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

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.

Disgusting. Inferring that the hospital room is an execution chamber....WHICH HAS TO BE STAFFED and thus all the staff are by implication "executioners". Disgusting you should be ashamed of yourself. But you are not are you, you are now thinking of some smart a.se defensive response.

ALFIE WILL DIE WITHOUT REACHING SCHOOL AGE IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY TREATMENT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD

So we now have two choices :
1. Prolong life at all costs irrespective of any consideration to the suffering of the child (he can't answer can he).
2. Allow the child to die , as he will, but apply palliative care so he dies peacefully and in as little discomfort as is possible.

Now if you believe, as you clearly do, that stuffing tubes down his throat and into whatever orifice is necessary until he dies is a dignified death then you really need a to see a fricking psychologist.

The courts believe prolonging his life this way is cruel. They are NOT killing him they are allowing nature to take its course. Medical science CANNOT PREVENT THE INEVITABLE.

What I find utterly repugnant is the bible thumpers. If you truly believe in God then Alfie has a place in heaven very soon otherwise God would give Alfie and/or the medical profession (somewhere in the world) the ability to save his life. NOBODY CAN.

You cannot take the opinion of the parents into this for the simple reason that they are in emotional hell.

originally posted by: ScepticScot


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

I struggle to understand this.

The parents are the only party to male that decision. To state otherwise is staggeringly statist.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

No...its accuratr. When he didnt die they tried to withhold food from him to help kill him.

I cannot fathom defending this.

A doctors first duty and priority is to his patient, and Alfie Evans is in a top

hospital.

A Centre of Excellence for cancer, as well as spinal, heart and brain conditions
A Department of Health Centre for Head and Face Surgery
A Centre of Excellence for Muscular Dystrophy and the first UK Centre of Excellence for Childhood Lupus
One of four national centres for childhood epilepsy surgery, a joint service with the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital
A designated Children’s Major Trauma Centre
We have Europe’s only intra-operative 3-T MRI scanner which is a pioneering technology for neurosurgery, reducing repeat operations in 90% of cases

www.nhs.uk...


The conflicting reports are coming from sources other than the hospital possibly

from people with their own agenda's?

The evidence is that he is unlikely to have pain, but that tragically everything that would allow him to have some appreciation of life, or even the mere touch of his mother, has been destroyed irrevocably.”

Little Alfie was taken off life support on Monday night and was breathing unaided. His dad later revealed he had to give Alfie mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to keep him breathing.


They told the court: “It was never suggested death would be instantaneous.

“The tragedy for the parents is that Alfie does look like a happy and healthy child.”

Doctors at the hospital, as well as independent experts, have insisted continuing treatment is not in Alfie's best interests.

Speaking to reporters outside Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool on Tuesday night, where Alfie is being treated, Mr Evans said his 23-month-old son had defied doctors’ expectations when he continued to live after life support was withdrawn.

Mr Evans revealed Alfie had at times needed to be helped with his breathing, adding: “At some point I had to give him mouth-to-mouth because his lips went blue and he was really fighting with his breathing so me and his mum were giving him mouth-to-mouth.”

^^^^conflicting much?^^^^

The judge also criticised the “malign hand” of one of the family’s advisers, law student Pavel Stroilov, who had, the court heard, been party to Mr Evans lodging a private prosecution of Alder Hey Hospital doctors, allegedly for murder.

Student??? says it all???

"As healthcare professionals involved in the care of babies, children and young people, the priority has to be the child.

www.express.co.uk...

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
But no, the courts made the decision, not the parents who had an EU country offering an alternative which would be legal there.

It's got sod all to do what is legal in Italy, or the fact that what is known as the "Pope's Children's Hospital" can do, or not. The fact is that transporting the child to Italy was an option discounted by the High Court judgement due to the potential for pain, plus the fact that all the Italian hospital could do is artificially prolong life, which went against the principle of dignity for the child.

Sadly, this whole affair has been taken over but religious nuts who thing prayer can save him and that God can restore dead brain tissue. Luckily, miracles play no part in modern medicine, or the process of the courts.

High Court judgement

a reply to: eletheia

Even if the wee mite needed 10 machines to keep him alive, so long as another EU country was prepared to provide EU legally sanctioned 'care' then, as we are still in the EU, his right to free movement should not have been infringed.
My opinion of course, and I don't like the precedent it sets.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot


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

I struggle to understand this.

The parents are the only party to male that decision. To state otherwise is staggeringly statist.

Absolutely not. Parents are often the worst people to make such decisions. The child has rights of his own which is why it goes through the legal system.

a reply to: paraphi

Sorry but I don't buy the transport would cause him pain argument, how so?
Moved from one bed and bank of machines to another. He's moved about enough every day when he has to be washed.
My argument is solely about a legal alternative in another EU state but not an option because freedom of movement was revoked.
The state effectively denied his parents an option which would be legal in another member state. That I cannot support while we are still members of the EU.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: paraphi

Sorry but I don't buy the transport would cause him pain argument, how so?
Moved from one bed and bank of machines to another. He's moved about enough every day when he has to be washed.
My argument is solely about a legal alternative in another EU state but not an option because freedom of movement was revoked.
The state effectively denied his parents an option which would be legal in another member state. That I cannot support while we are still members of the EU.

The court is making decisions on his behalf as he can't doesn't revoke any right at all.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Parents are childrens champions.

