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: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

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.




posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: lucidclouds


I have spoken about healthcare to a few American friends and 2 of them stood out to me.
The first was a couple in the north west, who had to sell their house and move back home after the husband accidently shot himself in the leg and had to have many operations to repair the damage done. They were without health insurance.
The second was the cost of delivering of a baby, which has also been posted and talked about here on ATS by an American member.

edit on 24-4-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It appears to me that either the British Govt or the Policing authorities have gone entirely off the rails into some kind of morphed version of PC authoritarianism.

Since when does the British Gov't "own" a terminally ill child; does the British Gov't own all the children? Is that what its like to be a "Subject" of the Crown with the British Gov't being the instrument of total authority and control and ownership of the Subjects?

I'd long and hard and seriously think thrice before ever setting foot in the UK. The place is NUTS! And so......to complain of being a victim of a Muslim rape gang violates the rules of Political Correctness? Is that to say the women in the UK just have to accept what happens to them at the hands of rapists if the rapists are Muslims, with Muslims now being some magical "protected" class?

Kind of makes you understand why the "Colonies" in the Americas rebelled against British rule!



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: oldcarpy

So... this is actually a case history, not just the judgement.

Also, given that the wee fella has been breathing on his own for a great many hours now, someone needs to look at this judgement again, and force the doctors to revisit the question as well, because the boy clearly has the necessary functions remaining to actually exist, it is whether or not he will do more than merely survive, that must be answered now.

The doctors, as evidenced by his status as still currently alive, were wrong. Given that this judgement was made on the basis of the advice of the people who made the wrong call, its conclusions must be assumed faulty as well.


Unlike in the movies switching life support off does not make a person die instantly. People continuing to breath for quite a while is common place and doctors advise the family of this.


But the doctors admitted to betrump ng shocked in this case, and out the child back on life support

Why would they do that if it was business as usual?


Maybe they were, maybe not. Individuals vary which is why the armchair medical experts here claiming they know better than the doctors actually treating him is ludicrous.

As far as I can tell the claim the doctors were so surprised cones from the kids father, not any actual statement from, the hospital. Happy to be corrected if otherwise.


I am not claiming to be an armchair doctor.

I am saying there was a court order to take him off of support, they did, the child lived for 15 hours, they put him back on, and are having another court hearing.

That doesnt sound like things went as the doctors had predicted.


It sounds as if they have put him on a minimal level of support to prevent any unnecessary suffering.


So here is what would have happened for that to be true.

They decide to totally remove him from life support.

Then after many hours, they decide to put him back on to stop suffering.

So then they cause suffering by taking him off of that support in the first place, right?



Nope you are just trying to armchair doctor again.

There are different levels of support they can give depending on circumstances and since no one on this thread is actually involved in his treatment trying to second guess the doctors is frankly ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Grambler

It appears to me that either the British Govt or the Policing authorities have gone entirely off the rails into some kind of morphed version of PC authoritarianism.

Since when does the British Gov't "own" a terminally ill child; does the British Gov't own all the children? Is that what its like to be a "Subject" of the Crown with the British Gov't being the instrument of total authority and control and ownership of the Subjects?

I'd long and hard and seriously think thrice before ever setting foot in the UK. The place is NUTS! And so......to complain of being a victim of a Muslim rape gang violates the rules of Political Correctness? Is that to say the women in the UK just have to accept what happens to them at the hands of rapists if the rapists are Muslims, with Muslims now being some magical "protected" class?

Kind of makes you understand why the "Colonies" in the Americas rebelled against British rule!


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



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   

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.


Which is exactly what the warning about death panels was.

Doctors have made a decision that this life should be ended, that the family may not pursue getting their own treatment for someone.

Now this is what we are seeing.

Thats fine if you think its ok for the government courts to decide who should live or die and say families may not pay themselves for their childs care.

I think thats a bad idea and exactly what people feareds in the US.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Again with the Government quips. The courts are independent.

Lets say a child IS dying and could be in pain or suffering but the parents don't want to let the child die, the doctors know there is no hope for the child and prolonging his life is only adding to the child and family's suffering. Who decides whats best??



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

Again with the Government quips. The courts are independent.

Lets say a child IS dying and could be in pain or suffering but the parents don't want to let the child die, the doctors know there is no hope for the child and prolonging his life is only adding to the child and family's suffering. Who decides whats best??



So your argument is that courts arent part of the government?

Wow.

I would argue the family gets to decide.

It may be terrible, but allowing the GOVERNMENT or courts to have this power can only lead to terrible situations.

What if even one child or person is sentenced to death by these doctors or courts and that person could be saved? The court has then issued a death sentence for the child.

Not to mention that this is the first step toward a more totalitarian nightmare where the government or doctors can make all sorts of decisions saying people can not seek their own treatment because they dont know whats best for themselves.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

Again with the Government quips. The courts are independent.

Lets say a child IS dying and could be in pain or suffering but the parents don't want to let the child die, the doctors know there is no hope for the child and prolonging his life is only adding to the child and family's suffering. Who decides whats best??



So your argument is that courts arent part of the government?

Wow.

I would argue the family gets to decide.

It may be terrible, but allowing the GOVERNMENT or courts to have this power can only lead to terrible situations.

What if even one child or person is sentenced to death by these doctors or courts and that person could be saved? The court has then issued a death sentence for the child.

Not to mention that this is the first step toward a more totalitarian nightmare where the government or doctors can make all sorts of decisions saying people can not seek their own treatment because they dont know whats best for themselves.


