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

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet

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

And yet.......from an interview with Tom Evans (Alfies father)yesterday

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.”

www.express.co.uk...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

So no one here has said some of the comments here directed at the NHS are vitriolic attacks? Oh thats right they have, and you no it.

There iis no law saying offensive speech can be charged in the UK? Thats wrong and you no it.

So no, I am not wrong at every level.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Bollocks with your home help, I'm talking about people severely mentally and physically disabled with zero quality of life in residential care settings.
Capable of breathing independently, unable to communicate with others, unable to move from bed to wheelchair without a hoist, unable to feed or wash themselves etc

Sounds pretty much the same to me, so why not starve them out as well following your logic?
Come on compare that and explain the difference without some cheap one liner.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


You appear determined to twist the truth to suit you and it has gotten past the stage of just being tedious. It is plain dishonest.

I am sorry to use the judgemet you find to be so important, directly quote from it, and make a point.

Where am I being dishonest?

You are being dishonest most of the time, quite frankly. That is when you are not just being plain ignorant about the facts and issues.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet

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

And yet.......from an interview with Tom Evans yesterday

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.”

Thanks for the info, can you please provide a link to source.

The latest info I have is from here

The court ruled he could be taken home but refused permision to go to Rome, based on the fact that their judgement stands, as nothing has changed from the initial judgement link except of course that Alfie is apparently for the most part breathing on his own.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


You appear determined to twist the truth to suit you and it has gotten past the stage of just being tedious. It is plain dishonest.

I am sorry to use the judgemet you find to be so important, directly quote from it, and make a point.

Where am I being dishonest?

You are being dishonest most of the time, quite frankly. That is when you are not just being plain ignorant about the facts and issues.

Usually when you accuse someone of being dishonest, you show exactly how thats the case, and dont just say its most of the time.

I unlike you, can give an example of you being inaccurate.

Like when you said CornishCeltGuys examples didnt apply because it was just his gran getting home health care.

You made that up.

But I suppose you will respond to that with another one of your thought proviking post that say "No you are dishonest and wrong on all accounts"

I have been hesitant to jump into the fray in this thread, but I wanted to introduce some anecdotal evidence. Take from it what you will.

My cousin was pregnant with her second child. During her prenatal visits it was discovered that her son was not properly developing. In fact, he only had half a brain. She was repeatedly told his quality of life would be horrible, he would be terribly disabled and would die within a year or so of being born. She was urged repeatedly to abort the child. This was something she could not and would not do.

When he was born, he looked as normal as every other newborn child. Breathing, crying, peeing and pooping just like every other newborn. As he grew older, he continued to develop normally. The doctors weren't wrong about his brain. X-rays proved that he only had half a brain, but the brain is an incredibly flexible organ.

This young boy is now 13 years old. If you weren't told about his condition, you would never know that there was the slightest thing wrong. In fact, truth be told, there is nothing wrong with him at all. He is an normal, active young boy. No disabilities at all. In fact he is one of the smartest kids in his class.

Sometimes, even the best medical advice available, can be wrong. We expect doctors to know everything possible about the human body, but they don't. I'm not saying doctors aren't good at what they do. I'm not saying you shouldn't see your doctor or take their advice.

What I am saying is that doctors are human. They make mistakes. They can be wrong. They cannot see the future. They make decisions based on the evidence and past experience, like we all do. And sometimes, things go bad and sometimes things go better than expected.

I'm not saying that Alfie is going to recover. But who are we to cut off all possibility of hope? Who are we to deny him the chance to seek another opinion? In the end, are we so convinced we "know" what is best, or are we just basing our decision on the evidence and past experience we've accumulated, just like my cousin's doctors did? They were wrong then. Who are we to deny to possibility that Alfie's doctors could be wrong now?

a reply to: Grambler

That was ScepticScot with the cheap line making out I was referring to simple home help, when in fact I was describing people with complex mental and physical care needs who will die without being fed.

If the child in this case can actually breathe independently then I see no difference.

