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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Grambler
Sorry I am on the phone
I guess I would suggest you use google
Near every article I read, and the official judgement says this
Fact is if the little boy had lasted without the ventilator for a few weeks he would have starved to death.
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.
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.
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
originally posted by: ArMaP
I think that it's relatively common practice to stop giving nutrients to dying patients.