It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 29
60
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: pointessa
a reply to: notsure1 notsure1, you are deceiving yourself if you think you have control of your childs healthcare in the US. Try saying you don't want your kid to have vaccinations, just because you don't think it's in the best interest of your child. Try saying you don't want your kid to have a blood transfusion because of your religion. Try saying you will avoid the standard cancer treatment of chemo and radiation because you have a better alternative option. You have freedom as long as you go along with the mainstream treatments.



You are correct in this assessment. Socialism and the Big State have taken over whether we know it or not. It is done by increments and this is the point that makes things seem vague.




posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Grambler

Just like you have done all thread when people attempt to tell you the facts.
Where was I wrong ? Texas has the law on its books but I thought it ould never happen in the states....
So yes I think you are as bad as the daily mail.


I clearly outlined in my list how it was wrong

I have said all along the problem with the situation with Alfie isn’t that they removed him from life support, it is that there were other competent doctors willing to give life support that the family wanted to use at no cost to the U.K., but the court would not allow the parents to use this

Your article says Texas court can rule that a person be taken off life support, but it actually says then the family CAN transfer the person to get care of they desire

How much clearer can I make it?

In addition, your article actually cites a case in Texas where the court based on doctors opinions ruled to take a person off of life support (note they didn’t say the patient couldn’t be transferred to a hospital willing to continue it) and they were wrong and the person recovered

That is devastating as it shows that courts and doctors that are absolutely certain that a person can not recover can be wrong

Yet you chose to make personal attacks about me rather than respond to these points
edit on 29-4-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Slavery has been perfected there. Way to go!



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: EvillerBob

In the US dogs are euthanized in their owm best interest.

Unless someone wants to take on their treatment and care. In those cases the dogs usually survive

There is something intrinsically evil in a government being the arbiter of peoples best interest.


You have been spot on in this one BFFT. The affect of their desire to see as the Gov health care professionals wanted for Alfie and parents are summed up by Grambler. Regardless of their logic for starving/cutting off life support, it still boils down to the fact that Italy offered to keep the boy alive and try to find a way to save him and England denied the family that chance, period.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Sorry I am on the phone

I know, that's why I said "when you can".



I guess I would suggest you use google

Do you think I haven't done that?


Near every article I read, and the official judgement says this

I'm not interested in articles, I want to read the real ruling.


edit on 29/4/2018 by ArMaP because: missed an 's



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Wow, you still slugging it out this thread fella?!
I said my piece ages ago, was just repeating the same points you've been making.

I support the UK doctors deciding 'they' no longer wished to continue life support, that is fair enough, but when a fully regulated, legal, and recognised EU health service was denied the opportunity to provide continuing care (in the Italian doctor's medical opinion) I have to condemn that as a judge overstepping the boundaries of what I perceive 'justice' to be.

I'm amazed so many Brits do not see the principle of this. One nations doctors say 'remove life support' and another says 'no need, we'll offer continuing care', yet only the British doctors are deemed to be ethically superior.
Have you noticed as well how butt hurt the Brit members who work in the NHS are, it seems their pride is more important than the ethical question raised when doctors disagree. Brit doctors = good, Italian doctors = bad.

One member even lied and said no nutrients/fluid were being removed, then conceded that some form of nutrition had been supplied for the last year which was part of the life support. He almost wailed when I used the term 'starve him to death' but removing that form of nutrition was/is starving him to death even if he hates the way I phrased it.

Fact is if the little boy had lasted without the ventilator for a few weeks he would have starved to death. Hell we kill sick dogs with drugs, the UK doesn't even give a dying child that painless option, no, remove ventilation and just for good measure if that doesn't work, stop fluids and nutrients to make sure.
It would be illegal to do that to a sick dog in the UK, and the same judge would happily convict you if you did.

I'm actually ashamed of this decision in the UK, and agree with the majority of US posters regarding parental responsibility and choice.
If they'd wanted to take him to a witch doctor in Papua New Guinea then fair enough, I'd say that's not in the childs best interests, but when a fellow EU member state was offering continuin care that they would offer to it's own citizens, then on that point of principle I passionately believe the judge was wrong to deny it.

It's done now, the poor lad has passed, and I will praise the NHS & professionals who cared for him in his short life with care probably costing millions, but the decision to deny transfer to another health service prepared to continue the care...no, I can never, ever, support that.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP


You've made some great attempts at pointing out the facts in this argument, whilst other members seem to live their lives by right wing tabloid news, and don't bother reading the facts about poor Alfie, or even want to accept the facts about Alfies disease or condition before he pasted away. They just want to go on about how wrong the NHS is, to make them feel better about there own abysmal healthcare.


edit on 29-4-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




Fact is if the little boy had lasted without the ventilator for a few weeks he would have starved to death.


I'm sorry to say but thats not a fact at all, he was finding it hard to breath almost immediately and his father had to give mouth to mouth to help Alfie keep breathing.
edit on 29-4-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




Fact is if the little boy had lasted without the ventilator for a few weeks he would have starved to death.


I'm sorry to say but thats not a fact at all, he was finding it hard to breath almost immediately and his father had to give mouth to mouth to help Alfie keep breathing.

