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

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

They decided an infant is not worth the effort?

Why are you ignoring the 18 months they kept him on life support?

But nah, no effort was mad at all....

KILL HIM!

Here's a crazy thought...let the parents make a decision as parents.

The government are not our parents, however much they wish to be.

What about when millions are being spent by the government to prolong a nonviable life on a machine?

Personally, I think we are all pretty selfish and are not thinking of the loved one who is dying. Years of pain and suffering so we can still feel they are there.
I did that with a pet and I cannot forgive myself all the pain I allowed just for more time.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP
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.

You don't think the parent should have a say in the fate of their own child?

If your neighbour is severally beating their children, broken bones, internal injuries, would you not want someone to step in and have a say in the "fate" of that child?

So you conflate child abuse to seeking alternative treatment.

Uh, yeah, no.

first of all, there was no alternative treatment for Alfie, get your facts straight.
Second, the family courts make decisions for both scenarios, you asked " You don't think the parent should have a say in the fate of their own child?" I was giving an example when a court will make a decision for a child, so if you want to pick and choose go ahead.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP
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.

You don't think the parent should have a say in the fate of their own child?

If your neighbour is severally beating their children, broken bones, internal injuries, would you not want someone to step in and have a say in the "fate" of that child?

So you conflate child abuse to seeking alternative treatment.

Uh, yeah, no.

So you conflate moving him to another location for the exact same treatment which was deemed detrimental as being an alternative treatment.

Uh, yeah, no.

originally posted by: Kurokage
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!!

Fear of reprisal when government see's to the death of your child. Their is now NO FEAR OF REPRISAL when they come to enforce the death of your child.

That's what it has to do with.
See how effective your current brainwashing has been? You don't even understand the basics of what is being done to people.

originally posted by: ArMaP


Only when the medical staff thought it wasn't on the child's best interest to stop keeping him alive did they asked the court for an opinion.

So the medical staff superseded parental rights and authority and the government backed them up.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP
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.

You don't think the parent should have a say in the fate of their own child?

If your neighbour is severally beating their children, broken bones, internal injuries, would you not want someone to step in and have a say in the "fate" of that child?

So you conflate child abuse to seeking alternative treatment.

Uh, yeah, no.

So you conflate moving him to another location for the exact same treatment which was deemed detrimental as being an alternative treatment.

Uh, yeah, no.

If the parents wanted that for their child, then they should have been free to do so.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP


Only when the medical staff thought it wasn't on the child's best interest to stop keeping him alive did they asked the court for an opinion.

So the medical staff superseded parental rights and authority and the government backed them up.

Parental rights aren't absolute. The reasons should be fairly obvious

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


You seem to be the one brainwashed here, guns bla bla bla. This is a court, doctors and parents problem not a gunfight at the ok coral!!

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP


Only when the medical staff thought it wasn't on the child's best interest to stop keeping him alive did they asked the court for an opinion.

So the medical staff superseded parental rights and authority and the government backed them up.

Parental rights aren't absolute. The reasons should be fairly obvious

What is obvious is that parental rights don't exist.

I'd say that parental rights in the UK are conditional, based on what the government deems appropriate.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP


Only when the medical staff thought it wasn't on the child's best interest to stop keeping him alive did they asked the court for an opinion.

So the medical staff superseded parental rights and authority and the government backed them up.

Parental rights aren't absolute. The reasons should be fairly obvious

What is obvious is that parental rights don't exist.

I'd say that parental rights in the UK are conditional, based on what the government deems appropriate.

As they are in every country in the world.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The "experts" said he would die immediately when taken off life support, but it took 4 days for him to pass. Both President Trump and President Duda of Poland offered to help the parents with the boys treatments, but were denied by the UK government to the point where they used physical force to prevent the family from taking their own child to seek alternative treatments.

But it's okay because the government, doctors and judges are important people and therefore if they say a child must die he must die. On top of all the banning and censorship going on, the UK is becoming satirically authoritarian.

#UKMilgramExperiment

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
There have been a few court statements so apologies I cannot provide a link, but the parents wanted him to receive continuing care in Italy but were refused. That is absolute fact because had permission been granted the child would have left that hospital

Sorry, I can't accept as an "absolute fact" something for which you can't provide support.

At least I'm honest and say it it is my honest personal interpretation, nothing more, nothing less.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP


Only when the medical staff thought it wasn't on the child's best interest to stop keeping him alive did they asked the court for an opinion.

So the medical staff superseded parental rights and authority and the government backed them up.

Parental rights aren't absolute. The reasons should be fairly obvious

What is obvious is that parental rights don't exist.

I'd say that parental rights in the UK are conditional, based on what the government deems appropriate.

As they are in every country in the world.

No. I think we're a little more attentive to the rights of the parents here in the states.

a reply to: Konduit


When can we expect mass protests against the U.K. government, now that people are waking up and wising up? How the government reacts will be very telling.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP


Only when the medical staff thought it wasn't on the child's best interest to stop keeping him alive did they asked the court for an opinion.

So the medical staff superseded parental rights and authority and the government backed them up.

Parental rights aren't absolute. The reasons should be fairly obvious

What is obvious is that parental rights don't exist.

I'd say that parental rights in the UK are conditional, based on what the government deems appropriate.

As they are in every country in the world.

No. I think we're a little more attentive to the rights of the parents here in the states.

The rights of parents are also determined by law in the US. They certainly are absolute over their children.

a reply to: DBCowboy


It's the same in any civil society.

Children are removed form parents for all kinds of reasons. Alfie was in all intents and purposes brain dead, there was nothing that could be done for him, other than palliative care, Alfies lifes was ending. Moving him would have accomplished nothing.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I'd say that parental rights in the UK are conditional, based on what the government deems appropriate.

I'd say they have to be conditional in certain circumstances such as if the parents wanted to take their child for treatment off witch doctors in Papua New Guinea.
But that wasn't the case, Italian doctors did not deem travel and life support to be 'detrimental' to the child and offered continuing care which the judge refused.
I have no problem with UK doctors stopping life support if 'they' feel it is the right thing to do, but when doctors in another EU state disagree and offer an alternative I absolutely believe the judge overstepped the mark by refusing that option to the parents.

originally posted by: TexasTruth
Right about now, I would be calling the first 100 people I knew with AR15’s to stage a little 1st amendment protest to show our 2nd amendment and post it everywhere on social media so if something happened, thousands like us would be on their doorsteps!
But no...They are debating the ban of sharp objects in between death panel discussions over the pond.

“I would just show up at their houses with guns! That’ll make them do what I want!”


Lol

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So the medical staff superseded parental rights and authority and the government backed them up.

It was the medical staff that was giving the life support, the court (not the government) said they could stop it.

a reply to: ArMaP

Lol, are you saying you don't believe the judge refused to allow continuing care in Italy? Really?
The judge refused ventilation support, and because Italy were offering that he was denied freedom to travel there.
Come on, this is the essence of the story, what the heck are you arguing against? The child was prevented from going to Italy, just use any search engine.