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

a reply to: eletheia

Ok you can make sense now.

The child requires food to live.

co·ma1
ˈkōmə/Submit
noun
a state of deep unconsciousness that lasts for a prolonged or indefinite period, caused especially by severe injury or illness.

The child is not in a state of deep unconsciousness.

Being able to track movements means he is conscious and being starved by idiots.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

He is almost 2 and can't eat.

Like i said read up on it.

People keep on about his eating

He's been in a coma for well over a year!!

The only nourishment he has had in all that time has been intravenously fed

to him.

So can people at least stop saying he is being starved .... I've seen enough

pictures of starved African babies to see Alfie is at least not suffering from

starvation.

Cutting life support can mean cutting of intravenous nourishment too.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: howtonhawky


I've worked in the NHS, I'm also looking at this rationally, everyone else is adding there own beliefs to Alfies case.

Your understanding of dementia shows your ignorance of the term or maybe Americans call it something different.
look up "mixed dementia" or "vascular dementia", this isn't an just an "old persons" disease.

No amount of credentials can make up for the irrational decision to not feed a starving child.

Starvation is murder.

Denying a patient the right to food,water and air is prosecutable.

It is inhumane.

You all are forgetting that if your piss poor diagnosis of coma and dementia ect... is correct then no amount of food and water can keep him alive. If you are wrong then it would then be necessary to kill the child in order to protect the diagnosis.

Please just go read up, you have no idea how silly you look!!

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Xenogears

I don't believe I know what is best.

I believe that in a civilised society, when someone can't make such an important decision for themselves, then it's best its done via the court system.

Exactly as has happened here.

If the courts are spouting contradictory nonsense, their conclusions are invalid. I guess I will have to read up on it elsewhere and hope for more info. But it seems claims of brain death, not being able to feel pain, feeling pain, etc are all being made, and it is just ridiculous.

In any case being in pain does not mean you must be euthanized. Some people prefer such, others not.

originally posted by: Kurokage
By being left on a machine, to breath, and feed him whilst his brain slowly rots to nothing is undignified.

Urm, he's not on a ventilator now, the doctors want him to starve to death instead of from his condition.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

He is almost 2 and can't eat.

Like i said read up on it.

People keep on about his eating

He's been in a coma for well over a year!!

The only nourishment he has had in all that time has been intravenously fed

to him.

So can people at least stop saying he is being starved .... I've seen enough

pictures of starved African babies to see Alfie is at least not suffering from

starvation.

Cutting life support can mean cutting of intravenous nourishment too.

This is beside the point.

Cutting life support deos not mean not allowing the parents to feed him.

If you are gonna take the tube then let them feed him.

They can not even try to feed their baby cause of the doctors intervention.

IT IS A HOSPITAL WHERE EVERYONE GET"S TO TRY TO EAT EXCEPT ALPHIE.

originally posted by: Forensick
a reply to: Grambler

Your going around in circles.

Because nurses and doctors are not murderers, the country doesn't have a Euthanasia policy, if the child cannot feed its self and the parents arent trying to forcibly administer McDonalds he died of natural causes.

However if he sits up after a year on life supports and says, "McDonalds" then the doctors would not stop the parents giving it to him.

They are just removing the drip that is feeding him and the rest is up to him.

Before you suggest why cant they do that in Italy like a stuck record, why? Unless Italy have the magical brain re generator which doesnt exist, the boy is either going to die the same way in a bit longer with a higher risk of suffering. However, he in incurable, regardless of whether Italy, Spain, Russia or China offered it, they boy is going to die and if you want a world where we keep dead people on life support for ever you are free to it.

What utter BS, babies can't feed themselves, nor can people like Stephen Hawking if he was still alive, nor can people with severe mental retardation. Depriving them of food and water, is euthanasia.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: howtonhawky


I've worked in the NHS, I'm also looking at this rationally, everyone else is adding there own beliefs to Alfies case.

Your understanding of dementia shows your ignorance of the term or maybe Americans call it something different.
look up "mixed dementia" or "vascular dementia", this isn't an just an "old persons" disease.

No amount of credentials can make up for the irrational decision to not feed a starving child.

Starvation is murder.

Denying a patient the right to food,water and air is prosecutable.

It is inhumane.

You all are forgetting that if your piss poor diagnosis of coma and dementia ect... is correct then no amount of food and water can keep him alive. If you are wrong then it would then be necessary to kill the child in order to protect the diagnosis.

Please just go read up, you have no idea how silly you look!!

I told you once i have been reading bout him for a couple weeks.

Is there something important you think i missed?

baby is in hospital and they will not feed him. none of the rest matters right now.

FEED THE BABY

a reply to: Xenogears


Alfie is a child, his brain is slowly dying, he can't make a decision as he is comatose and unresponsive.

In any case being in pain does not mean you must be euthanized. Some people prefer such, others not.

How does an unresponsive child tell people he'd prefer to live in pain?

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Xenogears

I don't believe I know what is best.

I believe that in a civilised society, when someone can't make such an important decision for themselves, then it's best its done via the court system.

