It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Forensick
www.express.co.uk...
A statement issued by Chief Inspector Chris Gibson said: “Merseyside Police has been made aware of a number of social media posts which have been made with reference to Alder Hey Hospital and the ongoing situation involving Alfie Evans. “I would like to make people aware that these posts are being monitored and remind social media users that any offences including malicious communications and threatening behaviour will be investigated and where necessary will be acted upon.”
This is what I had heard about.
The "malicious communications and threatening behavior" is pretty spooky. Is he referring to actual threats or are they shutting down discussion of this issue?
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Debunkology
I am not sure if you are referencing me, but I am not saying it’s about money
I am making a very simple ethical argument
If a person lives in my house, it is reasonable for me to put a curfew on them or say they can’t smoke, or whatever
However it would not be reasonable for me to say they may never move to another house and do those things
The principle is simple: if a person or entity is providing someone something, it is ethically reasonable for them to chose to stop providing it in most circumstances
Hence it would be reasonable for the nhs to say they will no longer provide service
However if a person or entity is providing a service, it is not ethical for them to force the people provided to not obtain services elsewhere
Hence the state or courts are not ethical I’m not allowing the family to get competent care from Italy
So no, I am not saying the court refuses service because of money
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Debunkology
I am not sure if you are referencing me, but I am not saying it’s about money
I am making a very simple ethical argument
If a person lives in my house, it is reasonable for me to put a curfew on them or say they can’t smoke, or whatever
However it would not be reasonable for me to say they may never move to another house and do those things
The principle is simple: if a person or entity is providing someone something, it is ethically reasonable for them to chose to stop providing it in most circumstances
Hence it would be reasonable for the nhs to say they will no longer provide service
However if a person or entity is providing a service, it is not ethical for them to force the people provided to not obtain services elsewhere
Hence the state or courts are not ethical I’m not allowing the family to get competent care from Italy
So no, I am not saying the court refuses service because of money
Of you were dealing with an adult capable of making decisions for themselves you would be correct.
However this is child who the court has a responsibility to represent his best interests.
Oh that’s right you will, because you are a bunch of hypocrites
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Debunkology
I am not sure if you are referencing me, but I am not saying it’s about money
I am making a very simple ethical argument
If a person lives in my house, it is reasonable for me to put a curfew on them or say they can’t smoke, or whatever
However it would not be reasonable for me to say they may never move to another house and do those things
The principle is simple: if a person or entity is providing someone something, it is ethically reasonable for them to chose to stop providing it in most circumstances
Hence it would be reasonable for the nhs to say they will no longer provide service
However if a person or entity is providing a service, it is not ethical for them to force the people provided to not obtain services elsewhere
Hence the state or courts are not ethical I’m not allowing the family to get competent care from Italy
So no, I am not saying the court refuses service because of money
Of you were dealing with an adult capable of making decisions for themselves you would be correct.
However this is child who the court has a responsibility to represent his best interests.
Again I disagree
The court has other considerations other than just Alfie
For example do to considerations of the law, the courts have basically argued that Alfie is in pain, but will not do what would be best and humanely euthanize and instead are forcing the child to have a drawn out painful death under their own admission
This is why it should be up to people concerned only with Alfie
originally posted by: Grambler
The court has other considerations other than just Alfie
Such cases of doctors going against the wishes of parents to keep their children alive are not isolated to the United Kingdom. In August 2016, a two-year-old American boy was removed from life support and died at the Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles, California. Israel Stinson, who had sustained a brain injury in April 2016, was taken off life support after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge dismissed a restraining order barring the hospital from doing so until September 8th.
These 20 Stories Refute The Idea That People Don't Die From A Lack Of Health Care Access
However, a 2009 study conducted by doctors at Harvard Medical School and published in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that a lack of health insurance led to nearly 45,000 deaths a year.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Debunkology
I am not sure if you are referencing me, but I am not saying it’s about money
I am making a very simple ethical argument
If a person lives in my house, it is reasonable for me to put a curfew on them or say they can’t smoke, or whatever
However it would not be reasonable for me to say they may never move to another house and do those things
The principle is simple: if a person or entity is providing someone something, it is ethically reasonable for them to chose to stop providing it in most circumstances
Hence it would be reasonable for the nhs to say they will no longer provide service
However if a person or entity is providing a service, it is not ethical for them to force the people provided to not obtain services elsewhere
Hence the state or courts are not ethical I’m not allowing the family to get competent care from Italy
So no, I am not saying the court refuses service because of money
Of you were dealing with an adult capable of making decisions for themselves you would be correct.
However this is child who the court has a responsibility to represent his best interests.
Again I disagree
The court has other considerations other than just Alfie
For example do to considerations of the law, the courts have basically argued that Alfie is in pain, but will not do what would be best and humanely euthanize and instead are forcing the child to have a drawn out painful death under their own admission
This is why it should be up to people concerned only with Alfie
There are many reasons why it shouldn't only be up to the parents or next of kin. That should be fairly obvious.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler
Euthanasia is illegal here so the Court is not going to Order that. Withdrawing life support is technically different.
I don't think it will be painful as (1) the poor mite is in a coma and (2) he is receiving palliative care.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot
Some parents should not be allowed to be in charge of a house plant!
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot
Some parents should not be allowed to be in charge of a house plant!
originally posted by: angelchemuel
So, in my humble opinion, the Dr's don't actually know what they are dealing with, and as such should not have, under oath said he would die in less than 4 minutes when life support is switched off. Yet, here we are, 5 days later, and the wee man is STILL ALIVE and proving them wrong! So what else are they wrong about if they don't know what it is?