Courts aren't part of the government.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I think you'll find that it's your country that issues death sentences not us British.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


I think you'll find that it's your country that issues death sentences not us British.

Your anti-American sentiment is noted. Sadly this thread isn't about America. It's about the absurdities of your establishment. But by all means continue with your gymnastics. It's cute...



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

No way. The parents? Perish the thought. /sarc



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Doctors in the UK don't have the power to kill people and nor are the staff heartless as if they didn't care they'd not do the job and i'm sure that would resonate across the world.

Our hospital is great for some things but crappier than others aka cancer care is good but giving birth is not so good.

Having to of seen a few familiy members who have passed on their treatment was always without cost in that they got whatever was the best at the time and pretty much cost was zero object.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You do realise that U.S. Courts are also asked if medical treatment can be stopped without the consent of the child's parents?

Here is one such case. Sadly the child passed away before the court made it's ruling.




The hospital asked Judge William Jackson of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to affirm the doctors' decision that the boy could be taken off life support.[6] Brody's parents challenged the hospital's assertion that Brody was dead, and claimed that doing so would be a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.[5][6] The judge heard initial arguments on November 10, but delayed issuing a decision until further hearings could be held.[6][9] The family and the hospital also released a joint statement where they expressed their mutual hope for an out of court decision



en.wikipedia.org...

www.nbcnews.com...



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

If the family wished to take the boy to a place that was willing to treat the biy, would the court have stopped them?

I dont know, maybe they would have.

But that too would be wrong.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


Yet in America Alfie would be left to die any way if he was black or his parents couldn't afford health care.......??
Alfie is brain dead and has been on life support.
Some American members have know idea what goes on the other side of the pond and make ridiculous claims based on tabloid newspapers, it makes you guys look so gullible and easily manipulated by the media.


Jesus, pot meet kettle.

No, Alfie would not be left to die in the US. Its why folks in the US are horrified about it.





Yet vets are left to die, plenty of stories about that.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: alldaylong

If the family wished to take the boy to a place that was willing to treat the biy, would the court have stopped them?

I dont know, maybe they would have.

But that too would be wrong.


The point i am making, is that this is not unique to Britain.

This happens in The U.S. and Australia also. If i searched further i would probably find it happens in many other countries also.

That should end this argument.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: alldaylong

If the family wished to take the boy to a place that was willing to treat the biy, would the court have stopped them?

I dont know, maybe they would have.

But that too would be wrong.


The point i am making, is that this is not unique to Britain.

This happens in The U.S. and Australia also. If i searched further i would probably find it happens in many other countries also.

That should end this argument.


The argument isnt is it unique to britian. It is that it is wrong.

The OP article was pointing out where the law enforcements priorities seem to be at this moment, they are for stopping online jokes, people flipping off police cameras, people posting rap lyrics, and ensuring parents cant take their child to get tretament that the state is not paying for.

At the same time, law enforcement is has allowed rape gangs to operate for decades with thousands of victims, and not only that, but has attacked tghose victims.

But as far as this issue goes; I have not seen a case in the US where a court has said that a familiy is barred from taking their child somehwere to get treatment for their child.

If it has happened, there, its wrong there too.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

U.S. Pentagon bans jokes.





The Department of Defense announced Thursday a new policy combating harassment and offensive humor in the military. The announcement comes following reports of increased sexual harassment and roughly a year since the nude photo-sharing scandal for the Marine Corps. The Pentagon released the new policy, Department of Defense Instruction 1020.03, “Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces.”


americanmilitarynews.com...

As for Rape Victims




Police Told Rape Victims They Would ‘Look Like a Slut on Trial’: How Law Enforcement Fails Women



www.newsweek.com...

And as for Banned Lyrics.




The New York Fraternal Order of Police ban Bruce Springsteen from New York performances for the lyrical content of his song "American Skin" about the controversial shooting death by police of student, Amadou Diallo. Producers of the Late Night with David Letterman TV show ban singer Ani DiFranco's lyrics to her hit "Subdivision" because of the racial conflict inherent in the song. Sarah Jones' and DJ Vadim's song "Your Revolution", is banned by the FCC for profanity and Portland, Oregon radio station KBOO is fined for playing the song. Eminem's hit song, "The Real Slim Shady" is banned by the FCC and two radio stations are fined for playing the song. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Clear Channel Communications put a temporary ban on popular hit songs including Pat Benatar's "Hit Me with Your Best Shot," Billy Joel's "Only the Good Die Young" and "Nowhere to Run" by Martha & the Vandellas


www.xiryl.com...

Take a look at your own backyard before casting your eye over the pond.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Again with the insanity that I cant comment on a country that is not where I live.

I will comment on whatever I please, but thank you for illustrating just how anti free speech you are.

Yes one of my icons is Lenny bruce, a commedian that was routine harrassed and arrested for being offensive.

It was disgusting, and sadly he seems as if the US may be heading in that direction.

What does that have to do with what the OP said? I can not comment on the UK because I am somehow personally responsible for bad things in the US?

Ridiculous.

As far as rape cases, sure there will be bad behavior everywhere. In fact look at Hollywood, which I have commented on many times, and how police turned the other way with that.

So because of that, you dont think anyone should be troubled by ecades ling rape gangs being untouched in the UK, and the victims that came forward being attacked by law enforcement?

You are taking this as a personal attack and want to say "Nuh UH!!! My country is better than yours!!!" Which is childish and worthless.




top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join