives them a sense of purpose and sometimes makes a difference to the lives of people lacking the means and/or the skills to achieve change by themselves. Many of them could make big bucks in commercial law but they choose to do less well paid work. Not every professional person (doctor, lawyer, journalist, etc) is cynical and driven by fame, money, and ego. Some are, but not all. But, hey, this is PH, so let cynicism reign, and let no good deed unpunished.
I often wonder what made the angry and bitter people that cluster here so angry and so bitter, and therefore so negative as to the motivations of all others, professionals and experts in particular. This is not a mystery likely to be explained.
Literate but nonsense.Most proper (that is: non Shiner-fakey) human rights lawyers whom I know do not have sad and sorry lives. They do not spent their time spouting semi literate rancour on car websites, but instead do something that gives them a sense of purpose and sometimes makes a difference to the lives of people lacking the means and/or the skills to achieve change by themselves. Many of them could make big bucks in commercial law but they choose to do less well paid work. Not every professional person (doctor, lawyer, journalist, etc) is cynical and driven by fame, money, and ego. Some are, but not all. But, hey, this is PH, so let cynicism reign, and let no good deed unpunished.
I often wonder what made the angry and bitter people that cluster here so angry and so bitter, and therefore so negative as to the motivations of all others, professionals and experts in particular. This is not a mystery likely to be explained.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 1st August 10:54
If you read the links posted you would see the medical evidence was straight forward.
The parents did not have a bad point they had no point, unless faith healing is now a part of medical science.
I am interested in why the lawyers for the parents where prepared to continue to return to court when it must have been clear to them they where presenting snake oil treatment. Their actions seem like showboating to me.
I would not care at all about the case but what keeps being ignored is that the lawyers "to give the parents a voice" wasted a lot of time of medical professionals and a large amount of the legal budget of GOSH.
Breadvan72 said:
More Groucho: "I've had a wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
That used to be posted by the door on the way out of The Groucho Club, but the quotation was taken down in a recent ill conceived makeover of the club.
“I've got a good mind to go out and join a club and beat you over the head with it.” That used to be posted by the door on the way out of The Groucho Club, but the quotation was taken down in a recent ill conceived makeover of the club.
Mrr T said:
Literate but nonsense.
If you read the links posted you would see the medical evidence was straight forward.
The parents did not have a bad point they had no point, unless faith healing is now a part of medical science.
I am interested in why the lawyers for the parents where prepared to continue to return to court when it must have been clear to them they where presenting snake oil treatment. Their actions seem like showboating to me.
I would not care at all about the case but what keeps being ignored is that the lawyers "to give the parents a voice" wasted a lot of time of medical professionals and a large amount of the legal budget of GOSH.
You keep using 'where' in the wrong context - why?If you read the links posted you would see the medical evidence was straight forward.
The parents did not have a bad point they had no point, unless faith healing is now a part of medical science.
I am interested in why the lawyers for the parents where prepared to continue to return to court when it must have been clear to them they where presenting snake oil treatment. Their actions seem like showboating to me.
I would not care at all about the case but what keeps being ignored is that the lawyers "to give the parents a voice" wasted a lot of time of medical professionals and a large amount of the legal budget of GOSH.
Use 'where' e.g. where is my dictionary?
You presumably meant to use 'were', as in they were prepared to continue. Referencing something that took place earlier.
Its continued wrong use undermines the logic of your argument.
In internet debate, the frequent coincidence of shouty belligerence and semi-literacy is fairly striking. The shouty semi-literates tend to say (or shout) that grammar and spelling and punctuation do not matter. They can't seem to face up to the fact that they have been too lazy or perhaps even too dim to learn how to express themselves using clear, standard written language. Learning clarity and correctness in written language is not a difficult thing. The credibility of an argument may be impaired when the argument is presented in a semi-literate manner.
Note also the typical resort to a limited dictionary definition of a word not understood - failing to recognise that words are used contextually and may have variant meanings. Those meanings may be understood, by the literate, because of context. Perhaps instead of being chippy about a lack of education, an uneducated person's time would be better spent on becoming educated. It is never too late to learn.
Note also the typical resort to a limited dictionary definition of a word not understood - failing to recognise that words are used contextually and may have variant meanings. Those meanings may be understood, by the literate, because of context. Perhaps instead of being chippy about a lack of education, an uneducated person's time would be better spent on becoming educated. It is never too late to learn.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 1st August 15:40
Europa1 said:
Breadvan72 said:
It's not so bad, really. At least we get to look down on estate agents and nowadays also on investment bankers.
Q: What have you got when you've got a lawyer up to their neck in st?A: Not enough s
t.A: A good start.
An engineer dies. Owing to a mix up with the paperwork, he is sent to Hell. After two weeks, the error is discovered. God gets on the phone to the Devil and demands that the engineer be sent upstairs to his rightful place in Heaven.
"No way are you getting that guy back." says the Devil.
