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

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

What the doctors said is that Alfie is no longer worth their efforts. Plain and simple.

What would be least effort would be just to leave him hooked up to a machine until the inevitable seizure takes the poor child. There is literally no treatment available, so that is all they could do.

Instead they have made the moral decision to put the baby on a palliative care program, and to stand by this decision as they believe it is the best course of action for the child.

This path is far more effort, will cost more and create far more stress than if they had just folded at the first challenge.

And that is disgusting.

I'm finding your posts pretty disgusting. Maybe you could pull your head out of your arse and realise that:

a) You are not morally superior to the Drs and nurses caring for this child. These are people who have dedicated the lives to saving children and work in unbelievably stressful jobs. You're just some keyboard warrior pontificating from thousands of miles away without even a basic grasp of the facts.

b) Just because someone doesn't share your exact philosophy doesn't make them wrong or "disgusting". Texas isn't the world you know, no matter how much you think it should be.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Did I mention you personally?

well...you were responding to me.

We you did claim, in just previous page, that doctors just couldn't be bothered treating him.

Not sure if that was an attack or just an outright lie.

Feel free to clarify.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Did I mention you personally?

well...you were responding to me.

We you did claim, in just previous page, that doctors just couldn't be bothered treating him.

Not sure if that was an attack or just an outright lie.

Feel free to clarify.

To me, "attack" would indicate weaponry. Im not even being uncivil. So ill let you do the math.

Now...i DO have an opinion. If that is an attack, i'd recommend finding ways to reinforce constitution so that your doctors don't faint when someone has a bad opinion of their actions.

a reply to: FatherLukeDuke

i apologize that my opinionn causes you so much grief. But i cannot help you because of it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

The facts i know seem to be something along these lines: parents have found alternative treatment at an approved EU hospital,

He has not been offered treatment. He has been offered palative care which

he is already getting in the UK hospital.

To me (and many) the solution seems simple: let the parents take their son to Italy, instead of trying to starve him to death. It seems like at this point its more about being right, than about Alfie.

I'll repeat this from one of my previous posts... just in case you missed it the first time.

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.

If it were me, "violence" wouldn't not be a suitable word to describe my behavior. I will die fighting for my children.

Violence is a reaction, which may make you feel better but rarely solves problems.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I suppose Americans do tend to associate quite a few things with "weaponry". The word "attack" does cover non gun related behaviour as well, you know.

The level of whataboutism in this thread has been a real eye opener.

Firstly let me make it clear I am British and I live in England, so if anyone decides to respond to me about the state of US medical care in comparison to the NHS, don't expect a response.

From my perspective:

As far as Alfie Evans and his parents, when the court ruled to accept the medical experts opinion and remove life support (Air, food and liquids) that was tragic but understandable.

However when Alfie is offered care and treatment (no matter how small a chance, if any, of success) in Italy and at no expense to the NHS or any other part of the state.

The Judicial response to deny this, becomes an expression of tyranny, while claiming a supposed moral high ground, of it being in Alfie best interests. The judge had already chosen to let Alfie die and at this point is now only maintaining the authority of their judgement, because quite clearly a chance of life in Italy no matter how slim is better than death, so quite clearly it is in the best interests of Alfie and his family.

The state in this case is selfishly maintaining its authority, it should have been generous in spirit and accepted the offer, those involved the Judge etc have shown their callousness in abundance, for a callow expression of power, which was totally unnecessary.

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet


But there is no "treatment" in Italy and no chance for this poor child.

I see some of our more "enlightened" brethren across the pond are resorting to passive aggressive attacks, fine whatever.

But what you have to realize in our opinion this was handled badly by your nationalized health care from pretty much the word go.

The kid is effectively brain dead I get it so does everyone else, the parents feel they cannot stay where they are and if all Italy was offering was a place to care for the child while the parents come to grips with the fact its a lost cause.

While in the UK they have been told, you cannot get a second opinion (which would require transport), you cannot touch your child, you cannot feed your child, I imagine the family feels under attack by the very people that are supposed to give them aid and comfort in a difficult time.

