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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Explain how?

A because a child with degenerative brain disease, from which he will never recover, has no ability and never has had the ability to indicate or even form a judgment about what they would want to happen to them. That is why we have a legal system to look after their interests.

Not the same as a granny who needs a home help.

This is ridiculous. IF the child could speak and asked for assisted suicide, it would be illegal to grant him that. Yet taking away food, water, and breathing support is essentially assisted suicide if asked to do so by a conscious person in a vegetative state.

Withholding life support is not the same as assisted suicide.

If someone is capable of making a decision about receiving life support or not than they can do so.

When they are not capable it is an agreement between the doctors and next of kin.

Only when an agreement can't be reached then it becomes a matter for the courts.

If anyone can think of a better system then feel free to share.

Oh come now, so if I'm connected to life support and ask for it to be removed resulting in my death that is not assisted suicide? Quite honestly how one can try such a contorted semantics game with such a simple fact is hard to believe.

originally posted by: paraphi
A good article describing how this terrible tragedy has been taken over by all sorts of nut-jobs and activists. I pretty much agree with the whole article and see many of the behaviours described in the article being mirrored in this discussion.

You’ll find American gun lobby enthusiasts ranting on about how this is what happens when “the government” runs people’s lives and that’s why everyone needs to keep hold of their weapons; never mind that this decision has nothing to do with the government, resting as it does on the independent judgment of doctors upheld by an independent judiciary.

and

For in British law, what matters is what is in the best interest of the child, not of the parents or the doctors or wider public opinion, and certainly not of organised religion.

Source Guardian article

Independent judiciary my ##$, the queen names the judges of the supreme personally if I'm not mistaken. And I'm pretty sure there are serious constraints on what they can do, most likely they can't distort the interpretation of the law such that say the prime minister and queen go to jail for some triviality. I'd have to look into the technicalities of their checks and balances, but being named by the queen, makes them part of government in my book.

Also seriously doubt the checks and balances on the supremes don't lie outside the judiciary, most likely these exist through other parts of the government.

UK citizens want to view the courts as some holy independent wise body that will protect them, and it figures,, with good reasons, given the horrible power of their state, to have false hope of some system of wise angels protecting them.

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Forensick
a reply to: ScepticScot

You are fighting a good fight, it tires me of the monotonous record, its a debate that will go nowhere, I read Americans saying they would take their child from the hospital at gunpoint because they have those rights!

Scary that a borderline retarded gun owner who cannot accept a professional decision in favor of a 'dead' child would support taking the child at gunpoint to do as they believe right with them.

However, it seems in this case the parents realize it has got out of hand and perhaps they were caught up in the emotion.

For me, the most poignant moment was the life support was withdrawn, have some time and say goodbye to your son, its not your fault, its not his fault, there is just nothing left to do for the poor mite. Let him go and remember him for the fight he put up, not the social media, Catholic, lawsuit circus that may ruin the memory of poor Alfie.

Rest in peace when you pass little Alfie.

Sad your some how trying to link this to guns. Has nothing to do with guns the reason this shocks Americans is because we don't believe the right to determine whats best for us belongs to the state. This is a family decision and a state stepping in to decide what should be a family decision is wrong. Just shows me the UK is well on the road to communism. Good luck with that journey

I didn't link it to guns, some American folk did when they believed that the 4th allowed them to storm the hospital and take their child by gun point.

Sad on you for not researching the fact, I have no issues with your gun law.

What you people do not seem to understand is that there becomes a point where the parents become a danger to a vulnerable child.

Just like a child being taken into custody because of abusive parents, in this case, the parents are trying to make emotional decisions that are not in the benefit of their child. At that point the law steps in.

The response of some here, it is completely the same as saying Fritzl has the right to keep his daughter in bondage in his cellar because he is the parent.

Being a sperm and egg donar does not give you the right to be a # parent despite of your mind bramble.

Sorry, an adult in pain can't legally ask to be killed, but if he is connected to life support, all of a sudden yes he can and it not called assisted suicide. DON'T come to me with such BLATANT DOUBLESPEAK.

Yet here, a child which may or may not be in pain, we're told the state can accelerate their death by removing life support on the pretense this is not actually killing. You know if I have an artificial heart and you take it out, that's murder. There's a reason euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal in most places. In euthanasia and assisted suicide at least the person asks for it, and even then is denied, but here they didn't ask for it yet the state gleefully kills.

Alfie grew his angel wings as 2.30am UK time

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

Keep an out for the shrine to Alfie.