Excellent article from a Dr Rachel Clarke, a palliative care Dr:

Of all the comments from all the opportunists seeking to make political capital from a dying child, the most asinine, surely, comes from former US congressman Joe Walsh. The talk radio provocateur took to Twitter this week to ask: “Why does an American need an AR-15?” His answer: “To make sure what’s happening to #AlfieEvans never happens here. That’s why.” As an NHS palliative care doctor, I assume Walsh is advocating semi-automatic assault rifles to protect against people like me. As a mother, I can scarcely comprehend someone using a child’s plight to make a case for the weapons used in many of America’s bloodiest school shootings.

Liverpool toddler Alfie Evans has spent most of his desperately short life reliant on mechanical ventilation in a neonatal intensive care unit. Born apparently healthy, he has never toddled and never will. A progressive neurodegenerative disorder has so corroded his brain that, in the words of high court judge, Mr Justice Hayden, a recent MRI scan shows “a brain that had been almost entirely wiped out”, leaving Alfie in a semi-vegetative state. The family division of the high court has rejected multiple legal challenges from Alfie’s parents, Tom Evans and Kate James, to prevent Alder Hey children’s hospital withdrawing Alfie’s treatment and to fly him to Bambino Gesù, a paediatric hospital in the Vatican. Accordingly, against parental wishes, Alfie has now been detached from his ventilator, with palliative care plans in place to ensure his comfort.

Rarely do doctors’ and parents’ wishes misalign so catastrophically that the courts are required to resolve what form of medical management is in a child’s best interests. Usually – even amid all the anguish and heartbreak of paediatric terminal illness – both clinicians and family come to recognise, however reluctantly, the point at which valiant efforts at saving life have instead become the prolongation of dying.

Yet giving up hope can be unbearably painful. I shall never forget a paediatric oncology colleague describing, blinded by his tears, how the mother of one of his young patients had thrown herself from the hospital roof, unable to endure the knowledge that her child’s cancer was terminal. I have held fathers as they collapse in my arms, seen a mother biting her own arm in her grief, and wondered, over and over, at the vastness of the pain this world can inflict on its youngest, most undeserving and innocent. Indeed, Mr Justice Hayden described this week “a father whose grief is unbounded and whose sadness, as I have witnessed in this court, has an almost primal quality to it.”

The sheer rawness of anticipatory grief can obliterate reason. What helps, I have learned, in palliative medicine, is time, space, calm and quiet. Yet Alfie Evans’s parents have been surrounded this week, at Alder Hey, by a mob of supporters who attempted to storm the entrance of the hospital, terrifying other young patients and their parents. A wider army of armchair vigilantes have stoked the vitriol – and their own agendas – from the comfort of their sofas.

Alfie’s doctors, already subjected to death threats, have been described online as pursuing “a court-ordered execution”. Even the pope has weighed in, while former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee, has commented that “Brits have decided some kids just aren’t worth that much and are disposable.”

And from former presidential potential nominee Ted Cruz, there was this. “It is a grim reminder that systems of socialized medicine like the National Health Service (NHS) vest the state with power over human lives, transforming citizens into subjects.”

In fact – to my enormous pride – the NHS has kept Alfie alive for nearly two years, at no cost to his family, and without any judgments concerning the value of his life. But intensive care is only ever a temporary support for failing organs while a reversible pathology is treated. In Alfie’s case, multiple doctors from multiple countries have all agreed that his illness is irreversible, progressive and terminal. Withdrawal of care is therefore neither killing nor murder, but enables him to die with comfort and dignity.

To witness powerful media, political and religious voices deploying grossly inflammatory and misleading rhetoric at the expense of a child is grotesque. Misuse of words is the antithesis of everything we strive, as doctors, to do for our patients. Clear, empathic communication can heal, build trust, assuage fears, instil hope – and help a patient and their family come to terms with the unavoidable. Capitalising on a family’s grief is none of the above: it is simply – and inexcusably – exploitative. May Alfie Evans rest in peace.

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Grambler

That was ScepticScot with the cheap line making out I was referring to simple home help, when in fact I was describing people with complex mental and physical care needs who will die without being fed.

If the child in this case can actually breathe independently then I see no difference.

I know.

I am tired of posting posts and him saying "You are juts dishonest" or "wrong on all accounts" and giving no reason why.

