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

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

F A C T !

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Why, when the shoe seems to fit?

a reply to: ArMaP

Hence government.. your smarter than this. In any case it was still their child. I don’t want to argue the semantics It’s black and white. Is it ok for a government to decide if your child dies or lives folks... man up and explain...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

F A C T !

Except it’s not a fact....,

If the subject matter was not so heartbreaking this would almost be funny.

3 or 4 people all believing the others ignorance to be facts.

originally posted by: Bicent
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..

That was not the case, nobody (the parents asked the opinion of doctors from Italy and Germany, at least) had an alternative to letting him die.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Bicent

Nobody killed the child that implies murder, this child died of a disease.

When you use Language like killed it’s difficult to answer

No the child died because they stopped feeding him and removed his breathing tube and refused any additional treatment..... Even from another country

Fact

Wrong he was not starved to death.

Get a better argument

I don't need a better argument its fact they removed his breathing tube and stopped feeding him and refused anymore treatment or the parents their rights to seek it....

You can try and spin it anyway you want but those are the facts..... Facts. Not opinion like you're trying to spout....

a reply to: ArMaP

Prolonging the inevitable...

I know if my future was to be in essence a vegetable incapable if ever interacting nor understanding the world around me I'd be praying to God that somebody would turn that machine off for me.

I'd turn it off myself so to speak if I knew my circumstances would leave me on life support without chance of recovery.

I don't have children either but I have loved one's that are children, I want them to live fulfilling lives. This child could never have that.

I'm stubborn though, I'd be in heavy denial if it was my child too.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Wrong he was not starved to death.

Get a better argument

But he would have died of starvation if he'd held on a few weeks breathing. What was the nutrient providing method you mentioned earlier which had kept him alive the past year? That was withdrawn. Why withdraw that? Backup plan in case the condition didn't kill him?

a reply to: ArMaP

They offered help. But my understanding is the British government did not allow them to help, can you help justify and help me understand that logic?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I never claimed nor stated any facts.

I never claimed I was right either.

So it's you who is the hypocrite and a liar too. Funny that.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The facts will be the ones presented.

The reality, well that's a whole nother matter.

From Alfie's parents perspective, the facts are rather apparent and painful too say the least.

It is what it is, and i find the whole matter rather shameful really.

originally posted by: Bicent
Again, why did a court intervene with what parents of a sick child want to do?

It was not about what the parents wanted to do, it was about what the parents didn't want the hospital to do.

The hospital wanted to turn off the life support, the parents didn't want them to, and the hospital took the case to the court.

a reply to: ArMaP

Exactly why didn’t the hospital let the parents take the child somewhere else that would allow them to keep the child on life support RIGHT OR WRONG.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

There was no treatment, there was no cure.

The only thing that could have been done would be to subject him to a slow death by keeping him ventilated untill his heart stopped. Then again by your logic at that point he should have been put on a hart -lung machine and why not some dialysis as well and just turn the poor boy into a bit of meet kept alive by machines.

Because when you take your argument to it’s concussion that’s what happens

Dp

a reply to: andy06shake

There is no conspiracy, the wee guys dead because bureaucratic retards stood in the way of the parent's wishes and perhaps Italian doctors could do what ours could not!

You are correct there is no conspiracy, but Alfie is not dead because of bureaucracy, Alfie is dead because he had an incurable degenerative brain condition and Italian doctors would have done no more or no less than British doctors.

a reply to: ArMaP

That is the controversy.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

What treatment?

Ethically it's wrong to give someone treatment that will do nothing whatsoever. Like giving antibiotics for the flu kinda bs.

How was the child getting fluids?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
No the child died because they stopped feeding him and removed his breathing tube and refused any additional treatment..... Even from another country

Fact

That's not a fact, no additional treatment (or any treatment, as he wasn't getting any treatment for his disease, as there is none) was offered.