Police Threaten Arrest If Citizens Speak Out Against the State-Sanctioned Death of Baby Alfie Evans

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Bicent

If the Italian state had not offered an alternative it would have been different because I accept the decision of UK doctors deciding 'they' wished to stop life support, fair enough, that is their medical opinion.
But there was a legally approved alternative available which had the child been in that country could have been chosen.
It all boils down to ethics then, the subjective opinion of the judge was that Italian doctors = unethical, and UK doctors = ethical.
The blind faith in the judges decision to deny freedom of movement to another EU state's healthcare system is what troubles me most.

The Italian hospital was not offering anything that could not be done in the UK.

The decision was about was it in his best interest to remain on life support. The where is completely irrelevant.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The decision was about was it in his best interest to remain on life support. The where is completely irrelevant.

Yes, the subjective ethical opinion of a judge, the Italian doctors supported continuing care in a legally recognised EU healthcare system. Are you saying the Italian doctors are wrong and the UK doctors are right?
Italian doctors visited and came to a different conclusion about 'best for the child' and offered continuing care.
It is my opinion that the judge overstepped the mark by denying freedom of movement to another EU health service.
I know you disagree but you cannot say you are right and I'm wrong, as I cannot say you are wrong and I am right, we just disagree, and it seems we will have to agree to disagree.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You are in the medical profession. You know the effect that not taking in protein can have on cell repair.

Starving him may not kill him as direct causation. It certainly didn't help.

Ahhh right then so in your view then they should have kept feeding him so his death could be that little bit slower.

Good to know where you stand on this....

originally posted by: ArMaP
I haven't read all the posts, so if this was already posted please point me to the answers, but my questions are:
1 - What did the court ruled? Is there a transcript of the ruling or are people just talking with no facts to support their positions?
2 - Do we have an official confirmation from the Italian hospital that they would be able to provide better treatment?

1 - Court ruling pdf

2 - 'Better' treatment was not on offer, just continuing care.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I don't think anyone is happy about this situation, or how it all worked out.

Then don't defend it.

This action will likely be what keeps single payer out of the US in the foreseeable future. Its really been an eye opener for many Americans who laughed off the death panel fear stoking as absurd.

Its obviously not absurd.

A decision made by a court has absolutely no relevance in a discussion about health care systems.

Still you gave confirmed you are just trying to make a political point out if tragic situation and you should be ashamed of yourself.

originally posted by: notsure1 Wow . I am sure most of you are aware of baby Alfie Evans in the UK. The UK has basically decided to let this kid die because he has a degenerative neurological condition that doctors say is incurable. Now the family who desperately want to keep their son alive has been offered free care at the Vatican hospital where they will try experimental treatments . For some reason the UK government has decided to not let him go even though it will be no cost to them whatsoever. Well now the hospital who has decided to murder this child (they are not even feeding him) is upset at all the hatemail and phone calls from around the world . Not only upset but they have the police monitoring social media accounts looking for anyone speaking out against this and threatening legal action.

I do not understand why the UK would not let this family take their son somewhere else for treatment. You guys across the pond have no rights left . No gun rights ,no freedom of speech ,not even the freedom to get your own child the care you think he needs.. The drs and the Government get the final say over your childs care ? Not even the freedom to bitch about the care hes not getting without being arrested.

Despite the fact that this will come at no cost to the UK government or the hospital, they are legally forcing the family to stay in the UK, where they will be denied medical care because the government decided that it was not worth the effort to keep the boy alive. Even worse, the hospital has not been feeding the child while he is under their care, which is now court mandated.

thefreethoughtproject.com... Hey America you should be more civilized like us and give up your guns. Now excuse me while we go murder this child...

Sadly, and historically proven many, many times, this is the end result of a country banning people from being able to defend themselves with the same weapons that government has, like hand guns and firearms, and so once they justify taking most of those away from the people, (while concurrently making new laws giving government immunity from the same rules and protecting themselves by threat of financial and other punishment for citizens who protest against it).

Once the teeth have all been pulled from the citizenry, the government moves into every aspect of living and enforces new protections for themselves while taking them away from the people, until you end up with these kinds of things happening.

Freedom isn't free and sacrifices will always need to be made to keep it. Sadly, it is very expensive and difficult to get freedoms back and limit powers of government once they have protected themselves by "pulling the teeth" from the citizenry, just like what we are now seeing in the UK. (And what many states and officials in the United States are slowly doing).

The only way to ever get them back will be resulting in violence and death and civil war, because the arrogance of government will have no limits, and will never let go of their
new "superior and protected from the common people status".

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The decision was about was it in his best interest to remain on life support. The where is completely irrelevant.