Alas there is no dignity in death, I hope his parents can at least get this right.

originally posted by: Xenogears

Independent judiciary my ##$, the queen names the judges of the supreme personally if I'm not mistaken. And I'm pretty sure there are serious constraints on what they can do, most likely they can't distort the interpretation of the law such that say the prime minister and queen go to jail for some triviality. I'd have to look into the technicalities of their checks and balances, but being named by the queen, makes them part of government in my book.

Also seriously doubt the checks and balances on the supremes don't lie outside the judiciary, most likely these exist through other parts of the government.

UK citizens want to view the courts as some holy independent wise body that will protect them, and it figures,, with good reasons, given the horrible power of their state, to have false hope of some system of wise angels protecting them.

Royal Assent – It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law. Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.
royalcentral.co.uk...


Who appoints judges?
The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent commission that recommends candidates for judicial office in the courts and tribunals of England and Wales and for some tribunals whose jurisdiction extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
www.judiciary.gov.uk...

originally posted by: Xenogears
Independent judiciary my ##$, the queen names the judges of the supreme personally if I'm not mistaken.

You are completely mistaken. You clearly have no clue to the judiciary in the UK.

On a more serious note. The child has had died. RIP. The discussion here has been wide ranging and hopefully opened some peoples eyes to the ethical dilemmas faced by clinicians the world over.

a reply to: paraphi

Whilst this situation has clearly got way out of hand i really feel for the parents. I do wonder what advice they were given though (by "well meaning" supporters). Only the other day the father was saying he wanted to take Alfie home to live, not die - when it was patently obvious this was impossible.

A tragic case.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Xenogears

Independent judiciary my ##$, the queen names the judges of the supreme personally if I'm not mistaken. And I'm pretty sure there are serious constraints on what they can do, most likely they can't distort the interpretation of the law such that say the prime minister and queen go to jail for some triviality. I'd have to look into the technicalities of their checks and balances, but being named by the queen, makes them part of government in my book.

Also seriously doubt the checks and balances on the supremes don't lie outside the judiciary, most likely these exist through other parts of the government.

UK citizens want to view the courts as some holy independent wise body that will protect them, and it figures,, with good reasons, given the horrible power of their state, to have false hope of some system of wise angels protecting them.

Royal Assent – It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law. Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.
royalcentral.co.uk...


Who appoints judges?
The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent commission that recommends candidates for judicial office in the courts and tribunals of England and Wales and for some tribunals whose jurisdiction extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
www.judiciary.gov.uk...

Most judges, the supremes, the final word above all the judges, are appointed by the queen if I'm not mistaken.

Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by The Queen by the issue of letters patent,[7] on the advice of the Prime Minister, to whom a name is recommended by a special selection commission. The Prime Minister is required by the Constitutional Reform Act to recommend this name to the Queen and not permitted to nominate anyone else.[8]-wiki

originally posted by: Xenogears
Most judges, the supremes, the final word above all the judges, are appointed by the queen if I'm not mistaken.

Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by The Queen by the issue of letters patent,[7] on the advice of the Prime Minister, to whom a name is recommended by a special selection commission. The Prime Minister is required by the Constitutional Reform Act to recommend this name to the Queen and not permitted to nominate anyone else.[8]-wiki

^^^^^On the advice of the Prime minister to whom a name is

recommended by a special selection commission.


The Queen does not appoint the government, nor choose the Prime minister.

She does not choose who gets honors or knighted.

The Queen (or King) just rubber stamps what is put before her/him.


The monarchy is just a figurehead.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Xenogears
Most judges, the supremes, the final word above all the judges, are appointed by the queen if I'm not mistaken.

Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by The Queen by the issue of letters patent,[7] on the advice of the Prime Minister, to whom a name is recommended by a special selection commission. The Prime Minister is required by the Constitutional Reform Act to recommend this name to the Queen and not permitted to nominate anyone else.[8]-wiki

^^^^^On the advice of the Prime minister to whom a name is

recommended by a special selection commission.


The Queen does not appoint the government, nor choose the Prime minister.

She does not choose who gets honors or knighted.

The Queen (or King) just rubber stamps what is put before her/him.


The monarchy is just a figurehead.

You claim the prime minister is not part of government? Because as far as I'm seeing those in charge of selecting the supreme judges are the top dogs of the government.

a reply to: Grambler

I dont think that was the issue , she was still getting support , but it was at a stage where nutrition wasnt helping and she was ready to go , she didnt want to eat and so the hospital stopped feeding her anyway

I think that its common practice once the patients are at a certain age / stage of their illness they just stop feeding them food !

