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

a reply to: Forensick

So you do think the govt knows best, to heck with the parents they should not be able to make a choice for their child...

If the Vatican wants to pay for keeping him on life support why not?

Can you give an actual reason why the parents should not be able to move the child to a place where they are willing to continue to keep the child alive?

He is in a permanent vegetative state, in my opinion you cannot compare a person with complete awareness they are dying from thirst to a person on life support who brain cannot even make his hear beat without help.

If he is not aware he is dying of thirst, then he certainly would not be aware of being transported to Italy.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Forensick
It doesnt matter what I would do, iot matters as to what the government tells me I cant do.

The government has every right to say "we will not pay for this persons life support anymore because it wont help"

they do not have the right to tell me "We will not pay for your childs life support, and we will put police up to make sure you do not take the child elsewhere to get the child life support"

Again, we are not talking about witch doctors, we are taling about another humane hospital.

If the doctors know that death is inevitable and they want just the most humane death, why not pump the kid full of morphine? This would surely be less painful than making the kid starve to death.

So the court is not even demanding the most painless way of death.

But as long as we are engagning in slippery slope arguments; why shouldnt this same argument be applied to a man with a terminal illness in pain?

"Sorry, we know you have lined up that liver you need out of personal donations but we dont think that will save your life, so we will put armed officers up to make sure you dont leave the hospital to get that treatment, you must die here"

Ok by you though, right? I mean, the hospital knows the man is in [pain, and the liver wont help, so he has no right to spend his own money on a liver.

Its is government overreach of the highest order.

The 'unarmed' police officers were there because the disguising circles these people mix in deem it right to blockade a road to a public hospital, intimidate public servants trying to save lives and storm a hospital (read that again), a hospital where there are dozens of ill children, some of who might have had their life support turned off that day whose parents and friends are trying to cope with their own grief whilst getting screamed at by fat scousers looking for a fight.

If morphine OD is such a wonderful way of Euthanasia, why is it illegal? Well because the hospital doesnt have the right to chose life or death, the same way as they dont have the right to keep clinically dead people alive. If they turn the life support off and his body sustains life then good on him, if it doesnt then noone killed him or decided whether he lived or died.

You have to put it into perspective, what happens when lethal doses of morphine are available, do you ask a nurse or a doctor to administer it, do you need to go to a court to get the right to administer it? It opens a world of crazy I dont want to open.

On the other hand, do we keep dead kids on life support, especially those Organ Donors to keep those lovely Organs fresh?

The kid is dead, there is no saving him, you withdraw food and fluid and he passes away, if you start messing this about because some loud scousers and the Pope sticks their oar in then you have to have a complete rewrite of an unbroken medical process that has worked for years until these two came along.

originally posted by: Forensick


He is in a permanent vegetative state, in my opinion you cannot compare a person with complete awareness they are dying from thirst to a person on life support who brain cannot even make his hear beat without help.

And here you is where you contradict your argument.

If he cant feel pain from dying of thirst because he is a vegeitative state, why must the court decide he cant recieve treatment because it will extand his pain?

Either he can feel pain or he cant, you cant have it both ways.

As far as the italy taking every child argument, that is uneccessary.

If the briotish government just says "we reserve the right to not pay for any treatment doctors feel will have no chance at success" thats it, end of argument. If italy is unwilling to take the kid and the family cant afford to pay for treatment on their own, then sadly that is it.

This is the government sayin we wont pay for something that will have no affect, and although that is tragic, that is far more reasonable than the added step of saying "and you may not seek treatment that we the government do not have to pay for"

that is what is over the line to me.

SO yes, in this case, where other humane treatment is being offered at no cost to the UK government, they should have no right to deny that treatment.

originally posted by: Forensick


If morphine OD is such a wonderful way of Euthanasia, why is it illegal? Well because the hospital doesnt have the right to chose life or death, the same way as they dont have the right to keep clinically dead people alive.

Read that again.

Unbelievable.

So the hospital has the right to tell parents their child must die, but are not allowed to actovely make that death as painless as posssible.

However, they can force the parents to not seek their own treatment because it may increase pain.