I was merely pointing out that if you are going to call someone dishonest, you should provide evidnce of such, and I showed him exactly how to do that by pointing out where he is being dishonest.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


You appear determined to twist the truth to suit you and it has gotten past the stage of just being tedious. It is plain dishonest.

I am sorry to use the judgemet you find to be so important, directly quote from it, and make a point.

Where am I being dishonest?

You are being dishonest most of the time, quite frankly. That is when you are not just being plain ignorant about the facts and issues.

Usually when you accuse someone of being dishonest, you show exactly how thats the case, and dont just say its most of the time.

I unlike you, can give an example of you being inaccurate.

Like when you said CornishCeltGuys examples didnt apply because it was just his gran getting home health care.

You made that up.

But I suppose you will respond to that with another one of your thought proviking post that say "No you are dishonest and wrong on all accounts"

No, I will respond by pointing out that it was not even me that said that, it was actually another poster.

So, wrong on all accounts, again!

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


You appear determined to twist the truth to suit you and it has gotten past the stage of just being tedious. It is plain dishonest.

I am sorry to use the judgemet you find to be so important, directly quote from it, and make a point.

Where am I being dishonest?

You are being dishonest most of the time, quite frankly. That is when you are not just being plain ignorant about the facts and issues.

Usually when you accuse someone of being dishonest, you show exactly how thats the case, and dont just say its most of the time.

I unlike you, can give an example of you being inaccurate.

Like when you said CornishCeltGuys examples didnt apply because it was just his gran getting home health care.

You made that up.

But I suppose you will respond to that with another one of your thought proviking post that say "No you are dishonest and wrong on all accounts"

No, I will respond by pointing out that it was not even me that said that, it was actually another poster.

So, wrong on all accounts, again!

Ah yes, I apologize it was a different user.

Still, you claim I am dishonest, and provide no evidence.

Its quite clear tyou have none, and so you seek to make general claims such as I am always wrong or am dishonest.

a reply to: Grambler

I am mostly in agreement with you fella, the doctors were wrong about the little guy dying within hours after ventilation was removed, what else were they wrong about?

But no, let's starve him to death instead of letting the Italian health service take responsibility and let him die as a result of the actual condition.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

Courts deciding to let a child die is the greatest tyranny that I can possibly imagine. It is beyond comprehension that anyone would defend that.

Seriously.

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

This Childs brain is dead, its basically mush.

If your dog was in a horrible accident and could no longer walk or feed itself, you would say the most humane thing to do is take the poor animal to the vet and have it put down. It astounds me that as human being when it comes to death we seem to treat our pets more humanly at times than each other.

Nobody wants this child to die.

The problem is that all of the medical professionals looking after him have all agreed that he sadly has a condition that he cannot possibly survive and as such his premature death is sadly inevitable. The cruelest thing you could do to such a child in my view is to subject him to a slow death just because you can and sit and watch his parents suffer. This family have to do the hardest thing and watch their child die and then mourn that loss. It so sad that some like yourself and many others have such a warped view of how healthcare works that you want to draw out their ordeal so you can appear to be taking the moral high ground and be "right" once again.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

So no one here has said some of the comments here directed at the NHS are vitriolic attacks? Oh thats right they have, and you no it.

There iis no law saying offensive speech can be charged in the UK? Thats wrong and you no it.

So no, I am not wrong at every level.

No actually there isn't a law in the UK saying you can be charged just for being offensive.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?

Yes I do dispute that. Thanks for asking.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Perhaps you are right on leaving him die be the most humane thing to do. I would argue that possibly a humane euthanization may be even more preferable.

but the issue is that state should not be allowed to tell the family they can not get competent treatment elsewhere at no expense to the NHS.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?

Quite obviously you have never sat in crowd at a old firm game....

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Bollocks with your home help, I'm talking about people severely mentally and physically disabled with zero quality of life in residential care settings.
Capable of breathing independently, unable to communicate with others, unable to move from bed to wheelchair without a hoist, unable to feed or wash themselves etc

Sounds pretty much the same to me, so why not starve them out as well following your logic?
Come on compare that and explain the difference without some cheap one liner.

Merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your slippy slope argument.

There is a very clear legal process for how such decisions are arrived at.