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

originally posted by: sapien82
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 !

What if she did want to eat?

Would the hospital have stopped fedding her, and told her she may not go somehwere else on her onwn dime to get support?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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

The Court is composed of humans, humans can make mistakes, I believe the court made a mistake, its understandable they were told by experts that Alfie would not survive the removal of air, but he did.

The fact that he is offered care in Italy is perfectly relevant, because the court denied him access to that care, however the advice the court received turned out to be incorrect, so they have no reason any longer to maintain that decision and can let him make the journey to Italy.

a reply to: Grambler


Could you try for once not to misrepresent what people say?

If you care to actually read you will see that I was referring to people on here attacking Doctors and the NHS. Not people having opinions.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: sapien82
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 !

What if she did want to eat?

Would the hospital have stopped fedding her, and told her she may not go somehwere else on her onwn dime to get support?

No why would you think they would?

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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

The Court is composed of humans, humans can make mistakes, I believe the court made a mistake, its understandable they were told by experts that Alfie would not survive the removal of air, but he did.

The fact that he is offered care in Italy is perfectly relevant, because the court denied him access to that care, however the advice the court received turned out to be incorrect, so they have no reason any longer to maintain that decision and can let him make the journey to Italy.

The court can order he gets treatment or not here in the UK. The decision is based on what is best fir him, nothing to do with the location of treatment.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes people keep pointing to the judgement like that magically answers anything.

Lets see what it says.

Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

So even the doctors and judge feels it is unlikely alfie is experiencing pain.

So this put people defnding this court in a bind.

If he most likely isnt in pain, there is no reason to not let him travel to italy for treatement.

If he is in pain it is not the trip that they are saying would cause him pain, but merely the fact that he is alive. Therefore if the court is certain there is no possibility of anything helping alfie, and every moment he is alive he may be in pain, why would they not administer a quick death through morphine or other drugs?

Instead they have choses a position that based on their own judegment makes no sense; he can not travel because his mere life, although unlikely, may cauuse him pain. But we will force him to starve out and suffer that pain instead of ending it quickly.

And you cant see why a parent would be upset with that?

a reply to: ScepticScot


Because he thinks we have "Death Panels".

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


Could you try for once not to misrepresent what people say?

If you care to actually read you will see that I was referring to people on here attacking Doctors and the NHS. Not people having opinions.

Fine. Poeple attacked the NHS by saying what it happening thorugh it is disgusting. That is a vitriolic attack.

So under UK law, because this attack is offensive, they could be arrested.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes people keep pointing to the judgement like that magically answers anything.

Lets see what it says.

Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

So even the doctors and judge feels it is unlikely alfie is experiencing pain.

So this put people defnding this court in a bind.

If he most likely isnt in pain, there is no reason to not let him travel to italy for treatement.

If he is in pain it is not the trip that they are saying would cause him pain, but merely the fact that he is alive. Therefore if the court is certain there is no possibility of anything helping alfie, and every moment he is alive he may be in pain, why would they not administer a quick death through morphine or other drugs?

Instead they have choses a position that based on their own judegment makes no sense; he can not travel because his mere life, although unlikely, may cauuse him pain. But we will force him to starve out and suffer that pain instead of ending it quickly.

And you cant see why a parent would be upset with that?

Again you are completely missing the point. There is no reason for him to travel to Italy as there is no different treatment on offer.

The judgment was about if it was appropriate for him to continue to be artificially let alive, not about where that should happen.

a reply to: Grambler


Yes of course I can see why a parent would be upset.

You need some context and need to read the whole Judgment rather than quoting bits that suit you.

And no - it does not magically answer everything, I don't think anyone is suggesting that but reading it in full is a prerequisite to having any informed opinion on this sad case.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


Could you try for once not to misrepresent what people say?

If you care to actually read you will see that I was referring to people on here attacking Doctors and the NHS. Not people having opinions.

Fine. Poeple attacked the NHS by saying what it happening thorugh it is disgusting. That is a vitriolic attack.

So under UK law, because this attack is offensive, they could be arrested.

No, just no. FFS.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: sapien82
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 !

What if she did want to eat?