To the state they are just an administrative cost. This case proves this out.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

Parents are childrens champions.

To the state they are just an administrative cost. This case proves this out.

This case has nothing to do with cost (which wouldn't be the case in the US).

Parents don't always make the best decisions for their children. Many make truly terrible ones. That is why there is a legal system.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: yorkshirelad

No...its accuratr. When he didnt die they tried to withhold food from him to help kill him.

I cannot fathom defending this.

Is my loved one starving?

No, when a person who is seriously ill or dying does not eat, this is not starvation – it is usually a marker or sign that your loved one has entered the dying process. Starvation is what happens when a healthy person does not get enough food. When someone is very ill, the body naturally slows down and there is a gradual decrease in eating habits. Feelings of thirst and hunger gradually diminish. In many people, the stomach and intestines may not even be able to use the nutrition.


Some people are not able to swallow correctly due to illness. In this situation it is important to know that eating or drinking could cause food or fluid to fall into the lungs and this can cause pneumonia or problems breathing. However, if your loved one is alert and wants to eat or drink, the pleasure of eating and drinking may override these concerns. Discuss the situation with your physician. Tiny amounts of ice cream, ice chips, yogurt, Italian ices, and applesauce can usually be safely given - even to the sickest patient.


People who don’t receive food or fluids because of illness will eventually fall into a deep sleep and usually die in one to three weeks. This is the common last phase path for most dying people – whether the fatal disease is cancer or some other disease. The medical evidence is quite clear that this is a very natural and compassionate way to die.

www.cmda.org...


Hydration is more important than nutrition to a sick person.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, and denying alternative options legally available in an EU state by effectively saying "We won't hand over your care to Italy" is infringing on freedom of movement. I said previously I cannot support that on principle.

I also asked if you were a supporter of universal rights in the EU for citizens, you know, the right to obtain the same services in any member state? You may have missed it, but I always assumed you supported those 'pillars' of the EU.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, and denying alternative options legally available in an EU state by effectively saying "We won't hand over your care to Italy" is infringing on freedom of movement. I said previously I cannot support that on principle.

I also asked if you were a supporter of universal rights in the EU for citizens, you know, the right to obtain the same legal service in any member state? You may have missed it, but I always assumed you supported those 'pillars' of the EU.

I do but this doesn't breech them. His parents are free to travel as they wish. The decision is in regard what is best for the child.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Sorry but I don't buy the transport would cause him pain argument, how so?

The reasons are detailed in the High Court judgement, with opinion from real specialists and clinicians.

The state effectively denied his parents an option which would be legal in another member state. That I cannot support while we are still members of the EU.

Not really, the court (not the state) decided that on the balance of medical advice from a number of sources, the child's best interests were to be allowed to die with dignity, and in peace. Not to spend an unknown amount of time hooked up to machines keeping his heart ticking over before an infection, seizure or other complication dragged him into the death. That's not dignity.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, and denying alternative options legally available in an EU state by effectively saying "We won't hand over your care to Italy" is infringing on freedom of movement. I said previously I cannot support that on principle.

I also asked if you were a supporter of universal rights in the EU for citizens, you know, the right to obtain the same legal service in any member state? You may have missed it, but I always assumed you supported those 'pillars' of the EU.

I do but this doesn't breech them. His parents are free to travel as they wish. The decision is in regard what is best for the child.

What starve him to death?

Maybe in Italy they' give him nourishment and pain relief, maybe he'd have a better death there, the Italian state and doctors seem to think so.
Do you know that they are wrong?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, and denying alternative options legally available in an EU state by effectively saying "We won't hand over your care to Italy" is infringing on freedom of movement. I said previously I cannot support that on principle.

I also asked if you were a supporter of universal rights in the EU for citizens, you know, the right to obtain the same legal service in any member state? You may have missed it, but I always assumed you supported those 'pillars' of the EU.

I do but this doesn't breech them. His parents are free to travel as they wish. The decision is in regard what is best for the child.

What starve him to death?

Maybe in Italy they' give him nourishment and pain relief, maybe he'd have a better death there, the Italian state and doctors seem to think so.
Do you know that they are wrong?

I think the judges listening to actual medical advise from people actually involved in his care are better placed to make the decision than people on an Internet forum.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I was asking you about the Italian doctors supporting the transfer, not any opinion of mine.
Please don't snarkily deflect, I was enjoying an interesting discussion with you. Snide comments are not interesting discussion to me so if you wanna go down that road just say and I'll leave you to it.

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
a reply to: ScepticScot

What part of the parents having the final say don't you understand?

The parents don't actually always have the final say.

I work at another children's hospital and these cases, where the parents refuse to accept the reality of their child's condition, are actually extremely rare. Although I suspect social media campaigns and the like will make them more common, unfortunately.

What is much more common is that parents refuse to allow us to administer life saving care, due to religious reasons or whatever. Just like in this case the hospital has to go to court and get a court order to over rule the parents wishes - as the child has rights independent of the parents.

So if the hospital can carry out an operation that might save a child, but the parents refuse, would you still say that the parents always have the final say? I'm guessing not?

a reply to: FatherLukeDuke

No having doctors save the life of a child and fight to do that is acceptable.

Having doctors fight to ensure that no care outside of them can be given to ensure the child dies in the menner they see fit is disgusting and wrong.