This is insane!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick

Most of what is upsetting many americans is, even with our screwed up health care system that is a decision that gets left up to the families, not a decision handed down by the beauracracy. Typically when the court over rules the family the person in question had a stipulation in their will about pulling the plug.

It is a decision left up to the families until they start to take the mickey claiming the NHS tried to kill my baby...

As I said previous, at what point does it all get a bit sinister, a 500 bedroom pro life center full of dead children being kept from rotting by a machine? Where would you draw the line?

Also, please remember the NHS is there to provide for sick, injured and dying people, its not a hotel for dead people of any parent who cannot accept a medical professional opinion which then needs to be backed by 3 courts who you still know better than before you turn to the Pope and social media deciding you sill know best.

Who is saying l;eave the kids there?

You keep making this false argument.

The child would already be gone, freeing up a bed, if the court wouldnt have forced the child to not have treatment.

I know many people that get hospice care, where they basically return home to die.

Imagine the precedent being set

"Sorry you cant take your grandman home to die, because we are afaraid you will use your own resources to provide a venitlator for her" She must stay here and starve to death"

It is insane.

I think that if palliative care were an option then it would be allowed, you seem to only want to listen to one side of the argument, the gobby media loving scousers. All other parties are with dignity remaining hush.

The parents are not doctors, jesus christ I would pray you dont decided to look after your aging parents with a second hand ventilator and no medical training, this is third world witchcraft, whatever next, a DIY mouth brace when the Dentist tells you your daughter is too young for one? Or an operating kit so you can pull out a lung when the Radiologist tells you its a bruised rib and no lung Cancer.

Apart from the magical kingdom of Italy, where else is the kids going to go, and what happens in the room next to Alfie when the doctors say, "sorry, there is nothing more we can do" and the parents shout "we will take him to Italy then, you keep him on life support whilst we take you to court, contact the Pope and start a flashmob and gofundme page".

Slippery slope to anarchy.

Scousers never like rules unless it suits them.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick


He is in a permanent vegetative state, in my opinion you cannot compare a person with complete awareness they are dying from thirst to a person on life support who brain cannot even make his hear beat without help.

And here you is where you contradict your argument.

If he cant feel pain from dying of thirst because he is a vegeitative state, why must the court decide he cant recieve treatment because it will extand his pain?

Either he can feel pain or he cant, you cant have it both ways.

As far as the italy taking every child argument, that is uneccessary.

If the briotish government just says "we reserve the right to not pay for any treatment doctors feel will have no chance at success" thats it, end of argument. If italy is unwilling to take the kid and the family cant afford to pay for treatment on their own, then sadly that is it.

This is the government sayin we wont pay for something that will have no affect, and although that is tragic, that is far more reasonable than the added step of saying "and you may not seek treatment that we the government do not have to pay for"

that is what is over the line to me.

SO yes, in this case, where other humane treatment is being offered at no cost to the UK government, they should have no right to deny that treatment.

Well you can play semantics all you want but there are different kinds of pain, emotional, mental and physical. I am sure the child isnt in physical pain but would let the doctors decide that.

The government is probably trying to prevent the stupid public from seeking witch doctors and voodoo magic aka, snake oil salesmen from taking advantage of limited IQ people, despite all the paranoia, they are not out to do a disservice to Alfy or his gene donors.

a reply to: Forensick

You keep speaking in hypotheticals.

"well you could take someone home and as an amatuer put them on a ventilator, and that would be bad"

But we have an actual situatioon right here, wwhere competent doctors are offering care, and the UK is refusing to allow it.

None of your hypotheticals matter in light of that.

Who cares what happens in the next room?

The issue is the UKL can say we will no longer pay for this treatment, thats fine. They shouldnt say even if you can afford or line up competent treatment, we will not allow you.

You are uniwttingly making the situation even more tyrancial.

"well sorry, we know that you can afford thorugh your own means or charity to get treatment for your child, but we are worried a poorer person may not be able to, so we wont allow you to get your child treatment"

This is a socialist nightmare you are describing!

Equality for all by lowering the standard of living to the lowest possible value.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick


If morphine OD is such a wonderful way of Euthanasia, why is it illegal? Well because the hospital doesnt have the right to chose life or death, the same way as they dont have the right to keep clinically dead people alive.

