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

originally posted by: notsure1
Whatever his parents wanted.. That is the point

Understood.

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Such anger.

What’s positive in letting him just lie there, having seizure after seizure, slowly dying?

It could be said you’re sick and pathetic for advocating the continual suffering the poor child had to endure his short life.

Why didn’t your god save him?

Oh lemme guess, he would have if he got to the Vatican hospital, right?

a reply to: notsure1

So you would let kids die because their parents did not allow a blood transfusion?.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Such anger.

What’s positive in letting him just lie there, having seizure after seizure, slowly dying?

It could be said you’re sick and pathetic for advocating the continual suffering the poor child had to endure his short life.

Why didn’t your god save him?

Oh lemme guess, he would have if he got to the Vatican hospital, right?

There are people that have hundreds of seizures a day.

Why doesn't my God make me rich?

www.thesun.co.uk...


Lot's of weird #e in this world. More than miraculous cures. Makes one go hmmmm.

originally posted by: MissPronounce
However this case is looked at the parents Tom and Kate have had little say in what happened to their son Alfie. The decision made not only insisted that life support from Alder Hay stop, but also that the parents be unable to seek treatment anywhere else. This was deemed in Alfies best interests. Yet unplugging his life support and letting him slowly weaken over 5 long days is humane and promoting the childs dignity? I have to ask...Could you see the same outcome if the parents were celebrities?

Of course if the parents were famous it would be different

I asked earlier if the new royal baby was the one in this position, would the court tell the royal family they couldn’t use their wealth to try to get the baby treatment

Everyone defending this ignored it, because they know the truth

The courts would never tell the royal family that

It’s just the regular folk who must not be allowed to get their own treatment for their children

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

Say you come across a person unconscious that is not breathing

I 100 percent with you that if you don’t give him mouth to mouth, you didn’t kill the person by not giving him breath, and are not morally responsible

However, if you don’t give him mouth to mouth, and forcibly fight back anyone who tries, then you are acting imorraly

The same is true in this case

By removing the feeding tube, and stopping other doctors from putting one in, they should be held responsible

a reply to: testingtesting

So you would let kids die because their parents did not allow a blood transfusion?.

False equivalency.......the kid according to them was dying anyway so.......whats the harm in attempting anything else that could save him.......

a reply to: Grambler

thats exactly right.....

and Ill add, he could have kept on living and there could have been more tests, or treatments done , INDEFINITELY barring total organ failure...

Many people rely on breathing apparatuses and feeding tubes to live , and live for quite a long while, as long as their organs dont totally fail.


All im seeing here is a dog piling of people trying to justify a horrifyingly heinous act by that gov, its health system and the courts.......

After all they have to defend it.....it makes Universal/ single payer health look bad........

They are no better than the ardent Trump supporters who agree with every single thing he does regardless of how reckless it is just because hes a cause they stand behind......(not trying to start a sht storm here, just putting it in perspective for them)

a reply to: notsure1

I have already blasted one of their doctors on their twitter account after his asinine comment. Luckily i am in the US so I guess the best they can do to me is deny me entrance should I ever make it to the UK.

a reply to: Grambler

and this is why I dont want to see the UK or EU style health system i this country.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

My point is courts do act in the best interest of the child in the US also.
You may think it was not in the best interest but the medical professionals deemed it wrong to prelong his life.
Would you let a dog live a life he had? Would you continue to force feed him just incase? When all indications show he would not get better?.
My mum had to pull the plug on my brother so I know what the family is going through and I hope they get the support they will need.

a reply to: testingtesting

Two points.

First in the USA, the courts do not have the right to tell a parent they can’t get competent treatment for their child on their own.

That is what is disgusting about this case. Not that the court said the state would no longer provide treatment, but that it forced other doctors to not provide it

Second with your pint about if it was a dog.

Well it wasn’t a dog/. Is that the criteria you really want your health system going by?

Cause veterinarians in this area euthanize animals with all sorts of illnesses or injuries that would be disgusting to do to humans.

And lastly, if Alfie was a dog, he wouldn’t have been forced to die through lack of food or air

Doctors would give dogs medicine to humanely quickly end their life

So yes, even a dog would have been treated more humanely

a reply to: Grambler

They can tell a parent that they will treat their child without their consent the thing many here are complaining about.

He wasn't gonna get better. He was just going to suffer more.
That's why the doctors advocate letting him die. That's why they went to court. to minimise the pointless suffering of this kid.

Hippocratic oath....FIrst do no harm.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Grambler

They can tell a parent that they will treat their child without their consent the thing many here are complaining about.

I didn’t see people complain about that, but maybe I missed it

Yes a court can say that if the parents refuse to give the child treatment in some cases that they must be forced to allow their child to have treatment

That is a far cry from saying a child can’t get competent treatment even if the family can get it with no cost to the state

a reply to: Grambler

What treatment? He was offered nothing that could save him.
You tell us what treatment was offered more tubes force feeding him?.
He was given the best possible treatment he could get.
He wasn't going to get better the doctors showed the judge evidence and it was deemed it cruel to prelong his life.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
He wasn't gonna get better. He was just going to suffer more.
That's why the doctors advocate letting him die. That's why they went to court. to minimise the pointless suffering of this kid.

Hippocratic oath....FIrst do no harm.

But the decision made was not the best decision to end alfies pain

If the argument is being made that Alfie living was painful, then ending his life immediately in a humane way would have been the best choice for Alfie

Instead they chose to force him to die a slower death by not providing him food and air

This was uneccesary harm, so I guess they violated their oath

a reply to: Grambler

I agree but that would be assisted suicide which is illegal.
The law needs to change.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Grambler

What treatment? He was offered nothing that could save him.
You tell us what treatment was offered more tubes force feeding him?.
He was given the best possible treatment he could get.
He wasn't going to get better the doctors showed the judge evidence and it was deemed it cruel to prelong his life.

Yet the judg and doctors chose not to euthanize, thereby being admittedly cruel by prolonging his life

That is the hypocrisy

On one hand they argue that the Italian doctors would be being crue by prolonging this child’s life, yet on the other hand they chose not to end the life immediately

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Grambler

I agree but that would be assisted suicide which is illegal.
The law needs to change.

Ok then we can now admit that the doctors and the courts did not do what they felt would be best for Alfie

So all the talk about oaths or doing what was best for the child is garbage

The court did not do the most moral or humane thing by their own definition

All the more reason it shouldn’t have been up to the court