UK Authorities Crack Down On Nazi Dogs And Angry Drivers While Forcing Parents To Watch Baby Die

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: howtonhawky

The court obviously feel he should die sooner rather than later.
...but so long as health professionals in another EU country disagree and are willing to provide the care 'they' deem appropriate then that should remain an option to the parents in my opinion.
It's tragic, but there is a legal option of keeping him alive but UK courts are playing god, not the parents and an alternative EU nation's health service.

Idiocy... Most all of Europe, including the UK and all EU member states, have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights which states:
en.wikipedia.org...

Article 2 protects the right of every person to their life.

en.wikipedia.org...

Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of the death penalty.[51] Currently all Council of Europe member states but three have ratified Protocol 13.

A murderer has more rights and more protection in the EU than am ill child does. What a goddamn farce of a human rights policy.

a reply to: Grambler

My husband died from this terrible disease. Just wanted to thank you and the other ATS members who spoke up for Alfie and his parents in this tragic situation.

Your comments have been insightful and compassionate.

As to some other "members", I can tell that they are clueless with regard to this disease, and its treatment within the NHS.

I have found their rhetoric quite disgusting, and in one case, a bit psychotic on their attack of the parents as "Scousers".

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

Nothing. They have everything to do with securing a parent's natural right to make decisions for their own offspring over whatever artificial authority the government or their approved representatives claim, however. This was a parents' choice to make, not a panels, not the governments... if the parents were opposed to removal from life support, then end of story Alfie remains on life support. As it currently stands, this would be very risky in many parts of America because the hospital, cops surrounding it, and even medical board members would immediately be at risk to be executed by a pissed off and grieving parent with some balls and a couple of firearms.

^^^ everything wrong with America in one post ^^^

^^^ the reason smart Americans recoil at any hint of the US adopting any of the European model in one attempt at snideness ^^^

Attempts at moral superiority from certain American posters would be far more convincing if they cared about the hundreds of kids killed by firearms in their own country.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't think parents shooting Drs or Police because their grief is driving them to act in their own self interest, not the interest of their child is a good thing or situation that one would want to emulate elsewhere. It's a race to the gutter approach.

I think anyone who takes measures with the intent of a child dying, which is exactly what happened here, and does so while using law enforcement to prevent parental "interference" (previously known as the parental instinct to protect their children at any cost) should expect their life to be extremely at risk for the foreseeable future.

The police presence was because protesters attempted to storm the hospital. Storm a frigging kids hospital.!!!

Sorry I forgot was talking to someone in favour of shooting doctors...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

Nothing. They have everything to do with securing a parent's natural right to make decisions for their own offspring over whatever artificial authority the government or their approved representatives claim, however. This was a parents' choice to make, not a panels, not the governments... if the parents were opposed to removal from life support, then end of story Alfie remains on life support. As it currently stands, this would be very risky in many parts of America because the hospital, cops surrounding it, and even medical board members would immediately be at risk to be executed by a pissed off and grieving parent with some balls and a couple of firearms.

^^^ everything wrong with America in one post ^^^

^^^ the reason smart Americans recoil at any hint of the US adopting any of the European model in one attempt at snideness ^^^

Attempts at moral superiority from certain American posters would be far more convincing if they cared about the hundreds of kids killed by firearms in their own country.

I'm not taking a moral superior stance. I'm taking a freedom superior stance. It isn't the federal government's job to save children (apart from attacks from foreign enemies) any more than it is the government's job to send children to the afterlife in defiance of their parents' wishes.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

Nothing. They have everything to do with securing a parent's natural right to make decisions for their own offspring over whatever artificial authority the government or their approved representatives claim, however. This was a parents' choice to make, not a panels, not the governments... if the parents were opposed to removal from life support, then end of story Alfie remains on life support. As it currently stands, this would be very risky in many parts of America because the hospital, cops surrounding it, and even medical board members would immediately be at risk to be executed by a pissed off and grieving parent with some balls and a couple of firearms.

