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.

 

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

page: 39
37
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   

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?


www.dailymail.co.uk...

Actual threats regarding a children's hospital...

edit on 27-4-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   
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



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   

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



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Generally, I try really hard not to sow discord between nations by posting stories such as "UK Authorities Crack Down On Nazi Dogs And Angry Drivers While Forcing Parents To Watch Baby Die". This is clearly to rile Americans (and NOT those from the UK) up, since your source is american and it isn't even a primary source. But here's the truth: Unfortunately in a country of 63 million people, a lot of bad things happen. Either it's a trend or it isn't, but either way you can piece them together to form any narrative you like.

If I wanted to I could create my own article and call it something along these lines: "US authorities throw citizens in jail for life over less than a gram of pot, executes its citizens who have not been convicted of a crime, and kills those who call the police whilst claiming a moral high-ground in Syria". Or I could post it to non-american website and watch the outrage form, probably with people stating "America is done for!!!' or "america needs to be stopped". Maybe I could even post it to say, a Turkish message board, then do it a thousand times. Maybe hire a website with thousands of viewers, a big advertiser which uses big-data to micro-target viewers with these articles.

Maybe then, I can drive a wedge between the United States and Turkey for my own political goals.

You don't see how this isn't dangerous?

It's called writing quality informative articles with nuance.


Oh that’s right you will, because you are a bunch of hypocrites

Go through my posts and find an example.


Also, I am not from the UK. I love the UK and the US and will do anything to defend them.

edit on 27/4/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
The court has other considerations other than just Alfie


Actually, the Court has had no other consideration except for the child. End of life care is not euthanasia, it's about letting someone die with dignity and compassion. Simply "putting down" a patient is not ethical, nor is it legal.

It seems to me that the root of the disagreement is that:
- Side 1 - You. Those who think that the only people capable of making the decision is the parents, and they should be allowed to do what they like with there child, even if it is against medical advice. If the parents wanted to dress their brain dead child up in a gold suit and parade on Facebook, or allow some German professor to "try his latest theory", they should be allowed to do so, because it's the parents who have the say.
- Side 2 - Me. Those who think that in some rare cases the court must arbitrate, or advocate, on the child's behalf due to a lack of agreement amongst the parties - in this case the parents supported by a religious group and the Pope, and a whole bunch of doctors and specialists. The parents are not necessarily emotionally fit to make deeply complex decisions and so the court can impartially weigh up the facts. It happens in this case and also when a parent is unfit and the child needs to be take into care, for example.

The parent's view is not always right, because if that was the case then abuse would go unchallenged. In this case, keeping the child alive is assessed as not being in its best interest. Allowing him to die is, because that's humane.
edit on 27/4/2018 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


Some parents should not be allowed to be in charge of a house plant!



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   
It's a bad situation and the doctors involved think the kid is braindead and nothing can be done, but they aren't always right and do like to play god sometimes.

Of course nothing like this would happen in Merica would it...? Oh wait.


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.


www.breitbart.com...


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.


www.bustle.com...



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

I criticize the us far more than any other country, and I love it

Being critical of a particular policy or law enforcement efforts is not trying to drive a wedge between countries

In fact I have had conversations with immigrants or foreign students at great length about how they love the us, but hate the prison system, many of the laws, etc

I never once took it as them trying to drive a wedge between the two countries

The fact is I find this policy with Alfie to be terrible

I find the criminalizing of offensive speech to be terrible, and the failure to stop rape gangs for three decades

I find th U.K. to seem to be a great place that I would love to visit, find the people great

stifling attempts at criticism because they drive a wedge is nonsense, and a tool designed to silence dissenting voices



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Thanks for that.
The story I watched was from a different perspective.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   

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.


True it can be a very difficult area. What if the parents want a hole drilled into the kids head to let out evil spirits, at some point the hospital and doctors have to say we can't do that.
This case is much more of a grey area and it gets people emotional. Very tough to make a decision in some cases.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   

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.


And here we are.

So given it won’t be painful, why not allow him to go to Italy to receive care?



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot


Some parents should not be allowed to be in charge of a house plant!


Very true.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot


Some parents should not be allowed to be in charge of a house plant!

Lol, sad but true...although I'm crap with houseplants, never kept many alive for long so I've just got a little cactus I call Jack.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Here is a summary of the Judgment setting out the reasons but you have already seen this so why do you ask your question when you already know the answer?

I don't see why he could not go to Italy but there you go.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I think the parents are now coming to a better understanding with Alfies situation, and with Alder Hey Hospital, they have asked for some privacy and asked "supporters" to go back to their lives. Their understandable anger wasn't helping the situation.
He could still be moved I imagine, but my opinion is that by moving Alfie to Italy, he could be used as a religious and/or political tool by the Vatican, the Italian doctors can't do anything else differently for Alfie other than palliative care. Personally, I think he should have access to nutrition and hydration, he is still on oxygen, but by maintaining his nutrition, hydration and air, even if there's no Alfie let other than what the body does by autonomic means he could be kept "going" for a long time.
His doctors know that his situation is only going to get worse with a degenerative brain disease. I think the question is, is Alfie in pain? He is disabled, comatose and pretty much unresponsive from what has been shown of Alfies condition, if this is the case he can't show if he's feeling pain and if he is suffering.
There's lots that is known about the brain, but there's lots that's still a mystery, and it's deciding whether Alfie feels or is feeling pain through all of this?



edit on 27-4-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
You see, this is what gets me about this case.......the Dr's have no idea what has caused Alfie's condition. Go look for yourselves...you will find nowhere the Dr's giving a name to his condition, and they have admitted they don't know what it is. That to me, as a parent, is enough for me to fight for my child's life too. We look to the specialists for the answer. If a Dr can explain to you what is going on, and you understand and it makes sense, then you have an informed decision. If Dr's can't explain something, you then immediately think "well until you do, and can explain this to me, I'm making no decision".
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?



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   

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?


Three small points to correct you, and perhaps help clear a few things up.

1. The clinicians may not know what is causing the degeneration of the child's brain, but they know the physiological cost. He has a heart condition; he does not respond to stimuli e.g. audio, visual, touch, sensory; he is unaware of his surroundings; he has no control of his muscles; he has regular seizures; his brain has been destroyed; he cannot swallow; etc.... It's all in the High Court evidence, oft quoted in this thread and relinked HERE for your convenience.
2. Not sure where this "under oath" myth springs from, but the evidence by doctors and specialists to the High Court merely state he's dependent on a ventilator and cannot sustain his own respiration. The evidence says he breaths, but cannot take in enough oxygen to support himself and his heart slows and blood oxygen falls because of it.
3. The brain won't regrow. He cannot recover.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join