Baby RB’s father agrees to terminate his son’s life

By Irene Gimeno

As Baby RB’s father agrees to switch off his one-year-old son’s life support, the debate about euthanasia in the United Kingdom re-opens. Mr AB has withdrawn from the legal battle he started after the doctors made a counter-request to disconnect the baby from external aid, an option supported by the mother.  

After a week of hearings in the Family Division of the High Court the father agreed with the expert opinion, evidence proving that medical assistance can no longer help to improve the baby’s health was heard.

The final decision of the parents was praised by Mr Justice McFarlane, the judge who summarized the case, who declared that they had had an “exemplary” attitude. Both parents burst into tears in the courtroom, the mother having to leave before the session ended.

Nevertheless, not all people support the parents’ torment. Voices have arisen to criticize both the experts and the parents will in blogs and forums- classifying the Justice and parents’ approach to the case as “disgusting” and condemning their decision. Although owing to the extremely sad characteristics of the case, no one has openly expressed themselves against the couple.

On the other hand, there are other sources which oppose to the critics. Not only do they support the parents’ decision but they consider the case should be put aside the euthanasia debate. Mr Chris Docker, Masters of Philosophy (Law & Ethics in Medicine), Director of Exit (formerly the Scottish Voluntary Euthanasia Society), said “the Baby RB case is not really a euthanasia case at all. I looked at similar cases when I was doing my Masters degree. You will find there are clear precedents as to when the courts have ruled when a baby must be given every chance to live at one end, and extreme examples at the other end where the only possibilities facing the child were pain – not even any other sensation. The law does not permit euthanasia. But it allows doctors not to provide treatment if it can have no possibility of benefitting the patient.”

From the beginning, the mother of RB agreed with the specialists, deciding that provoking the death of the baby by terminating the treatment would save him suffering. However, the father of the baby argued that RB was capable of recognising relatives and could make the effort to play, so he brought the case to the courts. He has now given-in the reasoning of doctors, who said that it was impossible to know whether his responses where a result of his will or just automatic.

Baby RB was born in October 2008 with an extremely rare illness called congenital myasthenic syndrome which is a “neuromuscular condition that limits the ability to breathe and move limbs”. His brain being healthy is trapped in a body that needs of artificial resources to function; the doctors announced that his life hope was no more than three years with medical treatment.

It is decided that the medical treatment will end soon so the wish of the parents is now to spend the rest of their son’s days by his side.

Obama makes history with the health-care plan passed by the House

By Irene Gimeno

Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation passed by the House of Representatives on November 7 aims to provide with medical insurance coverage for the 96% of the American population.

The project was supported in Washington by 219 Democrats -39 opposed it- and only one Republican vote, that of Anh Cao, the Representative of Louisiana. Some of the members of the Democratic Party who voted for the bill argued that it was a step forward but that they expected to see it improved during the negotiations with the Senate (both chambers have to recognise the bill for the final approval).

The vote “came on the third anniversary of the 2006 Democratic takeover of the House and the passage moves the bill well beyond the health care overhaul attempted by President Bill Clinton in 1993”. President Obama said at the Capitol that the Representatives should “answer the call of history”, while trying to persuade the lawmakers on the day of the vote; however, his appeal did not convince the opposition, which responded to the bill with an almost unanimous rejection.

The Congress also rejected the Republicans’ lower-budget plan, which was said to be more “financially responsible” by the authors, since the cost of the new project is been put at $900bn over 10 years, and other sources even reckon it will not come cheaper than $1,2tn –paid through new fees and taxes.

The vote has been described as “a significant step towards the Obama administration’s goal of extending health coverage to millions of people lacking it”, specifically, 36 million more people will benefit from the plan, which would mean that 96% of the Americans will have health insurance. “This is our moment to revolutionize health care in this country”, declared George Miller, Democrat of California and one of the authors of the bill.

So far, the American government has only provided coverage for “the poor, elderly and military veterans”; therefore the aim is to force Americans to have medical insurance “provide several subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it”. Big companies will provide their workers with insurance, so the result will be a government-regulated health insurance system.

The measure would also respond to the alarming news of the United States Census Bureau, that the figure of American citizens without health insurance increased from $45,7 million in 2007 to $46,3 in 2008 due to unemployment and recession, which shows that the medical system cannot depend exclusively on private funding.

John Dingell, a Representative who has pursued the plan to be passed over five decades, happily stated that the bill brings “peace of mind to everyone, regardless of health or income”, because everyone will be able to ask for assistance whenever they need it.

Nevertheless, the bill has taken a lot of negotiations to be passed. One of the most controversial issues in it is abortion and to what extend it will be covered by the medical insurance plan. Members from both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party had complained about the possibility of abortion being covered by the plan, so the House speaker Nancy Pelosi, known for her campaign pro-abortion rights, had to allow the opponents “to propose tight restrictions barring any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions” for the discontent of the abortion rights defenders. Meanwhile, the American religious community was campaigning against the possibility of a final bill with abortion concessions.

The final verdict will be soon given by the Senate, where the Democrats will present their plan. If it is finally approved, it will constitute a radical reform from the actual plan and a major achievement for American society in terms of public benefits.