"Since he arrived, the air conditioning is sorted, the swimming pool is working, the ice machines are back on. It's the sweet, sweet life. We have never had it so good. We're keeping him."
The conversation continues for some time, with God getting more and more angry, and the Devil being more and more insistent that the engineer is staying. Eventually God snaps, and says:
"OK, I'll sue!".
The Devil cooly replies:
"Yeah? And where are YOU gonna get a lawyer?"
"No way are you getting that guy back." says the Devil.
"Since he arrived, the air conditioning is sorted, the swimming pool is working, the ice machines are back on. It's the sweet, sweet life. We have never had it so good. We're keeping him."
The conversation continues for some time, with God getting more and more angry, and the Devil being more and more insistent that the engineer is staying. Eventually God snaps, and says:
"OK, I'll sue!".
The Devil cooly replies:
"Yeah? And where are YOU gonna get a lawyer?"
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 1st August 15:21
Breadvan72 said:
Europa1 said:
Breadvan72 said:
It's not so bad, really. At least we get to look down on estate agents and nowadays also on investment bankers.
Q: What have you got when you've got a lawyer up to their neck in st?A: Not enough s
t.A: A
langtounlad said:
You keep using 'where' in the wrong context - why?
Use 'where' e.g. where is my dictionary?
You presumably meant to use 'were', as in they were prepared to continue. Referencing something that took place earlier.
Its continued wrong use undermines the logic of your argument.
Does it really undermine the arguement. I disagree.Use 'where' e.g. where is my dictionary?
You presumably meant to use 'were', as in they were prepared to continue. Referencing something that took place earlier.
Its continued wrong use undermines the logic of your argument.
I was educated to long ago to have been formally diagnosed with dyslexia. However, both my children were so it's likely I would now.
I normally avoid the problem by writing posts in word first but am on holiday so was posting directly.
It's always been a problem I have had to deal with. However, it did not stop me getting a good degree and professional qualification. Just avoided subjects with lots of essays.
Will try harder.
Mrr T said:
Literate but nonsense.
If you read the links posted you would see the medical evidence was straight forward.
The parents did not have a bad point they had no point, unless faith healing is now a part of medical science.
I am interested in why the lawyers for the parents where prepared to continue to return to court when it must have been clear to them they where presenting snake oil treatment. Their actions seem like showboating to me.
I would not care at all about the case but what keeps being ignored is that the lawyers "to give the parents a voice" wasted a lot of time of medical professionals and a large amount of the legal budget of GOSH.
Mrr T,If you read the links posted you would see the medical evidence was straight forward.
The parents did not have a bad point they had no point, unless faith healing is now a part of medical science.
I am interested in why the lawyers for the parents where prepared to continue to return to court when it must have been clear to them they where presenting snake oil treatment. Their actions seem like showboating to me.
I would not care at all about the case but what keeps being ignored is that the lawyers "to give the parents a voice" wasted a lot of time of medical professionals and a large amount of the legal budget of GOSH.
It is starting to sound as though you have your own agenda here? Have you been on the wrong end of a legal issue? Have you personally embarked on foolhardy personal litigation and have a bad taste in your mouth? (I have and do
) If (and I really do mean this) you simply are questioning the probity of the process, imagine you were on the 'receiving side' of the GOSH decisions, would you not want 'proper' legal advice? Or do you not think that should be allowed when there is clearly a flaw in one man's view in the argument? Bearing in mind it is an argument or difference of opinion and you are not 'listening to sense?' in their view.....
Slaav said:
Mrr T,
It is starting to sound as though you have your own agenda here? Have you been on the wrong end of a legal issue? Have you personally embarked on foolhardy personal litigation and have a bad taste in your mouth? (I have and do)
If (and I really do mean this) you simply are questioning the probity of the process, imagine you were on the 'receiving side' of the GOSH decisions, would you not want 'proper' legal advice? Or do you not think that should be allowed when there is clearly a flaw in one man's view in the argument? Bearing in mind it is an argument or difference of opinion and you are not 'listening to sense?' in their view.....
It is starting to sound as though you have your own agenda here? Have you been on the wrong end of a legal issue? Have you personally embarked on foolhardy personal litigation and have a bad taste in your mouth? (I have and do
) If (and I really do mean this) you simply are questioning the probity of the process, imagine you were on the 'receiving side' of the GOSH decisions, would you not want 'proper' legal advice? Or do you not think that should be allowed when there is clearly a flaw in one man's view in the argument? Bearing in mind it is an argument or difference of opinion and you are not 'listening to sense?' in their view.....
Answer to the first question NO.
Answer to the second question. Please read my posts. I never suggested the parents should not get good legal advice. I would thank the lawyers if that is all they did. The advice should have been they could only challenge the GOSH position if they could present a viable alternative. They never could because there was never an alternative. When they initially presented the alternative they did not check Dr Harino had not even read the child's file.
The lawyers for the parents allowed the case to run on for 5 months at no time did they ever have any viable treatment to present to the court. During that time a vast amount of medical professionals time and GHOS budget was wasted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff