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

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


The courts wouldn't care about uproar, look at what is happening now. I imagine all they care about is what is best for Alfie (I'm not a judge), I imagine no one knows for sure if he is in pain, and prolonging his life in Italy "could" do more bad than good.

Now wait, we have already admitted the court has more than just alfies interest to take into account.

That is not saying they are evil or dont care about alfie, it justs shows that they have more things to take into consideration (such as laws, potential financial costs, how alfies care could take away from other care, etc.)

we are now discussing probabilities, which becomes very nuanced and difficult

The court looks at the chance of alfie ever being cured or even partially cured and says there is almost no chance.

Lets just say 1% (I would hope they feel its even lower though)

Now what is the chance alfie is feeling pain. The court says a very low probability.

Still, I assume they mean that probability is higher than the chance of alfie being cured, so lets say %25 (again these numbers are by no means accurate they just help me and hopefully others think through probabilities).

At what percentage percentage must these two numbers be that justifies not allowing him to go to italy because the chance is so low of a cure, but the chance of pain is high enough to not warrant it; and yet simultaneously saying the probability of pain is so low that it doesnt justify ending the pain immediately?

I can think of no situation where that would be the case.

To me, the only ethical reason to not allow alfie to seek treatment in Italy would be that there is a very high likelihood that he is in pain.

But that would also mean the ethical thing to do would be to end his pain immediately in as humane a way as possible.

But the courts didnt rule that way. They are willing to say that although it is a small chance,. alfie must remain in pain because the court has other considerations.

That would infuriate me as a parent.

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


Alfie is having trouble breathing. Breathing is autonomic, and in death this one of the last things to go,and from what his parents are saying he has gone blue a few times and they've had to help him.

I have heard this said, but only in this thread, do you have a source, I havent found one. (emphais mine)

Plenty of links if you search.

ALFIE Evans’s parents have claimed they are giving the baby “mouth to mouth resuscitation” as the pair desperately attempt to get their son to Italy for treatment, it has emerged.

www.express.co.uk...

a reply to: alldaylong


Thanks for suppling that link, I hate going through tabloid articles at the best of times and was building up courage to go over them!!

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Grambler

A problem in this thread discussion is that some UK members have absolute faith in 'the courts' decision. I don't blindly submit to any court's decision, be it the criminal court or the family court. Judges are fallible.

And the no euthanasia is bizarre when IF the child is still breathing independently it is equally euthanasia by witholding food or water with the intention that he dies.

Again I think people are assuming that I am implying evil intent or something on the courts; I am not.

No matter how noble of just a court system or state system or any system is, they will never have that as their only priority.

We must default to an individuals (or if incapcitated their famiulies) decsision on paying for health care to prolong life.

Now people are saying I am making this argument about cost; which its so much more than that.

The state or doctor should have the right to basically say I will no longer have part in giving treatment I think is irrelevant. But they should not have the right to tell someone in addition to that, they will not allow that perosn to recieve competent care elsewhere.

That is bad on its face, and has the potential to become so much worse.

a reply to: alldaylong

Thanks for the link

a reply to: Grambler

The choice of euthanasia through starvation by the courts is inhumane and unethical in my mind.
I also disagree with denying freedom of movement for a child to receive EU standard care in another EU country, where they have citizenship.
In essence, the court is saying that the standards of care in Italy's health service are inferior and subordinate to their decision.

a reply to: Grambler
Agreed. EU standard care is being offered to a citizen of that country, yet the court deny the child's right to freedom of movement in the EU.
I absolutely disagree on principle.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

So if anyone disagrees with you that the parenst should be allowed to pay for tretament of this kid

You seem to know absolutely nothing about the UK in terms of real life other than what you read in right wing newspaper articles.
The parents could never afford to pay for Alfie's care.

IT doesn't matter. If other pro life individuals are willing to give them money or care, they have the resources at their disposal to give their child care.

a reply to: Grambler

That is not saying they are evil or dont care about alfie, it justs shows that they have more things to take into consideration (such as laws, potential financial costs, how alfies care could take away from other care, etc.)

Again I'm not a judge but I imagine that all the judges are concerned about is Alfies life and how it pertains to the law.