‘Capitalism: A Love Story’

Capitalism A Love Story

The 'American dream'

by Scott Norton

Michael Moore’s new documentary, ‘Capitalism: A love Story’ , attempts to broach the subject of corporate greed in American society and begins by illustrating the fact that one percent of the population in America control ninety-six percent of the wealth. Moore’s latest movie is thought provoking as well as extremely moving in the way that it puts a face to the victims of the ongoing recession, but, it reeks of hypocrisy on the part of Moore, who no doubt earns a pretty penny from intellectual property rights. Moore is a great social commentator, yes, his crude tactics attract the public’s attention, yes, but unfortunately this movie does not deal with the real reasons behind capitalism’s failure.  Mankind’s greed!

He, Moore, points the finger at the major corporations and the banking system. He lays blame solely at the feet of the wealthy one percent and rightly condemns the underhand practices of big business. But, while these are the men and women (mostly men) who control the economy and perpetuate wealth inequality, it is the majority who cling to the ideal of the ‘American dream’ who allow these inequalities to continue and prosper. Moore has bypassed or omitted the simple fact that everyone wants this wealth and neglects to criticise the protectors of capitalist society; his viewers the people.

‘Capitalism: A love Story’ is a shallow attempt at addressing serious issues concerning not only Americas economic society, but every capitalist society in the world. It glosses over the fact that it is everyone’s greed, and not just corporate greed, that has led to booming house prices and record levels of individual debt.Tracing the rise of Capitalism and depicting the struggles of those worst effected by the recent economic recession is all well and good but this documentary only skims the subject and uses almost ludicrous tactics to captivate the viewer’s attention. Wrapping wall street in crime scene tape and standing outside banks with a a dollar sign bag declaring that you want the taxpayers money back serves only one purpose, publicity. I have no doubt that Moore believes he is opening the American publics eyes to the problems facing capitalist society but, he surely must realise the hypocrisy of his argument when he deposits his royalties cheque in the same banks he is protesting against.

Moore is correct however. Capitalism no longer works for the majority, if it ever did, and it will be up to us, the people, to come up with an alternative that does. Socialism and Communism are two already available alternatives to Capitalism but neither has been proven to be any better than that which we have already embraced. In the working models of Socialism and Communism we can clearly witness the inequalities already evident in our own society, so it should not only be our goal, it should be our duty to provide an original working alternative to our failed Capitalist experiment.

It is our duty as members of society, regardless of race, class, religion or political standpoint, to ensure that individual economies, as well as the world economy, are  built upon a foundation that will not crumble under pressure, will not discriminate and perpetuate inequality and, most of all, will provide every man woman and child the opportunity, at least, to succeed in life and enjoy freedoms which we claim, as democratic societies, to already possess. Inequalities have only widened and it is high time that these inequalities are addressed properly without the aid of gimmicks and publicity stunts.

No Saint George as Dragons Seal Burley’s Fate

By Al Innes

George-Burley-Scotland-v-Norway_2358207

Burley shown door after failing to muster support from fans or board.

George Burley has been sacked as manager of Scotland. The national team’s defeat by Wales on Saturday was the last act of a man who has been under siege ever since Scotland failed to Qualify for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

Burley has won only three of his fourteen matches in charge of the national side with the team failing to find the net since April Fool’s Day of this year. The five matches since then have seen Burley’s side ship goals to Japan, Holland and most recently against the Welsh, sinking to a 3-0 defeat in Cardiff. Burley’s number two, former England international Terry Butcher, will also leave his post.

The former Hearts and Ipswich manager was contracted until 2012 but SFA chief executive Gordon Smith decided to terminate Burley’s charge after a unanimous vote from his board.

“The decision was taken after a meeting with the board of directors and, subsequently, the national coach. The board was in unanimous agreement.”  Said Smith.

“It should be stressed that the decision was not a direct consequence of Saturday’s unacceptable 3-0 defeat to Wales but, rather, a realisation that the expectations of the supporters, the Scottish FA and George himself, were not being met.”

simon-church-scores-wales-second-against-scotland-792679607

(Courtest of Daily Mirror) Scotland lose 3-0 to young Welsh team

Burley’s position had been difficult since Scotland’s passionate display against Holland in the closing game of the 2010 qualifiers ended in disaster. While the defeat against the Welsh demonstrated a lack of support from both the fans and the players as dejected looks from the team were accompanied by jeers from the crowd demanding Burley’s resignation.

Burely, who played over six-hundred games as a professional footballer,  said after the Wales game that Scotland “fell apart“. He described the display against the Welsh, ranked 78th in the world,  as “ridiculous” and concluded that “overall [the team performance] was shocking”. Scotland’s failure to score goals has been seen by many as the major failing of Scotland’s recent friendly results.

With no matches scheduled until next March, when Scotland host the Czech Republic, there is plenty of time for Scotland to consider a successor to Geoge Burley. The SFA hope to have a replacement in position by February, with Walter Smith and Craig Levein in the running to replace Burley, who was capped eleven times for Scotland.

Early rumours highlight that Walter Smith’s contract is up for renewal at Rangers in January with the former Everton manager having coached the national team before. So far Graeme Sounness has ruled himself out of taking the post.

Scotland are currently placed 46th in the official FIFA world rankings.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 21 other followers

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.