“How come that parents “own” the child but state “represents” the child?”
Parents don’t own their children. Children aren’t property, as I keep repeating. As a parent, it’s difficult to describe precisely what the relationship is — ‘nurturer’, ‘teacher’, ‘representative’, ‘defender’ are a few words that begin to capture it — but it’s definitely a long way from “own”. Parents have responsibilities to their children.
The corollary is that the child isn’t owned by the state. People aren’t property. However, in this highly unusual situation where doctors and parents disagree about the best course of treatment for the child, and the child cannot describe a preference, someone has to represent the child. But who? That would be the court-appointed representative.
“when what child wants and what state wants conflict, what WILL happen is the latter. No amount of sophistry will cover this up”
You’d need to cite cases where you can show what the child wants and “what the state wants” and how they differ. Otherwise you’re the one practising sophistry: you’re imagining situations where neither side’s intents can be inferred or examined, and saying “the state wins”. It doesn’t make sense.*
You’re also impugning all the people who work really hard, and suffer some mental anguish, trying to make what they believe is the best decision for someone helpless. I don’t think you should underestimate the emotional toll this case will have had not only on the parents and doctors, but also the court staff.
In comments section each time somebody points it out you answer very carefully NOT talking about what is clearly the crux of this matter.
I’m trying, each time, to clarify the finer points of a subtle case. It’s difficult to break through ideological barriers, though.
* before you suggest that it’s about “cost to the state”, bear in mind that in any country, under any system, the costs of long-term health care will eventually fall on the broader population: with the US’s insurance system, the cost of long-term care means higher prices for other people buying insurance now and in future; in government-backed systems like the UK, it falls on every taxpayer (though with the advantage of deferment because the government is indebted to the future through bonds, so the cost falls on the current population and some proportion of the future population).