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

a reply to: andy06shake

I think you just proved my point...

a reply to: Bicent

I would love to know how many of the people arguing this was the right call actually have children..

If you could all that are for this sound off.. Yes or no to having children...

a reply to: testingtesting

It’s tough and I didn’t know about this story until ats. But my concern is governmental involvement, and because it is so sad it’s anemotionally charged subject. In the end thou I think the parents if they chose to should have been allowed to take there child elsewhere for treatment no matter what the risk. The government knowing best never ends well in history. But ya it’s a damn sad story, I can’t help but to look and feel really sad for the whole thing. As far as threats of violence I don’t agree with that. I think if this was handled better some how or another it never would have got to that point. I am also sure we don’t have all the information on this story either.

. Just sad stuff.

a reply to: testingtesting

Well, do those people have there kids best interest at heart or their immortal soul/religious values somehow being offended?

Because i can prove the existence of the child, souls not so much.

Do no harm, nor allow harm through inaction would be my rule of thumb.

a reply to: notsure1

Probably zero. But ya it’s sad none the less.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It would have been undue suffering to have him moved. It boils my piss to see threads like this, 95% of people in this thread don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Undue suffering...... Like starving him to death and refusing water? Lol

Oh and I love the posters "the parents aren't doctors they can get it wrong". Hmm well worst case scenario he dies, which HES DOING ANYWAY IN THAT EFFING HOSPITAL!!!!


I swear some if you have completely lost all common sense.....

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: andy06shake

Okay what about people who refuse their kids a blood transfusion? Should we do nothing and let kids die?.

Or what about the parents who have a child diagnosed with treatable cancer and decide that there should be no treatments because they are just going to prey.....

Parents wishes are so important in there complex medical problems but they are not the final decision. Parents do not always act in the best interests of their child regardless of how good their intentions may be and very often just do not have the level of understanding that is required to make some very compact decisions.

What’s happed with Alfie is just a horrible extension of this.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That's because there is no ethical dilemma and should be the parents choice alone.

Anything else is ethically spurious at best.

My level of understanding tells me that at least.

So you would have rather seen the child moved against doctors wishes purely to keep the parents happy and see the child STILL DIE but miles away from any long term source of treatment?

You just won't get it, parents are emotional, parents can often cloud judgement based on that, add tto that a baying crowd outside saying they are on the parents team and then the parents also feel compelled to take them in to the equation..

Its all madness, parents have utter love for their kids and they would do anything to preserve life but by the same token they can't always understand when that isn't possible, I know, was almost there and its HORRIBLE...

Sometimes we as parents love too much and sometimes not enough, we have to listen to the talented professionals and if the weight of the evidence all around = the same thing then we have to some times make choices that are not normal to us but sometimes they are what is in the best for the child, and that child should always be the first and most important item..

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Which one?

There are several at play.

What did the doctors and bureaucrats prove?

Why was the child not allowed to be taken home to die given the prognosis?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Like starving him to death and refusing water? Lol

Anyone else find the use of “lol” a little disturbing in this context?

Furthermore he was not starved to death his died because his degenerative brain disease progressed to a point where his lungs no longer functioned. You could have been feeding him with TPN and it would make very little difference.

Please stop with this false narrative that palliative patients are starved to death.

If you are not sounding off that means no children so its the same thing..

originally posted by: andy06shake
Why was the child not allowed to be taken home to die given the prognosis?

Because the doctors and the court suspected they'd fly him to Italy where doctors there disagreed with the decision to remove life support made by British doctors, and would instead continue to provide continuing care based on their alternative medical and ethical opinion.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Which one?

There are several at play.

What did the doctors and bureaucrats prove?

Why was the child not allowed to be taken home to die given the prognosis?

Last reply from me as this seems pointless as you return to the same topic and refuse to even look at the possibilities no matter how important they would be to the child..

Have you given thout that perhaps the child was too ill to be moved easily, or perhaps the parents may have made an attempt to go to Italy with the child via some silly back door way?

No off course you have not, that would be a way to avoid blaming the government or even the possibility of poor judgement by the parents..

Poor child.......I can only hope his suffering is now over...

a reply to: andy06shake

Why was the child not allowed to be taken home to die given the prognosis?

Given that I was not the consulting physician I do not know.

And neither do you so please stop pretending that you are making some profound point about this case when you don’t have a clue what you are talking about

a reply to: Mclaneinc

"So you would have rather seen the child moved against doctors wishes purely to keep the parents happy and saw the child STILL DIE but miles away from any long term source of treatment?"

See here is the thing, its not about what i would rather.

It's about what the little guys parents wished to happen!

It's about what our laws allowed to take place, and at the expense of what???

The end, or so I'm lead to believe, would still have been the same, so what does the route taken matter to anyone other than the family?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Having worked in the medical field I can tell you for a fact that palliative patients are routinely taken off all nutrient support to facilitate the death process

I've worked as a Nurse in hospitals and in hospice

So you can take your feigned know it all bs and stick it somwhere else.....

Let me ask a question, say god forbid we get an illness that is not curable a terminal illness and doctors say they can’t save us in the country we live in, but say a foreign country has a trial procedure they can try on you that has a chance to save you, and you want to go, but your government says you can’t and you end up having to go thru the judicial branch of your government to try and get permission to go and in the end some guy you don’t even know mighta had a fight with his wife before he hears your case with his wife deciding your fate and he says no, and decides to end your treatment and you die a week later because he feels that is the best choice for you..

No way in hell you would agree with it and if you say you do I will say it for all of us your a moron and deserve it.

I can’t make it any more simpler.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Having worked in the medical field I can tell you for a fact that palliative patients are routinely taken off all nutrient support to facilitate the death process

So you can take your feigned know it all bs and stick it somwhere else.....

Well I can tell you that does not happen in the U.K., patients are not refused nutritional support to facilitate death.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I'm sad now and a little drunk, away for a cuddle of my own weans before the government decides to sanction such.

R.I.P wee Alfie.

Edit: profound point??? LoL You will be cracking the jokes then i imagine?

NOTHING profound about any of this, whatever point you think you are trying to make most assuredly included. LoL

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Having worked in the medical field I can tell you for a fact that palliative patients are routinely taken off all nutrient support to facilitate the death process

So you can take your feigned know it all bs and stick it somwhere else.....

Well I can tell you that does not happen in the U.K., patients are not refused nutritional support to facilitate death.

Bs....... You're just trying to throw out what you assume is correct info w absolutely NO background or experience to try and virtue signal

I can tell you that it most certainly does