^^^ everything wrong with America in one post ^^^

^^^ the reason smart Americans recoil at any hint of the US adopting any of the European model in one attempt at snideness ^^^

Attempts at moral superiority from certain American posters would be far more convincing if they cared about the hundreds of kids killed by firearms in their own country.

I'm not taking a moral superior stance. I'm taking a freedom superior stance. It isn't the federal government's job to save children (apart from attacks from foreign enemies) any more than it is the government's job to send children to the afterlife in defiance of their parents' wishes.

I can't think of any more valuable job a government can do than protect children.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The police presence was because protesters attempted to storm the hospital. Storm a frigging kids hospital.!!!

To save a child. Wrap your head around this one, if you will. A kids "hospital" in which the 'authorities' had decided to take measures which run 180-degree opposite the Hippocratic oath which states " I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm." That's not a hospital room, it's an effing execution chamber.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

Nothing. They have everything to do with securing a parent's natural right to make decisions for their own offspring over whatever artificial authority the government or their approved representatives claim, however. This was a parents' choice to make, not a panels, not the governments... if the parents were opposed to removal from life support, then end of story Alfie remains on life support. As it currently stands, this would be very risky in many parts of America because the hospital, cops surrounding it, and even medical board members would immediately be at risk to be executed by a pissed off and grieving parent with some balls and a couple of firearms.

^^^ everything wrong with America in one post ^^^

^^^ the reason smart Americans recoil at any hint of the US adopting any of the European model in one attempt at snideness ^^^

Attempts at moral superiority from certain American posters would be far more convincing if they cared about the hundreds of kids killed by firearms in their own country.

I'm not taking a moral superior stance. I'm taking a freedom superior stance. It isn't the federal government's job to save children (apart from attacks from foreign enemies) any more than it is the government's job to send children to the afterlife in defiance of their parents' wishes.

I can't think of any more valuable job a government can do than protect children.

You're seemingly not getting much value out of yours according to this case then, are ya?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

Nothing. They have everything to do with securing a parent's natural right to make decisions for their own offspring over whatever artificial authority the government or their approved representatives claim, however. This was a parents' choice to make, not a panels, not the governments... if the parents were opposed to removal from life support, then end of story Alfie remains on life support. As it currently stands, this would be very risky in many parts of America because the hospital, cops surrounding it, and even medical board members would immediately be at risk to be executed by a pissed off and grieving parent with some balls and a couple of firearms.

^^^ everything wrong with America in one post ^^^

^^^ the reason smart Americans recoil at any hint of the US adopting any of the European model in one attempt at snideness ^^^

Attempts at moral superiority from certain American posters would be far more convincing if they cared about the hundreds of kids killed by firearms in their own country.

I'm not taking a moral superior stance. I'm taking a freedom superior stance. It isn't the federal government's job to save children (apart from attacks from foreign enemies) any more than it is the government's job to send children to the afterlife in defiance of their parents' wishes.

I can't think of any more valuable job a government can do than protect children.

You're seemingly not getting much value out of yours according to this case then, are ya?

Not a lot they can do about an incurable disease

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The police presence was because protesters attempted to storm the hospital. Storm a frigging kids hospital.!!!

To save a child. Wrap your head around this one, if you will. A kids "hospital" in which the 'authorities' had decided to take measures which run 180-degree opposite the Hippocratic oath which states " I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm." That's not a hospital room, it's an effing execution chamber.

The oath would cover not giving unnecessary treatment with no hope of success or recovery to the detriment of the patient.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I share with you the story of American, George Pickering and his son.
www.nydailynews.com...

George III was on life support in January after suffering a stroke, and doctors had declared him “brain dead,” his father told Click 2 Houston.

Hospital staff appointed Pickering's ex-wife and his other son to make decisions for George III, and had alerted an organ donor organization as to his imminent death.

After the hospital approved a “terminal wean” — which slowly removes life support — George II decided it was time to act, he said.

“I felt hopeless. They were moving too fast. The hospital, the nurses, the doctors,” dad told Click 2 Houston.