That would infuriate me as a parent.

Any parent or decent human being in this situation would be pulling their hair out! Thankfully thats why cases like this are very few and far between.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Xenogears

I support suicide if someone is living in severe pain. My mates mother killed herself last year peacefully with drugs, she was in chronic pain and only getting worse. Her family supported her, as did I.

All my loved ones know if I'm ever in such a position or need to have my ass wiped by someone else I want them to score me enough heroin so I can do it myself while I still can. All have agreed.

I agree with this as well.

This dovetails with what I was saying about people saying some deaths are more "dignified" than others.

Still not one person making that claims has answered me what the criteria is for that.

I respect your decision to want to end your life if it becomes so painful or you are basically helpless with no chance of recovery.

But I would never in a million years claim that some person in the same situation that decided they wanted to hold on as long as possible is somehow less dignified than you.

That is what disturbs me about the courts decsion saying that alfie cant go to italy and one of the reasons he would die a more dignified death staying where he is.

That is subjective BS.

They have no right to tell a family they cant seek their own competent care because a judge has used his own subjective definition of what is dignified or not and determined it is more important than the parents definition.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

So if anyone disagrees with you that the parenst should be allowed to pay for tretament of this kid

You seem to know absolutely nothing about the UK in terms of real life other than what you read in right wing newspaper articles.
The parents could never afford to pay for Alfie's care.

IT doesn't matter. If other pro life individuals are willing to give them money or care, they have the resources at their disposal to give their child care.

It doesn't matter here in the UK, his care is free no matter what his circumstances or his familys. That was my point.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

That is not saying they are evil or dont care about alfie, it justs shows that they have more things to take into consideration (such as laws, potential financial costs, how alfies care could take away from other care, etc.)

Again I'm not a judge but I imagine that all the judges are concerned about is Alfies life and how it pertains to the law.

That would infuriate me as a parent.

Any parent or decent human being in this situation would be pulling their hair out! Thankfully thats why cases like this are very few and far between.

Again your own statement prves the coyurt is focused on more than just alfies well being. The otherr consideration you cite is "the law" and although I argue there are more, even that is another consideration.

Let me give you an example.

If my mother is passing away, and in extreme pain, my only consideration is her. I would pribably decide to give her a dose of something to let her pass as peacefully and painlessly as possible.

However, a judge could never make that decision, because it would be against the law.

That is why I would prefer I make the decision rather than the judge, because all I care about is what is best for my mom, but the judge has other considerations.

originally posted by: Grambler
That is what disturbs me about the courts decsion saying that alfie cant go to italy and one of the reasons he would die a more dignified death staying where he is.

That is subjective BS.

They have no right to tell a family they cant seek their own competent care because a judge has used his own subjective definition of what is dignified or not and determined it is more important than the parents definition.

Absolutely agree.
And for the court to effectively tell another EU member state that their health care service is inferior and subordinate to it's subjective decision.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Grambler

He will not be cured in Italy. There is no cure. The courts blocked it because the evidence proves moving him there would cause additional unnecessary suffering. This is correct and just.

Where i personally disagree with the decisions (so far) is that he should be allowed home (to die) if that is the parents final wish.

So now you are saying it is all about alfies pain, when your very last post said that was not the case.

This is what is so troubling, both the posters on here defending the court and the court itself seem to waffle on this when it suits them.

If you are concerned about the admittedly small chance alfie is suffeirng in paibn, then end it now.

If that chance of pain is small enough to not end it now, then leave the bioy be gtaken to italy for competent treatment.

But to ride the fence and say going to italy would be too much pain, but he is not in enough pain to end it now is ludicrous.

You are misinterpreting both what the courts and i am saying. The courts say no to moving because it will cause unnecessary distress and additional suffering to an already suffering terminal child.

Chemical reactions cause breathing to occur. The body can sustain this for an indeterminate (variable) length of time with no physical input. Alfie is now coming to the end of this period, hence his parents mouth to mouth occasionally. Moving him to Italy changes none of this, it simply causes additional suffering for what little is left of his tragically short life.

