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

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Grambler


A complex subject, one maybe too close to home for me.
There's merit to all arguments and probably no right or wrong.
At the end of the day its just plain tragic and incredibly sad that this has to get played out for public consumption.

Ok but that is why I feel its ok for me or any other to weigh in on hwat they think about this, and its not a measuring contest between two countries.

I understand any decsion here will be difficult.

I have repeatedly said that if the court had merely ruled that the NNHS would no longer provide service, I would understand that.

What I am troubled by is the court saying the additional step, that the family may also not get competent tretament outside the NHS at no cost to the NHS.

That to me is very bad.

That is not me saying the UK sucks, or that the US is better.

Heck I just spent a week getting called out by trump supporters for saying his strike on syria is just another example of US deep state nation building.

I have no idea.
Back in the day we sang about far more controversial and offensive things.

Yes this is exactly why I feel it is worthwhile to discuss the recent events.

You say we should listen to peoples lived experiences.

Ok I am willing to do that.

As I have said to otherss, yes, you can point to many times when you heard offensive things said and nobody batted an eye.

SSo why recently have people been being charged under these laws for things like posting rap lyrics in honor of a fallen friend?

Does this not worry you in the least bit as kit proves the laws can be applied arbitrarily?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ScepticScot

He can't eat

More idiocy.

You should think and read before you post.

Read up on him and his condition before you make anymore of an idiot of yourself.

His condition is that he is a baby.

You gotta feed them if you want them to live.

Unless life is not your goal.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Yes, and if he is capable of breathing independently then I disagree with starving the child to death. It should be his condition which kills him not slow euthanasia.

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke
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...

This was posted earlier by another member and best describes what's going on here with the case of Alfie and how people are using him to further their own agendas.

I think he will live and grow up.

I think he should be allowed to legally hunt down anyone that tried to kill him.

At the least the decisions concerning the matter need to be resolved by mature humans.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ScepticScot

He can't eat

More idiocy.

You should think and read before you post.

Read up on him and his condition before you make anymore of an idiot of yourself.

His condition is that he is a baby.

You gotta feed them if you want them to live.

Unless life is not your goal.

He is almost 2 and can't eat.

Like i said read up on it.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ScepticScot

He can't eat

More idiocy.

You should think and read before you post.

Read up on him and his condition before you make anymore of an idiot of yourself.

His condition is that he is a baby.

You gotta feed them if you want them to live.

Unless life is not your goal.

You really need to read up on Alfies case and understand the disease he is suffering from before posting anything else.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke
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...

This was posted earlier by another member and best describes what's going on here with the case of Alfie and how people are using him to further their own agendas.

people making threats etc. should be ashamed and I condemn them in the strongest possible way.

That does not change the question of rather or not it is morally permissible for the courts to decide a parent can not get competent treatment for their baby on their own.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ScepticScot

He can't eat

More idiocy.

You should think and read before you post.

Read up on him and his condition before you make anymore of an idiot of yourself.

His condition is that he is a baby.

You gotta feed them if you want them to live.

Unless life is not your goal.

He is almost 2 and can't eat.

Like i said read up on it.

But that is sort of ignoring the point.

People all of the time are given feeding tubes.

It seems to me that some are arguing "Well if he cant eat without the tube, then he shouldnt have the tube"

But that is clearly ridiculous.

He should be allowed to die of his condition, not of being intentionally withheld food and forcibly stopped from leaving other medical professionals from giving him food.

a reply to: Grambler

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.

It's the last piece that I feel is also important here.

originally posted by: Grambler
That does not change the question of rather or not it is morally permissible for the courts to decide a parent can not get competent treatment for their baby on their own.

Agreed, it is effectively a British court asserting that the NHS method of ending life is superior to another EU state's methods. And the child has Italian citizenship now so is effectively denying a child to receive care from an EU nation he is a national of.
If he IS capable of breathing then I don't believe he should be starved to death (euthanasia)

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ScepticScot

He can't eat

More idiocy.

You should think and read before you post.

Read up on him and his condition before you make anymore of an idiot of yourself.

His condition is that he is a baby.

You gotta feed them if you want them to live.

Unless life is not your goal.

He is almost 2 and can't eat.

Like i said read up on it.

But that is sort of ignoring the point.

People all of the time are given feeding tubes.

It seems to me that some are arguing "Well if he cant eat without the tube, then he shouldnt have the tube"

But that is clearly ridiculous.

He should be allowed to die of his condition, not of being intentionally withheld food and forcibly stopped from leaving other medical professionals from giving him food.

Read the posts I was replying to.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
The baby is brain dead and will not recover, it's tough but I think it's cruel keeping it alive.

And this story is whack, the UK government is currently supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia who are slaughtering those in Yemen, and Israel, who are evil murderous scum anyway.

Seriously, if you're going to get mad with the idiot authorities of this country, pick better reasons, and there are plenty

Doesn't it say semi-vegetative UNDIAGNOSED brain condition? Then the quoted text must be a lie if what you tell is the truth and the baby has been diagnosed brain dead.

originally posted by: Maxatoria
Alfies case has been taken to many courts and even the EU's court and the judges have always found the same way for the poor lad that its not worth the possible pain for him to carry on

The doctors will do everything they can but given its a new problem they're having to start at point zero and they themselves will work to the bone to keep him alive but when its the decision of if its worth the effort then its righly handed over to the judges for a 'neutral' viewpoint.

It should be said that the UK polices job is more to collect the information required as there is a middle service (The CPS - Crown Prosecution Service) who decide if its worth bringing to the court.

The guy who got nicked for using a laser jammer got more time than usual as he tried to dump the evidence but I'd bet in any situation flipping the bird to the local law enforcement aint going to end well and lying and trying to pervert the legal system aint going to end well for anyone.