Read that again.

Unbelievable.

So the hospital has the right to tell parents their child must die, but are not allowed to actovely make that death as painless as posssible.

However, they can force the parents to not seek their own treatment because it may increase pain.

This is insane!

No the child is clinically dead insomuch that he cannot survive without a machine. Turning the machine off proves the diagnosis.

The hospital also does everything it can for the patient, once the parents become irrational sometimes its unfortunate some sanity needs to step in to prevent the irrational whims damaging a child further.

If you are suggesting that someone has the job of injecting clinically dead children with high doses of morphine then I applaud you are an edgy pixel. Personally I would switch the machine off and let nature take its course.

Incidentally I have never heard of life support people screaming "I am thirsty and dying of dehydration until the pass away in gnawing agony all scrunched up and gnarled in spasms". Whilst I am not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, I would hazard a guess that when the first life support was switched off and these horrifying screams filled the hospital a different process would be considered.

But you carry on and imagine what you want to make the narrative fit.

Disgusting people:

And he criticised the "malign hand" of one of the family's advisers, law student Pavel Stroilov, who had, the court heard, been party to Mr Evans lodging a private prosecution of Alder Hey Hospital doctors, allegedly for murder

The child has little to no brain left, the longer he is kept on life support, the more of his brain will die, who knows if during the dying of that brain over the coming weeks, the child may be in incredible physical pain, there is no way for him to live, the brain cannot regenerate, there is only the opportunity to prolong his death with unknown consequences to the little boy.

And hereby supporters of this great risk to a small boy for no reward may hang their heads in shame.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Forensick

You keep speaking in hypotheticals.

"well you could take someone home and as an amatuer put them on a ventilator, and that would be bad"

But we have an actual situatioon right here, wwhere competent doctors are offering care, and the UK is refusing to allow it.

None of your hypotheticals matter in light of that.

Who cares what happens in the next room?

The issue is the UKL can say we will no longer pay for this treatment, thats fine. They shouldnt say even if you can afford or line up competent treatment, we will not allow you.

You are uniwttingly making the situation even more tyrancial.

"well sorry, we know that you can afford thorugh your own means or charity to get treatment for your child, but we are worried a poorer person may not be able to, so we wont allow you to get your child treatment"

This is a socialist nightmare you are describing!

Equality for all by lowering the standard of living to the lowest possible value.

Stop lying to everyone, he can go home:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick


If morphine OD is such a wonderful way of Euthanasia, why is it illegal? Well because the hospital doesnt have the right to chose life or death, the same way as they dont have the right to keep clinically dead people alive.

Read that again.

Unbelievable.

So the hospital has the right to tell parents their child must die, but are not allowed to actovely make that death as painless as posssible.

However, they can force the parents to not seek their own treatment because it may increase pain.

This is insane!

Incidentally I have never heard of life support people screaming "I am thirsty and dying of dehydration until the pass away in gnawing agony all scrunched up and gnarled in spasms". Whilst I am not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, I would hazard a guess that when the first life support was switched off and these horrifying screams filled the hospital a different process would be considered.

But you carry on and imagine what you want to make the narrative fit.

How can you not see this directly contradicts the justification for not allowing this familiy to get treatment elsewhere?

Have you ever heard of a child on life supporter screaming "switching me to another hospital on life support is causing me more pain!"

Yet you are perfectly ok with that being used as the justification for not allowing this family to get outside treatment.

You keep going back and forth; on one hand you argue that child will experience no pain fro starvation and so it shouldnt be a factor; on the other hand you are saying the child will experience pain being on life support and so the parents dont have the right to get outside help.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick


If morphine OD is such a wonderful way of Euthanasia, why is it illegal? Well because the hospital doesnt have the right to chose life or death, the same way as they dont have the right to keep clinically dead people alive.

Read that again.

Unbelievable.

So the hospital has the right to tell parents their child must die, but are not allowed to actovely make that death as painless as posssible.

However, they can force the parents to not seek their own treatment because it may increase pain.

This is insane!

