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

originally posted by: ArMaP

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?

Removal of nutrients will result in starvation and death 100%.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Removal of nutrients will result in starvation and death 100%.

I was talking about you saying that it was a backup plan to kill him, you cannot know their intentions.

a reply to: Justoneman

The decision was made as it was inhumane to artifically keep him going, have you read the court reports, or know the conditions he was in or his state of health.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Removal of nutrients will result in starvation and death 100%.

I was talking about you saying that it was a backup plan to kill him, you cannot know their intentions.

Of course...why withdraw nutrients then?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Of course...why withdraw nutrients then?

"Of course..." what? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, do you mean you do know what they were thinking?

a reply to: Justoneman

Like I said, they should have let them move him! I just think it's a bad idea, that's all, but I'd have let them make that decision and fly him to Rome.

I know I said healthcare shouldn't always let parents decide. But when I said that I mostly meant cases that are clearly harming the child, like if they want to refuse treatment for some crappy reason. Or if they want to continue a super expensive treatment and there's no Pope to save them. Or if it's clear that the child is suffering; a nationalize healthcare system bears responsibility to the patient too, and not just the parents. But like I said, it was not the wisest decision in this case.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Of course...why withdraw nutrients then?

"Of course..." what? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, do you mean you do know what they were thinking?

I meant I cannot know their intentions, then asked a question about their intentions withdrawing nutrients.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I meant I cannot know their intentions, then asked a question about their intentions withdrawing nutrients.

Why should they keep the nutrients if they thought he would die in one day or two? As I said in a previous post I think that people close to dying do not need food. Too bad we don't have a doctor to help us on this discussion, it would be great to get a professional opinion.

a reply to: ArMaP
I don't need a doctor, it is a point of principle to me, if euthanasia is illegal then how is withdrawing nutrients not euthanasia?
Same outcome, just slower.
Do you deny that withdrawing nutrients ends only one way, death?

a reply to: Cutepants

thats in your opinion there is a wide study on withdrawing Clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) a quick google will show you that.

www.bma.org.uk...

www.google.com... d=0ahUKEwjDv4WB1eDaAhWhF8AKHfBuDnwQ1QIIrwEoAw&biw=1920&bih=966

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

in your opinion, Clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) is treated as a medical treatment, and as such can be removed.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I don't need a doctor, it is a point of principle to me, if euthanasia is illegal then how is withdrawing nutrients not euthanasia?

Well, I do need a doctor to know what is the usual procedure, as I am not a doctor. Withdrawing nutrients is not euthanasia if the patient dies one day or two after they turn off the oxygen.

Same outcome, just slower.

If the patient doesn't die before that.

Do you deny that withdrawing nutrients ends only one way, death?

I do, for one simple reason: they could give them again if the boy had lived more than expected, we don't know what the doctors were thinking and we don't know what is the usual procedure in cases like this.

originally posted by: weemadmental
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

in your opinion, Clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) is treated as a medical treatment, and as such can be removed.

Removal of CANH will result in the death of a patient 100% of the time.
Or do you disagree?

a reply to: ArMaP

Why withdraw nutrients then if the belief is that the condition will kill the patient? No need to withdraw nutrients in such circumstances, rather obviously to any rational thinking person.
You are slippery with your replies, you know exactly what my point of principle is.
EDIT
It is illegal for me to withdraw nutrients and watch a sick dog starve to death in the UK.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Why withdraw nutrients then if the belief is that the condition will kill the patient?

Why keep them? They turned off the oxygen, why would they keep the nutrients?

And as this is a technical question and neither one of us is a doctor this discussion can only go around in circles.

No need to withdraw nutrients in such circumstances, rather obviously to any rational thinking person.

No need to keep them if they turned off the oxygen and were expecting him to die in a couple of days.

You are slippery with your replies, you know exactly what my point of principle is.

What do you mean by "slippery"? You ask questions and answer them the best I can.

Clearly the UK government is monitoring ATS, or at least some members feel they might be, and are afraid to voice their real opinions on this issue for fear of reprisal.

It makes sense now. None of you can get away with saying that socialized medicine might be terrible in some aspects.

Because surely no one here would think that a child being taken off life support, surprising the doctors by continuing to live for another 4 days without food and only a little hydration (odd, since NHS wants him to die), isn't suffering in and of itself. If he wasn't suffering being off life support, then explain to me how he was suffering while on it.

I'm reminded of a story in Texas. A father refused to let anyone take his brain son son off life support. He went as far as to bring a gun with him and stand watch over his son, until being arrested. You can disagree with that, but you can't argue with the results, being that he bought enough time for his son to wake up. He spent 10 months in jail, but that is a small price to pay to keep your child around for longer.

originally posted by: ArMaP
What do you mean by "slippery"? You ask questions and answer them the best I can.

Apologies, I just struggle to see how you appear to support removing nutrition when someone is dying, that has only one possible effect, to help facilitate death.
I mean no offence.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
None of you can get away with saying that socialized medicine might be terrible in some aspects.

I'm a Brit and I've criticised plenty in this thread. Not universal healthcare, but the decision of the judge.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Why just this one child, there's more than likely more. My question is why did they use this one case. Here's what I think.. This was a study to see how the general public would process it, because soon it will become the norm.

Like FB does when they steal info from users and get caught screwing with people's lives. They never get more than a rap on the wrist for it.

Just a thought that went through my mind while considering the reasons for this story being released and pumped up.

originally posted by: Justoneman

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.

No failed knowledge of the situation on your part.

There was no different treatment available in Italy.