My gran wasnt allowed to leave the hospital , even though they knew she was going to die , she wanted to pass away in her home but the hospital wouldnt allow her to leave , I kept telling her Id steal her at night
that seemed to keep her smiling , but she died shortly after , she just gave up!

I think its unfair , if we know people are going to pass, at least allow them some form of humanity , to return to their home , their family , and not have to be in a sterile , emotionless place like a hospital ward , with strangers!

I mean for # sake , Scotland sent big Al Megrahi , a convicted terrorist , back to libya , despite him being on deaths door and that was on tax payers dime !

So what does that say about the whole alfie case

we will allow a convicted murderer compassionate leave to return to LIBYA who according to doctors wouldnt survive the trip , yet went on to live another few years as a relative king ! , but wont let a cancer beaten toddler to goto the vatican !

if thats not enough to make you want to tear down parliament then I dont know what is !

a reply to: eletheia

I dont know why so many of you still believe the queen doesnt have any say in her empire !

like a queen would just relinquish control of such a kingdom!

absolute #in pish , she still rules behind the scenes , this whole democracy is a load of bollocks

the queen has her hand right in that pie !
always has done !

a reply to: C0bzz
That's because the whole thread was written as pure star-bait.
Claim: Should continue to seek treatment elsewhere. Reality:

Alfie has lost the capacity to hear, see, smell or respond to touch, other than reflexively.

The majority of responses to tactile stimuli or to eye opening/light
exposure were and are seizures as confirmed on repeated EEG examinations.”

Claim: Not allowed to seek outside treatment. Reality:

A hypothetical transfer might be done from the patients bed to ambulance, to airport and subsequent ambulance or
helicopter to the final destination. It is possible that during the travel Alfie may present continuous seizures due to stimulations related to the transportation and flight; those seizures might induce further damage to brain, being the whole procedure of transportation at risk.”

Claim: Not allowed to feed him. Reality:

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.

The parents were not acting in his best interest whatsoever but only in their own, feeding their delusional hope, when they were clearly in an emotional state, ignoring his pain in their desperation to be right...

It is, I think, no coincidence that F, whose primary position is that “no stone should be left unturned”, was resistant to the final MRI scan being undertaken. F, in my judgment, knew all too well, in the light of the earlier scans, what the latest MRI scan might reveal and, again for entirely understandable reasons, could not bear to confront it.

Anyone who's had a seizure knows that prolonging and instigating them would be sheer torture. Paying $100,000 to send him to Italy by subjecting him to seizure-stimuli with 0% chance of recovery is just pointless false hope. They should have spent that money on children whose deaths are actually preventable...






a reply to: eletheia
I'm so sorry to hear that dear... the universe is a cruel place.

a reply to: Grambler

The British government placed 30 officers around the hospital to prevent protesters from attempting to move the baby.

Too bad this doesn't read:

The Americans deployed 3,000 US Marines on a combat/humanitarian mission to the hospital to prevent the worthless socialist forces from murdering this innocent child.

a reply to: Ridhya

Irrelevant. The government has no place to even provide input on such a decision. Alfie isn't the government's child, he is the parent's child. It is only their interests at stake - the government is a disinterested observer only.

It is solely and exclusively up to the parents to decide, on their own, whether or not he is treated/moved/etc.

But we get it, disgusting socialists worship death. You think they'd worship Colgate, but apparently death makes their country seem more "Edgy" --- they aren't my allies, that is for sure.

...what a backwards and despicable system.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Grambler

The British government placed 30 officers around the hospital to prevent protesters from attempting to move the baby.

Too bad this doesn't read:

The Americans deployed 3,000 US Marines on a combat/humanitarian mission to the hospital to prevent the worthless socialist forces from murdering this innocent child.

I hope thats a joke because we all know the Royal Marines would walk all over the US marines!!

a reply to: JBurns

what a backwards and despicable system.

Like the American health system is even a patch on the British health system. America lets about 45000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance. It's a backward excuse of a health system compared to any other western country.

a reply to:Grambler

The British government placed 30 officers around the hospital to prevent protesters from attempting to move the baby.

INCORRECT....

Police officers were placed at the hospital to prevent irate protesters from setting

off fire alarms and entering the hospital and threatening staff responsible for many

other very sick children and some probably dying too, from being disturbed,

frightened or hurt.


How can you possibly believe that a violent irate mob could have moved Alfie

safely with all the medical apparatus he was attached to and needed.

a reply to: Grambler

You mean that "universal healthcare" that's much better than yours and a staple of the Western world?

Well it looks like at least in the UK, that seems to be the case

To a blind, ATS American moron, no doubt.