Would the hospital have stopped fedding her, and told her she may not go somehwere else on her onwn dime to get support?

No why would you think they would?

Oh you personally know that users grandma and their situation?

Well maybe because we have had UK users saying that those not in the UK no nothing about this, and then saying this happens all of the time.

The only reason you know about this at all is that it has made such big headlines due to the way it has all been protested etc. but as others have said, this happens regularly. Doctors in the UK have a duty of care to not provide "healthcare" that would be deemed experimental or unlikely to help or could possibly make things worse.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: sapien82
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 !

What if she did want to eat?

Would the hospital have stopped fedding her, and told her she may not go somehwere else on her onwn dime to get support?

No why would you think they would?

Oh you personally know that users grandma and their situation?

Well maybe because we have had UK users saying that those not in the UK no nothing about this, and then saying this happens all of the time.

The only reason you know about this at all is that it has made such big headlines due to the way it has all been protested etc. but as others have said, this happens regularly. Doctors in the UK have a duty of care to not provide "healthcare" that would be deemed experimental or unlikely to help or could possibly make things worse.

Which doesn't relate at all to what you were saying.

a reply to: oldcarpy


I don't doubt the doctors have feelings in this, but the people treating Alfie are more than likely not the ones making the decision on whether or not the family can move him.

Yea the decisions were challenged in court, but it never should have gotten to court, if the family wants to move him and either has the means or the recipient locations has the means to move him why should any hospital say no?

To show my beef with this unfeeling stance is not just with the UK.

Justina was being treated at Tufts Medical Center for mitochondrial disease when her parents brought her to Children’s Hospital with gastrointestinal problems in 2013. Doctors at Children’s concluded that she was a victim of medical child abuse as a result of her parents interfering with her care.A juvenile court judge, relying on the opinion of those doctors, removed Justina from her parents’ custody.

Justina Pelletier

Kid was a figure skater when the state "rescued" her now she is in a wheel chair, pretty much my worst nightmare, bankrupted her parents took them 16 months to regain custody of their kid.

Again though, if the state allows them to move the kid, it rapidly becomes a dead issue, there is no logical reason to prevent the move in my non-medical opinon.

originally posted by: eletheia

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 ??

we are all dying

but if he is off breathing/heart regulation and is living then no...he isn't dying

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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

The Court is composed of humans, humans can make mistakes, I believe the court made a mistake, its understandable they were told by experts that Alfie would not survive the removal of air, but he did.

The fact that he is offered care in Italy is perfectly relevant, because the court denied him access to that care, however the advice the court received turned out to be incorrect, so they have no reason any longer to maintain that decision and can let him make the journey to Italy.

The court can order he gets treatment or not here in the UK. The decision is based on what is best fir him, nothing to do with the location of treatment.

Yes and circumstances have changed, Alfie can breath on his own.

An outcome the court did not expect based on the information provided by the experts, is there any particular problem in accepting the offer from Italy?

oldcarpy

I'm reading the full judgment now that you posted was their any particluar points you wanted to raise that I should consider while reading it?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes people keep pointing to the judgement like that magically answers anything.

Lets see what it says.

Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

So even the doctors and judge feels it is unlikely alfie is experiencing pain.

So this put people defnding this court in a bind.

If he most likely isnt in pain, there is no reason to not let him travel to italy for treatement.

If he is in pain it is not the trip that they are saying would cause him pain, but merely the fact that he is alive. Therefore if the court is certain there is no possibility of anything helping alfie, and every moment he is alive he may be in pain, why would they not administer a quick death through morphine or other drugs?

Instead they have choses a position that based on their own judegment makes no sense; he can not travel because his mere life, although unlikely, may cauuse him pain. But we will force him to starve out and suffer that pain instead of ending it quickly.

And you cant see why a parent would be upset with that?

Again you are completely missing the point. There is no reason for him to travel to Italy as there is no different treatment on offer.

The judgment was about if it was appropriate for him to continue to be artificially let alive, not about where that should happen.

SO you completely ignore the point.

If the reason that he shouldnt bve allowed to travel to italy is that the extension of his life, although unlikely, could be painful, then why would the uk doctors force the extnsion of his life by not terminating it humanely immediatly?

