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

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

The ability to breathe is basically the last function that will go in a person.

I have seen people who are dead appear to be breathing its Called agonal breathing and it happens.

The point I am making is that just because he can breath does not mean he is good to head of to Rome.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Right.

Because the only 2 options out there are licking the states boots, or out and out anarchy.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No it is not.

"Agonal Breathing" is similar to "cheyne stokes breathing" and represents the abnormal breathing patterns of someone actively dying.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No it is not.

"Agonal Breathing" is also known as "cheyne stokes breathing" and represents the abnormal breathing patterns of someone actively dying.

Yeah and I was saying that I have seen someone been pronounced dead as in stop CPR guys who has still been making agonal gasps despite no cardiac output

My point was that its such a basic function to say he is still breathing so should go to Rome is a bit of a stretch.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

The ability to breathe is basically the last function that will go in a person.

I have seen people who are dead appear to be breathing its Called agonal breathing and it happens.

The point I am making is that just because he can breath does not mean he is good to head of to Rome.

Did you miss my point, one of the key reasons in the judgment from the court to refuse permision to take Alfie to Rome was the medical experts assesment that he would not survive the removal of air.

However Alfie started breathing on his own. The family went back to court yesterday and the Judge upheld the orginal ruling saying Alfie could not travel to Rome, stating that nothing had changed since the orginal ruling, but this is simply not the case.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

Right.

Because the only 2 options out there are licking the states boots, or out and out anarchy.

No there is a huge middle ground. You were the one throwing around the term statist.

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

Yes and all am saying is that just because he is still breathing doesn't really mean much

This is basically a argument about where he dies, either in the UK or in Italy either way he is going to die.

Now sure if this keeps up its only right that they reassess things or if there are any changes but as it stand right now the doctors have made a decision.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No, you made out that anything other than statist is 'mad max world' which is why BFFT corrected you.
You are quite ̶d̶i̶s̶h̶o̶n̶e̶s̶t̶ slippery in some of your arguments.
EDIT

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Maybe you prefer a mad max style thunderdome to resolve issues?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

Yes and all am saying is that just because he is still breathing doesn't really mean much

This is basically a argument about where he dies, either in the UK or in Italy either way he is going to die.

Now sure if this keeps up its only right that they reassess things or if there are any changes but as it stand right now the doctors have made a decision.

If it keeps up, I feel that this will be very bad for the court.

If a miracle should happen, and the child live, then this shows that the court was absolutely wrong, and was sentencing the child to death.

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

Here is an article about what the Doctors said about Alfie coming off ventilation. as you will see, there were some differences of opinion but some said he could go on breathing for hours or even days:

What The Doctors Actually Said About Alfie

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

No, you made out that anything other than statist is 'mad max world' which is why BFFT corrected you.
You are quite ̶d̶i̶s̶h̶o̶n̶e̶s̶t̶ slippery in some of your arguments.
EDIT

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Maybe you prefer a mad max style thunderdome to resolve issues?

Nope was showing the ridiculousness of his assertion that my view was statist. Unless you want to expand the use of statist to cover about 99% of the population including your good self.

a reply to: Grambler


The point is it would indeed take nothing short of "a miracle".

I think you may have a bit of Confirmation Bias going on in your head.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


The point is it would indeed take nothing short of "a miracle".

I think you may have a bit of Confirmation Bias going on in your head.

How so?

I dont believe a miracle will happen, I have never once argued this from a religious angle.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Oh and I notice that you quickly dropped you argument that your 2006 article clearly defined what "gorssly offensive" is.

Tell me again why that article applies when a gril was just charged for posting rap lyrics in honor of her fallen friend?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

Here is an article about what the Doctors said about Alfie coming off ventilation. as you will see, there were some differences of opinion but some said he could go on breathing for hours or even days:

What The Doctors Actually Said About Alfie

The medical evidence the Court considered is in its judgement, it is the judgement that will not allow Alfie to be taken to Rome. Here is the excerpt from said judgement:

30. I also consider it necessary to set out the full gamut of the challenges that Alfie faces which are properly chronicled in Dr R’s report, the vast majority of which are not challenged by the parents:

Alfie has no gag reflex and is unable to swallow or manage his oral secretion effectively. Alfie is one hundred per cent dependent on ventilator support. Attempts at weaning ventilation with a view to extubation (taking the endotracheal tube out) have failed on a number of occasions. From a cardiovascular perspective, apart from intermittent episodes of bradycardia (low heart rate) which are self-resolving, Alfie’s cardiovascular observations remain stable with normal central and peripheral perfusion and blood pressure.

The emphasis is my own.

a reply to: Grambler


You were the one that mentioned a miracle. And, indeed, let's not bring religion into this!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

Yes grossly offensive not just offensive.

Hahahahahaha!!!!!

This takes the case.

Ok so define for me the differnce between grossly offensive and just offensive.

Who gets to make this judgement?

He's right, as many others have pointed out. Grossly offensive is content that is deliberately designed to cause serious alarm, distress, trauma, thingsa like death threats, terror threats, encouraging suicide for extended periods, stalking, harrasment etc. What constitutes grossly offensive is very narrow, judges decide based on precedent. The onus is on the prosecution to show serious harm was caused intentionally by the defendant.

originally posted by: Grambler
If a miracle should happen, and the child live, then this shows that the court was absolutely wrong, and was sentencing the child to death.

Yep, with all those American Christians and Papists taking time out from shouting at the police to pray, I am sure a miracle will happen, the child will regrow his brain, regain his faculties and live a long life. Alder Hey will become the new Lourdes.

I really hope for a miracle, but somehow doubt it'll be happening this year.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


You were the one that mentioned a miracle. And, indeed, let's not bring religion into this!

I dp not mean miracle in the sense of divine intervention.

I mean that the small chance that alfie could survive.

If that occurs, it would be a realy bad look for the court that said that death was so certain that the family shouldnt be allowed to take the child elsewhere for care at no expense to the NHS.

a reply to: ScepticScot

As a UK citizen I'd certainly say statist is a fair descriptive term for our country's political situation.
Heck it certainly applies to the case of the child in this discussion. Another EU regulated health care system is prepared to offer him care, ie Italian doctors disagree with UK doctors about starving him to death, yet the state is refusing to allow freedom of movement for the child to receive this alternative.

At least in Italy he will receive nourishment and die from the condition, not euthanasia. I stand by this if the child is capable of breathing without a ventilator, and it seems to be the case that he is.
So what if he dies in the air ambulance, the poor little mite won't know anyway. My point is similar in principle to BFFT's, there is another EU state willing to offer an alternative but the UK state disagrees, who are you to say the Italian doctors are wrong but UK judges are right, ethically or otherwise?