Incidentally I have never heard of life support people screaming "I am thirsty and dying of dehydration until the pass away in gnawing agony all scrunched up and gnarled in spasms". Whilst I am not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, I would hazard a guess that when the first life support was switched off and these horrifying screams filled the hospital a different process would be considered.

But you carry on and imagine what you want to make the narrative fit.

How can you not see this directly contradicts the justification for not allowing this familiy to get treatment elsewhere?

Have you ever heard of a child on life supporter screaming "switching me to another hospital on life support is causing me more pain!"

Yet you are perfectly ok with that being used as the justification for not allowing this family to get outside treatment.

You keep going back and forth; on one hand you argue that child will experience no pain fro starvation and so it shouldnt be a factor; on the other hand you are saying the child will experience pain being on life support and so the parents dont have the right to get outside help.

Yes because one is proven, there is no pain, and one is a gamble with the potential of pain or no pain.

The judge is trying to protect a dying child from having his 'life' prolonged by selfish parents with the only options available being still dies in a week/month with no pain or dies within a week/month in horrible pain.

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Forensick

You keep speaking in hypotheticals.

"well you could take someone home and as an amatuer put them on a ventilator, and that would be bad"

But we have an actual situatioon right here, wwhere competent doctors are offering care, and the UK is refusing to allow it.

None of your hypotheticals matter in light of that.

Who cares what happens in the next room?

The issue is the UKL can say we will no longer pay for this treatment, thats fine. They shouldnt say even if you can afford or line up competent treatment, we will not allow you.

You are uniwttingly making the situation even more tyrancial.

"well sorry, we know that you can afford thorugh your own means or charity to get treatment for your child, but we are worried a poorer person may not be able to, so we wont allow you to get your child treatment"

This is a socialist nightmare you are describing!

Equality for all by lowering the standard of living to the lowest possible value.

Stop lying to everyone, he can go home:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I had not read that article.

though if I am reading it right, it is still saying unless the familiy has a "sea change" they still cant take the boy home.

But a doctor treating Alfie, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said that for Alfie to be allowed home would require a "sea change" in attitude from the child's family, and they feared that in the "worst case" they would try to take the boy abroad.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Regardless it doesnt matter, they are saying the family can not give the boy the treatment they want, which is absurd

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick


If morphine OD is such a wonderful way of Euthanasia, why is it illegal? Well because the hospital doesnt have the right to chose life or death, the same way as they dont have the right to keep clinically dead people alive.

Read that again.

Unbelievable.

So the hospital has the right to tell parents their child must die, but are not allowed to actovely make that death as painless as posssible.

However, they can force the parents to not seek their own treatment because it may increase pain.

This is insane!

Incidentally I have never heard of life support people screaming "I am thirsty and dying of dehydration until the pass away in gnawing agony all scrunched up and gnarled in spasms". Whilst I am not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, I would hazard a guess that when the first life support was switched off and these horrifying screams filled the hospital a different process would be considered.

But you carry on and imagine what you want to make the narrative fit.

How can you not see this directly contradicts the justification for not allowing this familiy to get treatment elsewhere?

Have you ever heard of a child on life supporter screaming "switching me to another hospital on life support is causing me more pain!"

Yet you are perfectly ok with that being used as the justification for not allowing this family to get outside treatment.

You keep going back and forth; on one hand you argue that child will experience no pain fro starvation and so it shouldnt be a factor; on the other hand you are saying the child will experience pain being on life support and so the parents dont have the right to get outside help.

Yes because one is proven, there is no pain, and one is a gamble with the potential of pain or no pain.

The judge is trying to protect a dying child from having his 'life' prolonged by selfish parents with the only options available being still dies in a week/month with no pain or dies within a week/month in horrible pain.

Show me the proof that dying of starvation in that condition causes no pain

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Forensick

You keep speaking in hypotheticals.

"well you could take someone home and as an amatuer put them on a ventilator, and that would be bad"

But we have an actual situatioon right here, wwhere competent doctors are offering care, and the UK is refusing to allow it.

None of your hypotheticals matter in light of that.

Who cares what happens in the next room?

The issue is the UKL can say we will no longer pay for this treatment, thats fine. They shouldnt say even if you can afford or line up competent treatment, we will not allow you.