Exactly as has happened here.

If the courts are spouting contradictory nonsense, their conclusions are invalid. I guess I will have to read up on it elsewhere and hope for more info. But it seems claims of brain death, not being able to feel pain, feeling pain, etc are all being made, and it is just ridiculous.

In any case being in pain does not mean you must be euthanized. Some people prefer such, others not.

What you makes you think it's ridiculous. The courts listened to the evidence of those who, actually treated him. I feel that's a good bit more reliable than drawing conclusions from the Internet.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Forensick
a reply to: Grambler

Your going around in circles.

Because nurses and doctors are not murderers, the country doesn't have a Euthanasia policy, if the child cannot feed its self and the parents arent trying to forcibly administer McDonalds he died of natural causes.

However if he sits up after a year on life supports and says, "McDonalds" then the doctors would not stop the parents giving it to him.

They are just removing the drip that is feeding him and the rest is up to him.

Before you suggest why cant they do that in Italy like a stuck record, why? Unless Italy have the magical brain re generator which doesnt exist, the boy is either going to die the same way in a bit longer with a higher risk of suffering. However, he in incurable, regardless of whether Italy, Spain, Russia or China offered it, they boy is going to die and if you want a world where we keep dead people on life support for ever you are free to it.

What utter BS, babies can't feed themselves, nor can people like Stephen Hawking if he was still alive, nor can people with severe mental retardation. Depriving them of food and water, is euthanasia.

Its not just depriving them.

Its not allowing them to have food, AND saying they may not be taken somewhere else to be given food.

that is what makes it so heinous.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Kurokage
By being left on a machine, to breath, and feed him whilst his brain slowly rots to nothing is undignified.

Urm, he's not on a ventilator now, the doctors want him to starve to death instead of from his condition.

That's what Italy want to do, and also more invasive breathing equipment.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Forensick
a reply to: Grambler

Your going around in circles.

Because nurses and doctors are not murderers, the country doesn't have a Euthanasia policy, if the child cannot feed its self and the parents arent trying to forcibly administer McDonalds he died of natural causes.

However if he sits up after a year on life supports and says, "McDonalds" then the doctors would not stop the parents giving it to him.

They are just removing the drip that is feeding him and the rest is up to him.

Before you suggest why cant they do that in Italy like a stuck record, why? Unless Italy have the magical brain re generator which doesnt exist, the boy is either going to die the same way in a bit longer with a higher risk of suffering. However, he in incurable, regardless of whether Italy, Spain, Russia or China offered it, they boy is going to die and if you want a world where we keep dead people on life support for ever you are free to it.

What utter BS, babies can't feed themselves, nor can people like Stephen Hawking if he was still alive, nor can people with severe mental retardation. Depriving them of food and water, is euthanasia.

We are not talking physical disability or mental impairment here. Read up on the full extent of his condition.

a reply to: Xenogears

Are you really daft enough to think this is simply about being Alfie being in pain?

Some of the nonsense i am reading now is, frankly, embarrassing but then i cant really blame people when i see some of the overseas media coverage of this tragic case.

Also, to all talking about the parents rights for theor child, the fact is they dont have any. Legally, that presumes possession of property - in point of fact it is a child, not a possession. This is the only reason that the courts ultimately rule over such cases in the very rare occassions such things come to court. They represent the child, not the parent.

a reply to: Kurokage
You support the decision of the courts and the doctors who propose for him to either die of dehydration or starving (Euthanasia) instead of the condition he is suffering from. Or have I misinterpreted you.

Depriving fluids and/or nutrition to a child who is breathing independently is euthanasia.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Xenogears


Alfie is a child, his brain is slowly dying, he can't make a decision as he is comatose and unresponsive.

In any case being in pain does not mean you must be euthanized. Some people prefer such, others not.

How does an unresponsive child tell people he'd prefer to live in pain?

Here we go again.

The courts own judgement says it is very unlikely that the child is in pain.

You cant have it both ways.

Either the child is in pain, and the most humane thing to do would be to use medicine to end the pain immediately as opposed to allowing the pain to continue and only end when starvation hits.

Or the child isnt in pain, and so there is no reason to not allow the child to receive competent care oiutside the NHS.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Xenogears

Are you really daft enough to think this is simply about being Alfie being in pain?

If its not about pain, then what possible justification is there for not letting alfie go to italy to receive competent care?

a reply to: Kurokage

The Italian health service won't be carrying out euthanasia by starvation though.
That is my biggest objection if the child is breathing independently.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Kurokage
You support the decision of the courts and the doctors who propose for him to either die of dehydration or starving (Euthanasia) instead of the condition he is suffering from. Or have I misinterpreted you.

Depriving fluids and/or nutrition to a child who is breathing independently is euthanasia.

I think he should be on a feeding tube personally but all it will do is give his parents hope when there is none. His parents have already said that they've had to give mouth to mouth.

ETA. Alfie is having trouble breathing.

a reply to: Grambler

very unlikely that the child is in pain

Embolden by me. It's this that concerns me.