Instead everyone wants to ignore that, claim I am misunderstanding something.

Its very simple.

The court esaid there is no chance for the child to have a meaningful life. The court also said there is a chance every moment the child lives is painful.

Yet they wont humanely terminate the child.

It makes no sense.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: oldcarpy


I don't doubt the doctors have feelings in this, but the people treating Alfie are more than likely not the ones making the decision on whether or not the family can move him.

Yea the decisions were challenged in court, but it never should have gotten to court, if the family wants to move him and either has the means or the recipient locations has the means to move him why should any hospital say no?

To show my beef with this unfeeling stance is not just with the UK.

Justina was being treated at Tufts Medical Center for mitochondrial disease when her parents brought her to Children’s Hospital with gastrointestinal problems in 2013. Doctors at Children’s concluded that she was a victim of medical child abuse as a result of her parents interfering with her care.A juvenile court judge, relying on the opinion of those doctors, removed Justina from her parents’ custody.

Justina Pelletier

Kid was a figure skater when the state "rescued" her now she is in a wheel chair, pretty much my worst nightmare, bankrupted her parents took them 16 months to regain custody of their kid.

Again though, if the state allows them to move the kid, it rapidly becomes a dead issue, there is no logical reason to prevent the move in my non-medical opinon.

Because parents don't have absolute rights over their children. The court makes a decision based on what it believes is best for the child, not the parent.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner

Well, we do have one of the absolute best health care systems in the world and it's free to boot.

Beat that!

as long as you aren't too sick...at which point you may be starved to death because some doctors believe its not worth feeding you anymore.

UK decisions on treatment made on medical grounds by doctors.

US decisions made on financial grounds by insurance companies.

Think we will stick to our system thanks.

Uhh...no.

US decisions made by parents, so that each child has a champion fighting for him/her.

Not true in the US either. Children have rights outside of parental control. It's staggeringly ill informed to believe otherwise.

The key difference: in the US the courts would only step in if the parents are refusing to have their child treated. Courts do not force parents to let their children die.

So if a parent was insisting on treatment that had no hope of success and would cause pain to the child that would be OK?

are you telling me that feeding a child is "painful treatment"?

Why are you being so ignorant?!?

He has been under care for months and months, with no signs of improvement. He is suffering. Doctors have decided that it is in the best interest of the child to allow him to die naturally and peacefully.

What has happened to Alfie is horrible. But noone has the "right" to not get a horrible degenerative brain disease. I can't understand the idea that the parents rights to (I don't know how better to put this) not let go of their child, outweighs the childs rights to not live in pain or complete confusion.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes people keep pointing to the judgement like that magically answers anything.

Lets see what it says.

Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

So even the doctors and judge feels it is unlikely alfie is experiencing pain.

So this put people defnding this court in a bind.

If he most likely isnt in pain, there is no reason to not let him travel to italy for treatement.

If he is in pain it is not the trip that they are saying would cause him pain, but merely the fact that he is alive. Therefore if the court is certain there is no possibility of anything helping alfie, and every moment he is alive he may be in pain, why would they not administer a quick death through morphine or other drugs?

Instead they have choses a position that based on their own judegment makes no sense; he can not travel because his mere life, although unlikely, may cauuse him pain. But we will force him to starve out and suffer that pain instead of ending it quickly.

And you cant see why a parent would be upset with that?

Again you are completely missing the point. There is no reason for him to travel to Italy as there is no different treatment on offer.

The judgment was about if it was appropriate for him to continue to be artificially let alive, not about where that should happen.

SO you completely ignore the point.

If the reason that he shouldnt bve allowed to travel to italy is that the extension of his life, although unlikely, could be painful, then why would the uk doctors force the extnsion of his life by not terminating it humanely immediatly?

Instead everyone wants to ignore that, claim I am misunderstanding something.

Its very simple.

The court esaid there is no chance for the child to have a meaningful life. The court also said there is a chance every moment the child lives is painful.

Yet they wont humanely terminate the child.

It makes no sense.

Euthanasia is illegal in the UK. The rights and wrongs of that are a separate subject.