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: 31
60
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

It's pretty obvious he had a chat with the Italian government after the parents asked him to get involved, don't you think?
I can't imagine the Italian government was watching on the TV and thought oh yeah let's offer continuing care to that sick British child.




posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

The Pope can but ask, however what was done was in the interest of the child, not some religious do gooder with the best intentions. Italian doctors were told by the pope what was in the intrest of the child, remember this went to the european court as well as the supreme court in the UK, which was supported by specialists and Doctors from Europe, so over ruling italian doctors



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Yes I've been treated in France for injuries before and didn't have to pay anything.
I think the citizenship was either symbolic or it took a load of international paperwork away because he'd be an Italian citizen.
The Italian citizenship also meant that Italy would foot the bill, so that was a significant move.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: weemadmental

Italian doctors visited the child and consulted with his medical team.
They made their own independent ethical and medical decision to offer continuing care, not the Pope.
And again, the Pope was asked to stick his oar in by the parents.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I can't imagine the Italian government was watching on the TV and thought oh yeah let's offer continuing care to that sick British child.

That Italian hospital belongs to the Vatican.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

True, but Italian citizenship was the gift of Italy.
I read Italy/Vatican City State as an incestuous affiliation to be honest, even though I know they are officially two seperate independent nations.
EDIT
The Italian citizenship meant Italy would foot the bill for continuing care, even if the continuing care was in the Vatican City State.
edit on 29-4-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: Changed treatment to continuing care, for clarity



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

OK, I understand it.



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

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.



I say it was undue suffering to cut him off to die when Italy offered to keep him alive and give someone in Italy a chance to cure him. Go figure?



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

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.....



They are becoming Automatons. 1984 has come and we are dealing with the brainwashed. It seems it is going to take this happening to them or someone close for them to understand. I have kids.....



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Or maybe you never had any common sense in the first place?

Educate yourself on the situation, nobody was getting starved to death and as far as I can tell you don't know shot about this case or the treatment this child received.

Prove me wrong and show me the medication treatment sheet and your own credentials that prove you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about.

I'll not hold my breath.


How silly to think we cant try something England didn't want to do. Did they try stem cells? Did they try the things the parents wanted to try?



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

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.



I say it was undue suffering to cut him off to die when Italy offered to keep him alive and give someone in Italy a chance to cure him. Go figure?


What part of there is NO cure, No Treatment - Nothing that could save the child that you do not get, moving the child would have killed him
edit on 29/4/2018 by weemadmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: weemadmental
moving the child would have killed him

Again, on that specific point, nobody asserted that, it was all 'could' or 'might', stating otherwise is dishonest.
I get your point about worries with transportation, but the medical opinion was unsure, it's all in the published ruling so please don't claim anyone was sure it would kill him.
EDIT
He was dying anyway, if not from having the ventilator removed, but by the withdrawal of nutrients as a back-up plan.
Treated worse than a dog in my opinion, we give them painless lethal injection.
And before anyone whines, I blame UK law, not the health professionals who have to work within its mandates.
...I am however eternally grateful to the medical team who overdosed my own dying father many years ago with morphine. Of course that is never discussed in formal or official settings.
edit on 29-4-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Kurokage

So now the UK government can shut down all opposing views and opinions about the subject, while threatening legal force, because of a few random social media posts? How do we even know those people are real?

This is the world we're living in now, and it's like something you would read in a George Orwell novel.


No it can't. Stop making stuff up.

Get your hands off your ears and open your eyes. You are now brainwashed to hate anything the Gov tells you to hate aren't you? YES you are! Take your hands off your ears and open your eyes. Look and listen to what is happening. You have reasoned it ok to allow the starving of that child to death who might get healed in a few months with the tech coming along. Stem cell research is making huge strides. Crazy to not allow another hospital to take over the care. ASININE actually.


Yes because you clearly know more about the boys condition than the doctors who examined and cared for him for 18 Months.



Failed logic on your part.

It is a failing argument to continue as when the Italian Dr's wanted to try and when wasn't allowed to happen. Collectivism mindset has set in for several of you here in this thread. The Italians didn't get a chance.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

it was explained by the doctors regarding breathing, it was what ended his life, they were informed that he could last upto 10 days after the ventilator was removed, its and automatic response (low level). try holding your breath, you maybe able to pass out but you will restart breathing. The risk and possiblity to death during transportation was the reason not to travel

from the judgement

63. The plans to take him to Italy have to be evaluated against this analysis of his needs. There are obvious challenges. Away fromthe intensive care provided byAlder Hey PICU, Alfie is inevitably more vulnerable, not least to infection. The maintenance of his anticonvulsant regime, which is,in itself,of limited effect, risks being compromised in travel.The journey, self-evidently will be burdensome. Nobody would wish Alfie to die in transit.

64.All of this might be worth risking if there were any prospect of treatment, there is none. For this reasonthe alternative advanced by the father is irreconcilable with Alfie’s best interests. F continues to struggle to accept that it is palliation not treatment that is all that can now be offered to his son.

www.judiciary.gov.uk...
edit on 29/4/2018 by weemadmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: weemadmental

Agreed, moving Alfie to the Vatican was an idiotic cause for certain types of conservatives to get involved in, to push their agenda, whether that agenda be right or wrong. And it's sad to see the Pope has also been reduced to media spectacles like this to score some sympathy points for his religion, although I guess there's probably a long tradition behind that.

Ideally NHS still should have let it happen though, would have cost them a lot of trouble. I get that they can't always let parents and relatives dictate how they care for the patients, but if it costs nothing and the patient was going to die anyway, then why not. Even if it is immoral to risk prolonging his suffering.


It is the true liberal definition that I am and my liberal side (fiscal conservative/ social liberal) says let the parents be free to do what might work if he is going to die anyway. Don't let Parents deny care to kill a child like the blood transfusion example but let them try if someone is willing to help. What right is it of us to not let someone else try? Sad you would care to FORCE them to give up on something when the kid was dead anyway as you all say. Why do you care if someone else wants to try?

That is very INHUMANE!

You are confused as to when it is ok to tell the parents to take a hike.

Yes for Parents on saving life, no on Parents ending it when a transfusion will save them then eh?



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman
That's one of my key objections. A fellow EU member nation offered to take responsibility for internationally recognised, and legal continuing care yet a British judge had the power to refuse it.
The parents wanted it, the Italian doctors made their own decision about ethical and medical considerations, but the judge had the power to say no.
That leaves a foul taste in my mouth as a British (and EU) citizen.
edit on 29-4-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: clarity



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

is there any report from the italian doctors? did they give an interview?

i'm curious what they have to say.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
He was dying anyway, if not from having the ventilator removed, but by the withdrawal of nutrients as a back-up plan.

Now is my time to say that you cannot know that, right?



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
It is a failing argument to continue as when the Italian Dr's wanted to try and when wasn't allowed to happen. Collectivism mindset has set in for several of you here in this thread. The Italians didn't get a chance.

The Italian doctors didn't want to try to cure him, they agreed that there was no cure. The only thing that was talked about was sequencing his DNA for studying it.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: weemadmental

I'm not a doctor so couldn't argue about the potential risks, all I know is that internationally regulated and recognised doctors from another EU member state disagreed and offered continuing care.
Are you a doctor?
Serious question, not being flippant, just the ethical argument is the main thing here, and doctors from two different EU nations were offering two different options.
A judge denied a child an option which would be available to a child in Italy.
Who the # am I to say that the way Italy rolls 'end of life care to kids' is unethical?



new topics




 
60
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join