It is a fact. I said if the little boy had lasted without the ventilator for a few weeks he would have starved to death. That is a fact.
Okay he died from the condition, but if he'd lasted for a few weeks he would have starved to death. There is nothing you can say to refute that.
You just don't like it pointed out.

...and again, it's illegal to starve a sick dog to death, our law is a disgrace.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

When he was taken off life support, it was stated that he could last a few days, not weeks. He was taken off because he was dying, he wasn't starved to death. It must have been known that his illness was about to take him for them to do this I believe.


edit on 29-4-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

Dude, you are missing the point, or trying to deflect, if he had managed to breathe for a few weeks then he would have starved to death. Nutrients were removed, and one has to ask why remove nutrients if the intention is to let the condition kill him. Removing nutrients as well seems to me to be a back up plan to make sure he died.

Again, we cannot do that to a sick dog, they get a pain free overdose, yet nutrients can be removed from a dying child.
You cannot deny that, and I know you hate to admit it, but removing nutrients serves one purpose, and one purpose only, to facilitate death.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


Alfies life was already coming to an end. His disease had pretty much run it's course, which is why the medical staff wanted to take him off life support in the first place (I believe). I do agree with you that it's hard to accept removing nutrients from a child but, and its a big but, he's bodies autonomic system was failing, hence breathing problems and that is usually the last thing to go before death. Even if they could have given him an injection to end his possible suffering, his parents wouldn't have wanted it, and they'd have still been in an impossible position.




edit on 29-4-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Nutrients were removed, and one has to ask why remove nutrients if the intention is to let the condition kill him. Removing nutrients as well seems to me to be a back up plan to make sure he died.

I'm not sure about that (or, more correctly, I'm even less sure than the rest of the things I write), but I think that it's relatively common practice to stop giving nutrients to dying patients.

From a different point of view, in his last days of life, my father almost stopped eating and drank very little. He was completely conscious and able to move, although he wasn't able to get out of bed on his own. He died two days latter from prostate cancer.

Both of the two points above make me think that removing nutrients doesn't affect the outcome if the patient lasts for less than one week. But that's just my opinion.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Grambler

I think you have to look at it as the best they could do versus the worst.
In this case, keeping his body alive through whatever means seems worse than letting him go.
Which is worse than euthanasia.
That said though, how much did his parents prolong his suffering by performing CPR?






It doesn’t matter.

You have already conceded that the court knowing did not give the best option to Alfie

The family was making what they thought was the best decision for him, even if they were wrong

This is why letting it up to the court is terrible, they willing did not make the best decision in their minds for Alfie

That is unconscionable


I conceded no such thing.
The court made the best decision it could within the legal framework of the United Kingdom.
Euthanasia is illegal here so there is no point presenting it as an option.

I suppose if the family had been American he'd have died long ago since the family don't look wealthy enough to matter under that barbaric system.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

Oh I don't disagree that his condition was going to kill him without the ventilator, the Italian doctors agreed the same.
What I do disagree with is removing nutrients as well because if the condition didn't do him in, then starvation absolutely would have. Euthanasia in all but name.

Say my dog had terminal cancer, and the vet told me he had a matter of days at best, it would be a crime to let him starve to death. It's not a crime with a dying human though.
I don't blame the NHS either, I blame our laws and justice system.

The same justice system which decided that UK doctors = ethical, Italian doctors = unethical.
I disagree with the decision to withold nutrients, and I disagree with the decision to deny transfer to the Italian doctors.
The Italian doctors, not me, deemed it ethical to continue care so what we have is two nations doctors in disagreement and a judge deciding that the Italians were wrong.
While that legal option of continuing care was available, and the parents wanted it, then it is my opinion that he should have been transferred to the care of doctors who wished to take the responsibility.

If the Italian doctors had not offered an alternative then I would have had no problem with UK doctors deciding that 'they' no longer wished to continue life support, that's fair enough. But denyinn transfer of care to the Italian doctors, and withdrawing nutrients to make sure he died, nope, I can't agree with that at all.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
I think that it's relatively common practice to stop giving nutrients to dying patients.

If that is the case then it can only be for one reason, to help facilitate death. There is no other outcome except starvation if the patient lives long enough that their condition doesn't kill them in a week or two.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

What a lot of nonsence you are spouting, have you even researched what has gone on at all ?. #ing Merican "you'll not take our guns and tell us what to do", behave yourself!. This wee one has had treatment for a long period of time, the child had a brain scan in November and was found to have 30% brain function which was decreasing daily, basically his brain was turning to water. He had no life, couldnt survive and was only being kept alive by the doctors care, this is no cure, no treatment and nothing that could be done.

The case had been heard by specialists, gone to the court, then the supreme court and had been to the European Court of Law twice. Every expert called stated the childs true state of health and that there was nothing that could be done to support this child, other than the palitive care that he had (also what the Itailians were offering, however getting him to italy would have killed him).

The court had taken the most suitalbe and appropiate decision, which was to let the wee one pass, which was the kindest thing to be done. There is no death panels, state sponsered killing or whatever nonsense that you wish to spout, just a decision made in what was in the childs best interest, so keep your political agenda to yourself.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

he wasnt allowed to travel as the travel would have killed him, he was to get the same care in italy as he was getting in the UK.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join