Yes, the subjective ethical opinion of a judge, the Italian doctors supported continuing care in a legally recognised EU healthcare system. Are you saying the Italian doctors are wrong and the UK doctors are right?
Italian doctors visited and came to a different conclusion about 'best for the child' and offered continuing care.
It is my opinion that the judge overstepped the mark by denying freedom of movement to another EU health service.
I know you disagree but you cannot say you are right and I'm wrong, as I cannot say you are wrong and I am right, we just disagree, and it seems we will have to agree to disagree.

The Italians doctors offered to continue the same care he had been already getting, there was nothing new they could do.

If the decision is that continuing care is wrong for him then allowing it to be continued outside the UK would have been a shameful cop out.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Thanks.

2 - 'Better' treatment was not on offer, just continuing care.

If it was continuing care, what could be gained from having it on a different hospital? Would the moving of the child to another hospital be positive, neutral or negative to him?

a reply to: ArMaP

I don’t think that is the point, the point in this story I think is a government made a decision for parents.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If the decision is that continuing care is wrong for him then allowing it to be continued outside the UK would have been a shameful cop out.

I disagree. I accept the UK doctors decided that 'they' no longer wished to continue care, and have no problem with that. What I object to is a judge refusing to allow another EU nation provide continuing care which it's doctor's were offering.
I'll say it again, if the parents were seeking help from witch doctors in Papua New Guinea I'd agree with the refusal, but no, it was another EU state offering legal, EU approved care, so on that principle I can never accept the denial of freedom of movement.

a reply to: Bicent

No, that's exactly the point, we are talking about what was best for the patient, not what was best for someone else.

a reply to: ArMaP

Yep, and who’s responsibility is it to decide?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Thanks.

2 - 'Better' treatment was not on offer, just continuing care.

If it was continuing care, what could be gained from having it on a different hospital? Would the moving of the child to another hospital be positive, neutral or negative to him?

That is irrelevant, the principle to me is that another EU health service was offering legally approved continuing care and a judge refused freedom of movement.
We can argue the ethics of keeping the child alive all day, but the principle to me is that continuing care was offered by an EU nation and that was denied by a judge.

I support the decision of the UK doctors who decided that 'they' wished to cease care, but I can never support the judges decision to deny continuing care with Italian doctors who were prepared to provide it.

a reply to: Bicent

An independent entity, not his parents or the doctors, so I agree that a court decision would be the best way of independently assessing the situation, after hearing both sides.

originally posted by: SATURN66
a reply to: SATURN66

can the moderate please end this thread as people seam to be ussing this poor child to air and score political points and this should not be allowed infact them using it to get political points acroos is quite sickning and its shows poor repect for a child who lost his life so early...

Why end the thread, because you don't like other people's opinions?
I agree, anyone using this child's story to score points in another political agenda is distasteful, but you have the opportunity to disagree instead of crying to teacher to shut the conversation down.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Sadly, and historically proven many, many times, this is the end result of a country banning people from being able to defend themselves with the same weapons that government has, like hand guns and firearms

What on earth do weapons and a child dying have in common, again with the whooo 'merica is great attitude. You guys are all armed to teeth but you local housing association has more powers than guys have!! You can't park a certain way outside your own property, god forbide you have snow on your path!!

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: ArMaP

I don’t think that is the point, the point in this story I think is a government made a decision for parents.

No the government had nothing to do with it, it was a decision made by the courts with the child’s medical team.

But sure feel free to keep this kids death political by blaming the government

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
That is irrelevant, the principle to me is that another EU health service was offering legally approved continuing care and a judge refused freedom of movement.

Se my post above, it's not irrelevant if we are thinking about the patient. If moving him to a different hospital wouldn't make a change I would accept without any problem that they could move him to Italy or any other country, but if moving him had the possibility of making things worse, then he would arrive at the new hospital in a worse condition and nothing positive resulted from the moving.

We can argue the ethics of keeping the child alive all day, but the principle to me is that continuing care was offered by an EU nation and that was denied by a judge.

To me is that it's not the same thing if the moving to another hospital could be negative to the patient.

a reply to: ArMaP

I am not sure if I agree with that. But none the less, I suppose it’s civil. I believe a parent should have the authority to choose to try and keep their child alive in the hopes he can be cured, never to give up hope until all options are exhausted. How it got to the courts is unknown to me.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot
If the decision is that continuing care is wrong for him then allowing it to be continued outside the UK would have been a shameful cop out.

I disagree. I accept the UK doctors decided that 'they' no longer wished to continue care, and have no problem with that. What I object to is a judge refusing to allow another EU nation provide continuing care which it's doctor's were offering.
I'll say it again, if the parents were seeking help from witch doctors in Papua New Guinea I'd agree with the refusal, but no, it was another EU state offering legal, EU approved care, so on that principle I can never accept the denial of freedom of movement.

It isn't about wanting to provide care, it's about if continuing with it was in the kids best interest.