I really do not understand what people are struggling to understand about this.

a reply to: Grambler

However, a judge could never make that decision, because it would be against the law.

It's about what they can do for Alfie within the bounds of the law, otherwise judges would have free run.
Also don't forget this is still on going and is still to-ing and fro-ing with the family courts and such.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

However, a judge could never make that decision, because it would be against the law.

It's about what they can do for Alfie within the bounds of the law, otherwise judges would have free run.
Also don't forget this is still on going and is still to-ing and fro-ing with the family courts and such.

So how come the court has chosen euthanasia through starvation then? That's exactly what it is if that is the only legal option to the doctor's legally then the law is inhumane. Morphine dose does exactly the same as witholding food, just slower, and inhumane.

So, now we've established that the law and legislation can be wrong and inhumane, I wonder why so many fellow Brits blindly have absolute faith in the decision of the court.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy





So, now we've established that the law and legislation can be wrong and inhumane, I wonder why so many fellow Brits blindly have absolute faith in the decision of the court.

Exactly!

That is why the decision to seek competent care elsewhere should be up to the family.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Xenogears

I support suicide if someone is living in severe pain. My mates mother killed herself last year peacefully with drugs, she was in chronic pain and only getting worse. Her family supported her, as did I.

All my loved ones know if I'm ever in such a position or need to have my ass wiped by someone else I want them to score me enough heroin so I can do it myself while I still can. All have agreed.

The way the world is, it seems there exists states of potentially indefinite perhaps eternal suffering where there is no way to kill or end it. Such states seem to be part of existence, of reality, either existence is just or it is unjust.

Right now you have two choices destroy the world, or if technology continues to progress, it will come a time where some innocents will suffer indefinitely and be unable to kill themselves. The short story "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream", is an example from fiction. Posthuman beings their freedom and abilities, will allow them to have total dominion over the fate of other beings. Those beings will be even unable to kill themselves.

From a human point of view, there is reason to believe they will be amoral monsters. Either they are the highest state of existence closest to the divine, or we will give birth to horrors, eldritch abominations the likes the universe has never seen.

Eventually even immortality and resurrection of the dead may not be beyond their reach, so even all who have ever lived may not escape their reach, their eternal fate forever in their hands.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Grambler

He will not be cured in Italy. There is no cure. The courts blocked it because the evidence proves moving him there would cause additional unnecessary suffering. This is correct and just.

Where i personally disagree with the decisions (so far) is that he should be allowed home (to die) if that is the parents final wish.

So now you are saying it is all about alfies pain, when your very last post said that was not the case.

This is what is so troubling, both the posters on here defending the court and the court itself seem to waffle on this when it suits them.

If you are concerned about the admittedly small chance alfie is suffeirng in paibn, then end it now.

If that chance of pain is small enough to not end it now, then leave the bioy be gtaken to italy for competent treatment.

But to ride the fence and say going to italy would be too much pain, but he is not in enough pain to end it now is ludicrous.

You are misinterpreting both what the courts and i am saying. The courts say no to moving because it will cause unnecessary distress and additional suffering to an already suffering terminal child.

If the child is suffering, why did the court not decide to end the pain humanely with morphine or another drug now, but to instead force starvation or asphyxiation on the child?

Why would the courts allow this suffering to continue for, In what one of the doctors sais=d when asking how long alfie could live after being takken off of ventilation, be hours or even days (as we are now seeing)

originally posted by: Grambler
the decision to seek competent care elsewhere should be up to the family.

Agreed, a court denying access to EU standard healthcare in Italy oversteps the bounds on principle to me, especially when the court is effectively ordering that the child is slowly starved to death.
Inhumane.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

That is not saying they are evil or dont care about alfie, it justs shows that they have more things to take into consideration (such as laws, potential financial costs, how alfies care could take away from other care, etc.)

Again I'm not a judge but I imagine that all the judges are concerned about is Alfies life and how it pertains to the law.

That would infuriate me as a parent.

Any parent or decent human being in this situation would be pulling their hair out! Thankfully thats why cases like this are very few and far between.

Honestly some people have even said "abortion" should be possible after birth on healthy babies. We don't know what's going through their minds.