Does the fact that New Zealand doesn't screen for vaccinated blood, the baby needs surgery now, "guardianship" is only temporary for the operation, and the parents are still going to be treated as such for everything else (or so they say) change anyone's mind? This is a very specific context. What would be the alternative?
They are trying to set an extreme precedent in order to discourage anyone else from making the same request. Because governments went all-in on the clotshot, and a mass awakening on this issue is one of a very few ways that those governments will be toppled.
You are not allowed to show skepticism to the vaccine. Trust in the vaccine, and by proxy, the government, is more important than the choices of the parent and the health of the baby.
The alternative to the state taking guardianship? Not doing that.
Yes, NZ obviously doesn't care about vexed blood, and in a sudden medical emergency, that is all the parents can get for their kid. If the parents were going to have the child die over it, then it would make sense for the state to take over (for their own reasons).
Speaking of context...
Te Whatu Ora's lawyer said in court last week that the baby could get more sick with every heartbeat, and he could deteriorate suddenly - so the case was heard urgently.
Te Whatu Ora told the court yesterday that doctors could be ready to operate within 48 hours of getting the go-ahead.
There were several days between legal proceedings leading up to this? If they were going to take that much time, they could probably meet the parents' demand for clean blood if they were so adamant about saving the child. Plenty of alternatives in that space.
The parents stipulated a donor of their choice--and it's not like blood donation is difficult. Grab a buddy with compatible blood type and have him give a liter (it's a baby, they don't need a lot of blood) and you're off to the races.
In Canada, as soon as I hit 14, the decision to receive cancer treatments rested entirely within my hands. I could have told them "No" and died, and neither the doctors nor my parents could have forced me to do otherwise. Before that, it was my guardians' (my parents') decision. If they said "Yes", then I received treatments. If they said "No", then I wouldn't have.
This is how it should be. The State should not have any power in forcing personal medical decisions on their populace. Doing otherwise is a direct infringement of universal human rights, and in a just world, would result in being tried for crimes against humanity.
I understand, medical decisions should always be your own or your parents. You can still blame them for making the wrong decision. Even though court cases like this don't outrage me by itself, a baby's life might be saved and they are not demonising the parents, I know what precedent they can set.
The parents had already organised a non-vaxxed blood donor. The non-scummy thing to do would simply be to use that donor's blood. But this is the kind of shit that happens when you let the state control your health care, and then let that state get taken over by Marxist/Progressive scum.
Does the fact that New Zealand doesn't screen for vaccinated blood, the baby needs surgery now, "guardianship" is only temporary for the operation, and the parents are still going to be treated as such for everything else (or so they say) change anyone's mind? This is a very specific context. What would be the alternative?
Giving the infant unvaxed blood.
They are trying to set an extreme precedent in order to discourage anyone else from making the same request. Because governments went all-in on the clotshot, and a mass awakening on this issue is one of a very few ways that those governments will be toppled.
You are not allowed to show skepticism to the vaccine. Trust in the vaccine, and by proxy, the government, is more important than the choices of the parent and the health of the baby.
It was NZ's very own horsefaced PM who said that the government was the only source of Truth, after all.
The alternative to the state taking guardianship? Not doing that.
Yes, NZ obviously doesn't care about vexed blood, and in a sudden medical emergency, that is all the parents can get for their kid. If the parents were going to have the child die over it, then it would make sense for the state to take over (for their own reasons).
Speaking of context...
There were several days between legal proceedings leading up to this? If they were going to take that much time, they could probably meet the parents' demand for clean blood if they were so adamant about saving the child. Plenty of alternatives in that space.
The parents stipulated a donor of their choice--and it's not like blood donation is difficult. Grab a buddy with compatible blood type and have him give a liter (it's a baby, they don't need a lot of blood) and you're off to the races.
In Canada, as soon as I hit 14, the decision to receive cancer treatments rested entirely within my hands. I could have told them "No" and died, and neither the doctors nor my parents could have forced me to do otherwise. Before that, it was my guardians' (my parents') decision. If they said "Yes", then I received treatments. If they said "No", then I wouldn't have.
This is how it should be. The State should not have any power in forcing personal medical decisions on their populace. Doing otherwise is a direct infringement of universal human rights, and in a just world, would result in being tried for crimes against humanity.
I understand, medical decisions should always be your own or your parents. You can still blame them for making the wrong decision. Even though court cases like this don't outrage me by itself, a baby's life might be saved and they are not demonising the parents, I know what precedent they can set.
The parents had already organised a non-vaxxed blood donor. The non-scummy thing to do would simply be to use that donor's blood. But this is the kind of shit that happens when you let the state control your health care, and then let that state get taken over by Marxist/Progressive scum.