To halt the process, Pickering grabbed a gun and threatened staff, demanding access to see his son.

Desperate, Pickering admitted he was intoxicated and being aggressive, but said he was certain there was still life left in his son and needed the time alone with him.

Although he was soon disarmed by his other son, he told cops he had a second weapon and closed himself in with George III as SWAT teams negotiated with him.

“The important thing is I'm alive and well, my father is home and we're together again,” George III told Click 2 Houston.

The man saved his son's life and was STILL prosecuted because "Oh by God we can't have anyone show the authorities, hospital, and law are full of s**t now, can we?" So it isn't necessarily the case that doctors would need to actually be shot... just the chance of being shot would pull them back and hold the cops off long enough to possibly save the life of the child.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The police presence was because protesters attempted to storm the hospital. Storm a frigging kids hospital.!!!

To save a child. Wrap your head around this one, if you will. A kids "hospital" in which the 'authorities' had decided to take measures which run 180-degree opposite the Hippocratic oath which states " I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm." That's not a hospital room, it's an effing execution chamber.

The oath would cover not giving unnecessary treatment with no hope of success or recovery to the detriment of the patient.

That pesky personal detriment of surviving, ya?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The police presence was because protesters attempted to storm the hospital. Storm a frigging kids hospital.!!!

To save a child. Wrap your head around this one, if you will. A kids "hospital" in which the 'authorities' had decided to take measures which run 180-degree opposite the Hippocratic oath which states " I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm." That's not a hospital room, it's an effing execution chamber.

The oath would cover not giving incessant treatment with no hope of success or recovery to the detriment of the patient.

Regardless of our opinions, Italian doctors were prepared to offer an alternative option. Italy is an EU country, right to life, freedom of movement, a form of care which the Italian state recognised by giving citizenship to the child to facilitate it further.
But no, the courts made the decision, not the parents who had an EU country offering an alternative which would be legal there.
On that specific principle I can't accept the outcome, although caveat I would have let my child die after a year on life support with the condition the poor mite is in.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ScepticScot

I share with you the story of American, George Pickering and his son.
www.nydailynews.com...

George III was on life support in January after suffering a stroke, and doctors had declared him “brain dead,” his father told Click 2 Houston.

Hospital staff appointed Pickering's ex-wife and his other son to make decisions for George III, and had alerted an organ donor organization as to his imminent death.

After the hospital approved a “terminal wean” — which slowly removes life support — George II decided it was time to act, he said.

“I felt hopeless. They were moving too fast. The hospital, the nurses, the doctors,” dad told Click 2 Houston.

To halt the process, Pickering grabbed a gun and threatened staff, demanding access to see his son.

Desperate, Pickering admitted he was intoxicated and being aggressive, but said he was certain there was still life left in his son and needed the time alone with him.

Although he was soon disarmed by his other son, he told cops he had a second weapon and closed himself in with George III as SWAT teams negotiated with him.

“The important thing is I'm alive and well, my father is home and we're together again,” George III told Click 2 Houston.

The man saved his son's life and was STILL prosecuted because "Oh by God we can't have anyone show the authorities, hospital, and law are full of s**t now, can we?" So it isn't necessarily the case that doctors would need to actually be shot... just the chance of being shot would pull them back and hold the cops off long enough to possibly save the life of the child.

Drunk guy pulls gun rather than explain situation to doctors or follow proper process. Good story...

Feel compelled to point out happened in US so kinda undermines the whole we would never do this in the American system argument.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The police presence was because protesters attempted to storm the hospital. Storm a frigging kids hospital.!!!

To save a child. Wrap your head around this one, if you will. A kids "hospital" in which the 'authorities' had decided to take measures which run 180-degree opposite the Hippocratic oath which states " I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm." That's not a hospital room, it's an effing execution chamber.

The oath would cover not giving incessant treatment with no hope of success or recovery to the detriment of the patient.