You are uniwttingly making the situation even more tyrancial.

"well sorry, we know that you can afford thorugh your own means or charity to get treatment for your child, but we are worried a poorer person may not be able to, so we wont allow you to get your child treatment"

This is a socialist nightmare you are describing!

Equality for all by lowering the standard of living to the lowest possible value.

Stop lying to everyone, he can go home:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I had not read that article.

though if I am reading it right, it is still saying unless the familiy has a "sea change" they still cant take the boy home.

But a doctor treating Alfie, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said that for Alfie to be allowed home would require a "sea change" in attitude from the child's family, and they feared that in the "worst case" they would try to take the boy abroad.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Regardless it doesnt matter, they are saying the family can not give the boy the treatment they want, which is absurd

Because they are not doctors or medically trained. A dentist wont remove your teeth, a surgeon your liver because you ask for it, they didnt do 10 years at law school to be advised the best course of action by the Pope and some scallies.

I give him 30 minutes if he hasnt popped over to the other side yet, in another week after the shrine is removed these two will have a month to appear on Jeremy Kyle at which point they will be gone except for future appearance in the Mirror when they name their next son Alfie to get some more free money for the weeks news, the Irony wont be lost of the wonderful care they received at Alder Hey.

Possible side column note in 2 years when Tom appears in court for stabbing someone during a bungled robbery.

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Forensick

You keep speaking in hypotheticals.

"well you could take someone home and as an amatuer put them on a ventilator, and that would be bad"

But we have an actual situatioon right here, wwhere competent doctors are offering care, and the UK is refusing to allow it.

None of your hypotheticals matter in light of that.

Who cares what happens in the next room?

The issue is the UKL can say we will no longer pay for this treatment, thats fine. They shouldnt say even if you can afford or line up competent treatment, we will not allow you.

You are uniwttingly making the situation even more tyrancial.

"well sorry, we know that you can afford thorugh your own means or charity to get treatment for your child, but we are worried a poorer person may not be able to, so we wont allow you to get your child treatment"

This is a socialist nightmare you are describing!

Equality for all by lowering the standard of living to the lowest possible value.

Stop lying to everyone, he can go home:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I had not read that article.

though if I am reading it right, it is still saying unless the familiy has a "sea change" they still cant take the boy home.

But a doctor treating Alfie, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said that for Alfie to be allowed home would require a "sea change" in attitude from the child's family, and they feared that in the "worst case" they would try to take the boy abroad.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Regardless it doesnt matter, they are saying the family can not give the boy the treatment they want, which is absurd

Because they are not doctors or medically trained. A dentist wont remove your teeth, a surgeon your liver because you ask for it, they didnt do 10 years at law school to be advised the best course of action by the Pope and some scallies.

I give him 30 minutes if he hasnt popped over to the other side yet, in another week after the shrine is removed these two will have a month to appear on Jeremy Kyle at which point they will be gone except for future appearance in the Mirror when they name their next son Alfie to get some more free money for the weeks news, the Irony wont be lost of the wonderful care they received at Alder Hey.

Possible side column note in 2 years when Tom appears in court for stabbing someone during a bungled robbery.

SO the italian doctors are not trained that have an air ambulance waiting for him?

And btw, your contempt for the parents is obvious and disgusting.

Show me the proof that dying of starvation in that condition causes no pain

There is no proof, I am not aware of anyone recovering from that state, however, medical experts in general agree which is good enough for me:

abcnews.go.com...

However, on the other hand, I could play it all back to you. The parents are not suggesting that the reason they want to go to Italy is because they dont want to cause him harm by withdrawing foods and drink, at the end of the day, they will have to do that if he goes to Italy anyway because he isnt going to recover.

So there is a very low chance from over 20 years of experience that it is likely withdrawing fluids will cause pain and suffering, and yet there is very a much higher chance that his degenerative brain condition could cause him to suffer the longer it continues.