By standing firm that they cannot move him to a place where the family could possibly find some peace they are reinforcing the look (from an outsiders opinion) of a cold hearted unfeeling red tape boondoggle that cares more about the bottom line than the patients or the family.

A year ago when a hospital in America was willing to take him in, if they had said yes this would be a non-issue... if when the Vatican said our hospital will take him in and they allowed it, it would be a dead issue.

It is the unfeeling appearance of the "system" and how their decisions cannot be challenged,that horrifies so many people watching this drama.

Least thats how it looks to me.

(I still say an OD of morphine would be much more humane than waiting for the body to shut down)

a reply to: eletheia

People who are actively dying, yes. What you say is true.

People who aren't actually dying, its not true.

I worked in medical for a number of years, and took care of plenty of folks who were vegetative and were fed using PEG tubes.

a reply to: oldcarpy

There is definitely no "treatment" for Alfie here in the UK, there is also a refusal of the supply of air, liquid and food here which at the very least he will be offered in Italy.

The court had decided to allow nature to take its course and offer no ongoing aid to maintain Alfie life, so why does the court care if he dies in the UK or in Italy or in between. Other than as maintenance of its authority ?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I never had the chance to edit that before posting

I was referring to the USA , I had intentions of editing my post to " the USA values life HA , could have fooled me"
but my boss came over and landed me with a show and tell for another department!

not you and your lovely wife nooooooooooooooooo!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

here in the UK , maybe 2 years ago , my Gran was in hospital and they stopped feeding her !
because she was ready to go! she didnt want to eat anyway !

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet


Have you read the Judgment?

a reply to: Irishhaf


"It is the unfeeling appearance of the "system" and how their decisions cannot be challenged,that horrifies so many people watching this drama."

The system and certainly the Doctors are not unfeeling.

The decisions can and have been challenged, through the Courts, quite extensively.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: eletheia
People who are actively dying, yes. What you say is true.
People who aren't actually dying, its not true.

I worked in medical for a number of years, and took care of plenty of folks who were vegetative and were fed using PEG tubes.

So let me understand this you .... In your medical opinion, and without even seeing

Alfie Evans, and against multiple qualified and very experienced doctors you don't

believe Alfie Evans who has been in a coma for over a year and suffering seizures is

in fact dying ??

a reply to: oldcarpy

If you are refering to this Court Judgement then yes I have

However Alfie has already shown he can breath on his own. Food and drink were taken away, and the family had to go back to court to gain access to water, I am not upto date on if they managed to get him access to food.

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet
a reply to: oldcarpy

There is definitely no "treatment" for Alfie here in the UK, there is also a refusal of the supply of air, liquid and food here which at the very least he will be offered in Italy.

The court had decided to allow nature to take its course and offer no ongoing aid to maintain Alfie life, so why does the court care if he dies in the UK or in Italy or in between. Other than as maintenance of its authority ?

The court ruled based on what was best for him.

The fact that the same care is available overseas is completely irrelevant

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Did I mention you personally?

well...you were responding to me.

We you did claim, in just previous page, that doctors just couldn't be bothered treating him.

Not sure if that was an attack or just an outright lie.

Feel free to clarify.

To me, "attack" would indicate weaponry. Im not even being uncivil. So ill let you do the math.

Now...i DO have an opinion. If that is an attack, i'd recommend finding ways to reinforce constitution so that your doctors don't faint when someone has a bad opinion of their actions.

The irony is all of these claims of you and others using vitriol and "attacking" people for just having an opinion.

Well good thing you dont live in the UK, because perhaps youy could be reported for these vicious attacks and arrested.

And I am sure people would cheer for that; if you disagree with the UK state or questiopn it you are attacking people and should be held accountable to the laws that say you must not attack people.

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

This is the Judgment setting out the medical evidence in more detail - the one you posted is the briefer Court of Appeal judgment.

Judgment