Regardless of our opinions, Italian doctors were prepared to offer an alternative option. Italy is an EU country, right to life, freedom of movement, a form of care which the Italian state recognised by giving citizenship to the child to facilitate it further.
But no, the courts made the decision, not the parents who had an EU country offering an alternative which would be legal there.
On that specific principle I can't accept the outcome, although caveat I would have let my child die after a year on life support with the condition the poor mite is in.

The Italian citizenship thing was just a stunt.

Doctors from Italy already examined him and agreed with the UK doctors about his prognosis.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The police presence was because protesters attempted to storm the hospital. Storm a frigging kids hospital.!!!

To save a child. Wrap your head around this one, if you will. A kids "hospital" in which the 'authorities' had decided to take measures which run 180-degree opposite the Hippocratic oath which states " I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm." That's not a hospital room, it's an effing execution chamber.

The oath would cover not giving incessant treatment with no hope of success or recovery to the detriment of the patient.

Regardless of our opinions, Italian doctors were prepared to offer an alternative option. Italy is an EU country, right to life, freedom of movement, a form of care which the Italian state recognised by giving citizenship to the child to facilitate it further.
But no, the courts made the decision, not the parents who had an EU country offering an alternative which would be legal there.
On that specific principle I can't accept the outcome, although caveat I would have let my child die after a year on life support with the condition the poor mite is in.

The Italian citizenship thing was just a stunt.

Doctors from Italy already examined him and agreed with the UK doctors about his prognosis.

Oh I know, but it was legal under EU law.
Please understand me that if he was my child I'd want his suffering to end long before, but on a point of principle I can't accept it because the health service of another EU nation was offering an alternative (legal) form of 'care' and the child and his parent's right of free movement was revoked.
The UK is effectively saying it will not transfer the care of the child to another EU nation's health service. I don't like the precedent.

EDIT
And to clarify, the citizenship was a stunt to show that the Italian government backed it and the decisions of it's own health service regarding care for the child.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The police presence was because protesters attempted to storm the hospital. Storm a frigging kids hospital.!!!

To save a child. Wrap your head around this one, if you will. A kids "hospital" in which the 'authorities' had decided to take measures which run 180-degree opposite the Hippocratic oath which states " I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm." That's not a hospital room, it's an effing execution chamber.

The oath would cover not giving incessant treatment with no hope of success or recovery to the detriment of the patient.

Regardless of our opinions, Italian doctors were prepared to offer an alternative option. Italy is an EU country, right to life, freedom of movement, a form of care which the Italian state recognised by giving citizenship to the child to facilitate it further.
But no, the courts made the decision, not the parents who had an EU country offering an alternative which would be legal there.
On that specific principle I can't accept the outcome, although caveat I would have let my child die after a year on life support with the condition the poor mite is in.

The Italian citizenship thing was just a stunt.

Doctors from Italy already examined him and agreed with the UK doctors about his prognosis.

Oh I know, but it was legal under EU law.
Please understand me that if he was my child I'd want his suffering to end long before, but on a point of principle I can't accept it because the health service of another EU nation was offering an alternative (legal) form of 'care' and the child and his parent's right of free movement was revoked.
The UK is effectively saying it will not transfer the care of the child to another EU nation's health service. I don't like the precedent.

If it was just a decision by the hospital then I would agree. However it has been through a fairly extensive legal process to determine what is best for the child.

a reply to: ScepticScot

What part of the parents having the final say don't you understand?
The system failed this family in one of the worst ways I can imagine.
When you can't even touch your sick child because the police will arrest you, you know your health system is a failure.

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
a reply to: ScepticScot

What part of the parents having the final say don't you understand?
The system failed this family in one of the worst ways I can imagine.
When you can't even touch your sick child because the police will arrest you, you know your health system is a failure.

The parents shouldn't have the final say for very good reasons.

They are not under threat of arrest for touching their child.

This has not to do with the health system. It's a legal decision.

0 for 3. Well done.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So long as another EU country is offering an alternative that is legal in that country then I cannot support the infringement of freedom of movement.
I thought you were a supporter of universal rights in the EU?
Maybe I mistook you for someone else so apologies in advance if I did.