Of course, I dont expect you to get past the first sentence.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

people like to say that but that is exactly why nations codify your rights, to protect the people from undue aggressive behavior because they dislike what you say.

supporting such consequences is supporting barbarism, the role of a democratic government is to protect the people from undue consequences to maintain stability and social order.

without protections of rights people become animals eventually.

order through oppression is always temporary and always ends violently because people always want freedom above everything else, even food and money isn't enough to appease the oppressed.

trade is your right, speech is your right, sustenance is your right, land ownership is your right, thought and worship is your right, etc, you gotta fight to get it and keep it without consequences, the role of government should only be to support you and enforce those rights.

originally posted by: Forensick

Show me the proof that dying of starvation in that condition causes no pain

There is no proof, I am not aware of anyone recovering from that state, however, medical experts in general agree which is good enough for me:

abcnews.go.com...

However, on the other hand, I could play it all back to you. The parents are not suggesting that the reason they want to go to Italy is because they dont want to cause him harm by withdrawing foods and drink, at the end of the day, they will have to do that if he goes to Italy anyway because he isnt going to recover.

So there is a very low chance from over 20 years of experience that it is likely withdrawing fluids will cause pain and suffering, and yet there is very a much higher chance that his degenerative brain condition could cause him to suffer the longer it continues.

Of course, I dont expect you to get past the first sentence.

Your own article says a person can live for weeks if they are just taken off of life support.

So why not use morphine to quickly and painlessly kill the child?

No instead the will draw out the suffering for weeks.

So the court and the doctors have decided that the parents may not have other professionals treat the child, but refuse to make it as quick and painless as possible.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Forensick

You keep speaking in hypotheticals.

"well you could take someone home and as an amatuer put them on a ventilator, and that would be bad"

But we have an actual situatioon right here, wwhere competent doctors are offering care, and the UK is refusing to allow it.

None of your hypotheticals matter in light of that.

Who cares what happens in the next room?

The issue is the UKL can say we will no longer pay for this treatment, thats fine. They shouldnt say even if you can afford or line up competent treatment, we will not allow you.

You are uniwttingly making the situation even more tyrancial.

"well sorry, we know that you can afford thorugh your own means or charity to get treatment for your child, but we are worried a poorer person may not be able to, so we wont allow you to get your child treatment"

This is a socialist nightmare you are describing!

Equality for all by lowering the standard of living to the lowest possible value.

Stop lying to everyone, he can go home:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I had not read that article.

though if I am reading it right, it is still saying unless the familiy has a "sea change" they still cant take the boy home.

But a doctor treating Alfie, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said that for Alfie to be allowed home would require a "sea change" in attitude from the child's family, and they feared that in the "worst case" they would try to take the boy abroad.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Regardless it doesnt matter, they are saying the family can not give the boy the treatment they want, which is absurd

Because they are not doctors or medically trained. A dentist wont remove your teeth, a surgeon your liver because you ask for it, they didnt do 10 years at law school to be advised the best course of action by the Pope and some scallies.

I give him 30 minutes if he hasnt popped over to the other side yet, in another week after the shrine is removed these two will have a month to appear on Jeremy Kyle at which point they will be gone except for future appearance in the Mirror when they name their next son Alfie to get some more free money for the weeks news, the Irony wont be lost of the wonderful care they received at Alder Hey.

Possible side column note in 2 years when Tom appears in court for stabbing someone during a bungled robbery.

SO the italian doctors are not trained that have an air ambulance waiting for him?

And btw, your contempt for the parents is obvious and disgusting.

The Italian doctors have no idea about his illness, whatever their nefarious reasons for wanting to host the death of a child is beyond me, but thats where the conspiracy is.

An air ambulance can at best assist the movement of a passenger on life support but it doesnt contain an operating theater full of brain surgeons who can regrow brain tissue. I havnt checked the Italian stance on experimental stem cell research, but if they cannot get a pig brain to grow I dont like Alfies chance.

And yes I cant stand them, they are some of the problem in the UK and are trying to drag down one of its strengths.

Sure the NHS has had a fair number of scandals, but if these two dolescum were anywhere esle on earth they wouldnt be able to afford or receive care of this level.

The system that has given their boy over a year of top class medical help they are now accusing of murder, inciting riots and intimidation and have been a bit handy with a blade in the past.

Their actions disgust me ergo, I don't like them and as pointed out, there is a reason its these two, either they are too thick to listen or they are low enough to use their dying child for self promotion.