UK Authorities Crack Down On Nazi Dogs And Angry Drivers While Forcing Parents To Watch Baby Die

a reply to: Grambler

I'm actually with you on this in many ways, but in particular the fact that the baby has been given Italian citizenship, and an EU regulated/approved Italian hospital is willing to take over the costs/responsibility for prolonging his life for however long, so who the # is the court to deny this prolonged treatment/existence which the Italian state is apparently not in disagreement with providing.

Are we saying that the UK health professionals have higher status than the Italians who are prepared to keep this dual nationality patient alive?
On a 'best for the child' note I'd say let him die while nourished and with pain relief, but I do stand with you on the issue of a court deciding when another EU health service is willing to continue keeping him alive. The parents have a choice of another EU hospital for their childs care yet the court deny it. It then seems like once you enter a British hospital, if they disagree and go to court then the 'freedom of movement' in the EU suddenly becomes void.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Yes I am exactly with you on this.

Look personally, although I have never been in this situation and hoepfully never will; i think I would leave the baby pass on.

But that does not mean that I feel the state ought to be able to tell someone they may not seek non state (UK state) treatment elsewhere

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


Italy can't offer any better treatment than what he's already had and the treatment that has been offered is more invasive than what he's already received.
He has a degenerative brain disease which means he will only ever get worse, and by him traveling for any length of time will do more harm than good. The disease that Alfie has is akin to dementia.

If a public body considers that a parent's choices risk significant harm to their child, it can challenge these choices

Parents' wishes are listened to and respected, but sometimes what they are asking, doctors feel would do more harm than good and that would be against their professional duty and the law

What a bunch of crazy people in here defending the government.

They already took him off life support and he is still alive.

The family had to beg for 6 hours just to get the baby some food and water.

This is very crazy now.

Maybe they will let the baby go home now.

a reply to: howtonhawky


The Government have no influence in this, it's judges and doctors and Alfies parents, But I do think that Alfie should go home now he's off assisted breathing, and be allowed to be with his parents.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
The baby is brain dead and will not recover, it's tough but I think it's cruel keeping it alive.

"Him"... the baby, Alfie, was a little boy, not an "it."

30 cops wouldn't keep me from correcting that situation if it was one of my children. This is the type of horsecrap that happens when a society has allowed their weapons and means of protecting their personal freedoms to be stolen from them.

a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

The right to shoot Drs who are keeping your child alive is the American Dream.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

Nothing. They have everything to do with securing a parent's natural right to make decisions for their own offspring over whatever artificial authority the government or their approved representatives claim, however. This was a parents' choice to make, not a panels, not the governments... if the parents were opposed to removal from life support, then end of story Alfie remains on life support. As it currently stands, this would be very risky in many parts of America because the hospital, cops surrounding it, and even medical board members would immediately be at risk to be executed by a pissed off and grieving parent with some balls and a couple of firearms.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't think parents shooting Drs or Police because their grief is driving them to act in their own self interest, not the interest of their child is a good thing or situation that one would want to emulate elsewhere. It's a race to the gutter approach.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

Nothing. They have everything to do with securing a parent's natural right to make decisions for their own offspring over whatever artificial authority the government or their approved representatives claim, however. This was a parents' choice to make, not a panels, not the governments... if the parents were opposed to removal from life support, then end of story Alfie remains on life support. As it currently stands, this would be very risky in many parts of America because the hospital, cops surrounding it, and even medical board members would immediately be at risk to be executed by a pissed off and grieving parent with some balls and a couple of firearms.

^^^ everything wrong with America in one post ^^^

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

Nothing. They have everything to do with securing a parent's natural right to make decisions for their own offspring over whatever artificial authority the government or their approved representatives claim, however. This was a parents' choice to make, not a panels, not the governments... if the parents were opposed to removal from life support, then end of story Alfie remains on life support. As it currently stands, this would be very risky in many parts of America because the hospital, cops surrounding it, and even medical board members would immediately be at risk to be executed by a pissed off and grieving parent with some balls and a couple of firearms.

Like a parents choice to let a child bleed to death if they are Jehovah witnesses. Thats why doctors step in when a child is at risk. But yeah sure, Guns and machoism are the answer to all medical problems.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: howtonhawky


The Government have no influence in this, it's judges and doctors and Alfies parents, But I do think that Alfie should go home now he's off assisted breathing, and be allowed to be with his parents.

Just look at your silly comments beyond ignorant.

You are supporting a murderous system.

What will you say when alfie walks out of the hospital?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

But that does not mean that I feel the state ought to be able to tell someone they may not seek non state (UK state) treatment elsewhere

This is where we agree.
A recognised approved EU health service is willing to offer care to a child which holds citizen status in that country. On that point the argument is which health professionals are making the correct choice in the respective nations. The 'treatment' would be legal in Italy - although I just think of it as keeping him alive which I wouldn't do myself by now I think if I was in the situation.

Regardless, a legal option in another EU approved hospital is on offer to a national of that country but is denied by court rulings, no I can't accept that on principle.

a reply to: Kurokage
I know he's going to die anyway, but maybe in Italy he will die while being nourished, and with pain relief.
And I don't buy the 'suffering in the transport' argument either, IC patients get transferred between hospitals with no particular issue other than they've changed beds and machines.

At this point the hospital is literary jailing the baby.

They have stopped all treatment on the child so what grounds are they holding the child now?

a reply to: howtonhawky

The court obviously feel he should die sooner rather than later.
...but so long as health professionals in another EU country disagree and are willing to provide the care 'they' deem appropriate then that should remain an option to the parents in my opinion.
It's tragic, but there is a legal option of keeping him alive but UK courts are playing god, not the parents and an alternative EU nation's health service.

originally posted by: Kurokage
Like a parents choice to let a child bleed to death if they are Jehovah witnesses. Thats why doctors step in when a child is at risk.

Yet here we're talking about the opposite happening. Doctors didn't step in to help a child at risk, they stepped in to give the child that final shove into the abyss.

Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: burdman30ott6


What do weapons have to do with a childs degenerative brain disease??

Nothing. They have everything to do with securing a parent's natural right to make decisions for their own offspring over whatever artificial authority the government or their approved representatives claim, however. This was a parents' choice to make, not a panels, not the governments... if the parents were opposed to removal from life support, then end of story Alfie remains on life support. As it currently stands, this would be very risky in many parts of America because the hospital, cops surrounding it, and even medical board members would immediately be at risk to be executed by a pissed off and grieving parent with some balls and a couple of firearms.

^^^ everything wrong with America in one post ^^^

^^^ the reason smart Americans recoil at any hint of the US adopting any of the European model in one attempt at snideness ^^^

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't think parents shooting Drs or Police because their grief is driving them to act in their own self interest, not the interest of their child is a good thing or situation that one would want to emulate elsewhere. It's a race to the gutter approach.

I think anyone who takes measures with the intent of a child dying, which is exactly what happened here, and does so while using law enforcement to prevent parental "interference" (previously known as the parental instinct to protect their children at any cost) should expect their life to be extremely at risk for the foreseeable future.

a reply to: howtonhawky

You are supporting a murderous system

So says someone who lives in a society where innocent people have been put to death for crimes they didn't commit.

www.theguardian.com...