Pain for him? Guys make up your mind? Brain dead or not brain dead, if he's brain dead he can't feel any pain, as he's clinically dead.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Sounds like another Terri Schiavo case, then?

No, that one took 7 years through the US Courts.

And wasn't Schiavo diagnosed brain dead? I'm hearing conflicting comments in this thread, courts deciding killing the baby to save it from pain, no it's pointless to keep it alive cause it's already dead. And the original thread starting post says undiagnosed brain condition.

As for brain damage, there are individuals with like 90% hollow brain cavity yet still functional members of society, iirc. Recovery is extremely unlikely but not impossible. Even an initial diagnosis of brain death can be made in error, and later correct with follow up tests, so even recovery from such a diagnosis is possible.

The kid here it is claimed has undiagnosed brain condition.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: Grambler

While you are comparing apples to oranges, A innocent termanilly ill baby and A grown man teaching his dog "nazi" traits

here is a link to findings which suggest that nearly 45000 per YEAR in the USA die because of no medical treatment due to the, if you cant pay you fooked attitude of US health care

Health study 45000 anually USA deaths

No one who requires medical care should be given zero options but these decisions in a country which offers free health care to ALL are taken in extreme circumstances

Thoughts and prayers with Alfie and his family

Liberals would call this a whataboutism.

But at least in the case of the U.S. we have the possibility to voice an opinion and enact change. Both elements of the right as well as left have in the past favored a better healthcare system, Trump too has favored one, iirc.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Funny how it happens so infrequently that its a problem in the US that we are all kinda standing and staring in shocked disgust right now.

This is exactly what happens when there's a mass shooting in America, and it makes headlines here in Great Britain. We are all in shocked disgust whilst people in the US are shouting "but my 2nd amendment" and we here in Britain don't understand how laws are more valuable than life.

They aren't.

Guns also save lives.

Or, if nothing else, could keep a 78 year old man from having to engage in hand to hand combat at 3am.

ETA: should also point out: the right of self defense is universal. We dont need a law for it...all animals are given a right to defend themselves.

Unless that 78 old is an active body builder, more like keep him from being beaten to a pulp and dying.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Subrosabelow

Yes this is exactly my point.

I dont have a problem with the doctors or hosipital saying they will no longer treat someone.

I dont even really have a big problem with the government or courts saying they will no longer pay for treatments that will have no effect.

But to then take the extra step and say the family may not get care on their own is astonishing!

And then to further enforce that by lining the room with police officers is even worse.

If the care is a potentially going to prolong any suffering then absolutely they should. Parents don't own their children and aren't always the best placed to make decisions, especially at times of high stress.

This went through multiple levels of courts who all agreed that there was no hope coming from further treatment.

There are people who would rather die than live a life of constant suffering. But there are others that would prefer a life of constant suffering over not living. From where do you derive your morality to say you know what's truly best?

Nope the government doesn't own the child but then it wasn't the governments decision.

Courts aren't part of the government

Courts are part of the government, and cannot rule against the law of the land, which is the domain of government.

I mean are you going to say those courts are self financed self regulating? Who appoints the judges, who finances the courts, whose laws must they obey? Is it not taxes and the government and its rules?

a reply to: Grambler

He should be allowed to die of his condition

I think what people don't get here is that his brain disease is very much like dementia, I have seen someone very close to me die from that disease, it's undignified, and if it was me I rather "go" before it got to that kind of severity.

originally posted by: Kurokage
it's undignified

How is dying of his condition while unconscious any more or less dignified by dying of starvation while unconscious.
I'd love to read your explanation of that.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ScepticScot

He can't eat

More idiocy.

You should think and read before you post.

Read up on him and his condition before you make anymore of an idiot of yourself.

His condition is that he is a baby.

You gotta feed them if you want them to live.

Unless life is not your goal.

You really need to read up on Alfies case and understand the disease he is suffering from before posting anything else.

I have been following this story for weeks.

Everyone supporting murder of this child needs to get real.

The baby responds to people with his eyes. The child's body is able to process food. Why give up on life just cause the government told you too.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

He should be allowed to die of his condition

I think what people don't get here is that his brain disease is very much like dementia, I have seen someone very close to me die from that disease, it's undignified, and if it was me I rather "go" before it got to that kind of severity.

Srry but your dementia is not helping the boy and it is getting in the way of your ability to post rationally.

It is undignified.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

He should be allowed to die of his condition

I think what people don't get here is that his brain disease is very much like dementia, I have seen someone very close to me die from that disease, it's undignified, and if it was me I rather "go" before it got to that kind of severity.

And I will ask for about the fifth time, please define to me what a dignified death is?

My grandmother had dementia yet chose to have end of life care, as did her husband.

SO to you, my grandparents made an undignified decision, and my grandmother met her death with shame?

I refuse to believe that.

A dignified death is subjective, why should the family of this child not get to get competent care for what they consider a dignified death.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
The baby responds to people with his eyes. The child's body is able to process food. Why give up on life just cause the government told you too.

And why deny a citizen of another EU nation to receive healthcare in that nation, and die of the condition, not euthanasia through starvation.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Kurokage
it's undignified

How is dying of his condition while unconscious any more or less dignified by dying of starvation while unconscious.
I'd love to read your explanation of that.

I have asked over and over what is meant by a dignified death.

I will tell you this, if aI someohow was strucl down will a terrible illness today, i dont really have a will that would describe what I want done (which I need to take care of.)

If my wife and the rest of my family such as my parents decdied to want to keep me on life support for a long time despite there being little chance of surviving, and the state told my family that they were not allowed to get this care for me, even if they paid for it out of pocket, to me, that would be as undignified as I could imagine.