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

a reply to: Grambler

While you are comparing apples to oranges, A innocent termanilly ill baby and A grown man teaching his dog "nazi" traits

here is a link to findings which suggest that nearly 45000 per YEAR in the USA die because of no medical treatment due to the, if you cant pay you fooked attitude of US health care

Health study 45000 anually USA deaths

No one who requires medical care should be given zero options but these decisions in a country which offers free health care to ALL are taken in extreme circumstances

Thoughts and prayers with Alfie and his family

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


So, in cases where a decision has to be made in a sad case like this of a vegetative child who has no quality of life, no chance of improving and being kept alive on a ventilator who do you suggest should make that decision if not a Court of Law?

?

Parents.

Why would government>parents?

Because in cases like this parents are amongst the very worst people to make such a decision.

If one of my kids was on life support I know I couldn't make a rational decision on it.

Of course the parents wishes should be taken into account, but it shouldn't ever be the only thing considered.

Funny how it happens so infrequently that its a problem in the US that we are all kinda standing and staring in shocked disgust right now.

Parents don't have absolute rights over their children in the US either and there are similar cases there.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Funny how it happens so infrequently that its a problem in the US that we are all kinda standing and staring in shocked disgust right now.

This is exactly what happens when there's a mass shooting in America, and it makes headlines here in Great Britain. We are all in shocked disgust whilst people in the US are shouting "but my 2nd amendment" and we here in Britain don't understand how laws are more valuable than life.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Grambler

As sad as it is, sometimes people die. It's how it has been since the dawn of man. The world has advanced medically leaps and bounds, but not everything can be cured ever time.

It's cruel to the parents and unfair to the child to let it linger. Let them mourn their beloved child without the glare of the media.

As sad as it is, every day people die. Today everyone on earth can expect to die someday. No one gets of the rock alive.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: oldcarpy

So... this is actually a case history, not just the judgement.

Also, given that the wee fella has been breathing on his own for a great many hours now, someone needs to look at this judgement again, and force the doctors to revisit the question as well, because the boy clearly has the necessary functions remaining to actually exist, it is whether or not he will do more than merely survive, that must be answered now.

The doctors, as evidenced by his status as still currently alive, were wrong. Given that this judgement was made on the basis of the advice of the people who made the wrong call, its conclusions must be assumed faulty as well.

Unlike in the movies switching life support off does not make a person die instantly. People continuing to breath for quite a while is common place and doctors advise the family of this.

But the doctors admitted to betrump ng shocked in this case, and out the child back on life support

Why would they do that if it was business as usual?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Funny how it happens so infrequently that its a problem in the US that we are all kinda standing and staring in shocked disgust right now.

This is exactly what happens when there's a mass shooting in America, and it makes headlines here in Great Britain. We are all in shocked disgust whilst people in the US are shouting "but my 2nd amendment" and we here in Britain don't understand how laws are more valuable than life.

They aren't.

Guns also save lives. Or, if nothing else, could keep a 78 year old man from having to engage in hand to hand combat at 3am.

ETA: should also point out: the right of self defense is universal. We dont need a law for it...all animals are given a right to defend themselves.

originally posted by: ScepticScot


There is no death panel. Stop making stuff up.

Just a term...Someone or group of people decided that the baby would die and the parents had zero say or recourse in that decision to the point of arm guards being used. So what do you call that?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: oldcarpy

So... this is actually a case history, not just the judgement.

Also, given that the wee fella has been breathing on his own for a great many hours now, someone needs to look at this judgement again, and force the doctors to revisit the question as well, because the boy clearly has the necessary functions remaining to actually exist, it is whether or not he will do more than merely survive, that must be answered now.

The doctors, as evidenced by his status as still currently alive, were wrong. Given that this judgement was made on the basis of the advice of the people who made the wrong call, its conclusions must be assumed faulty as well.

Unlike in the movies switching life support off does not make a person die instantly. People continuing to breath for quite a while is common place and doctors advise the family of this.

But the doctors admitted to betrump ng shocked in this case, and out the child back on life support

Why would they do that if it was business as usual?

Maybe they were, maybe not. Individuals vary which is why the armchair medical experts here claiming they know better than the doctors actually treating him is ludicrous.

As far as I can tell the claim the doctors were so surprised cones from the kids father, not any actual statement from, the hospital. Happy to be corrected if otherwise.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Funny how it happens so infrequently that its a problem in the US that we are all kinda standing and staring in shocked disgust right now.

This is exactly what happens when there's a mass shooting in America, and it makes headlines here in Great Britain. We are all in shocked disgust whilst people in the US are shouting "but my 2nd amendment" and we here in Britain don't understand how laws are more valuable than life.

They aren't.

Guns also save lives.

Or, if nothing else, could keep a 78 year old man from having to engage in hand to hand combat at 3am.

ETA: should also point out: the right of self defense is universal. We dont need a law for it...all animals are given a right to defend themselves.

Just pointing out how the press/media either get the wrong end of the stick or purposely hype a subject just to get a reaction by it's readers, which leads to misunderstanding the real story.

ETA.(also proves us Brits don't need firearms to protect ourselves)

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



This is exactly what happens when there's a mass shooting in America, and it makes headlines here in Great Britain. We are all in shocked disgust whilst people in the US are shouting "but my 2nd amendment" and we here in Britain don't understand how laws are more valuable than life.

Everything makes headlines... 330 million people and everyone of us would make the headlines if it would sell...lol 300 people die per hour in the US so I'm sure we got lots for you to read about.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ScepticScot


There is no death panel. Stop making stuff up.

Just a term...Someone or group of people decided that the baby would die and the parents had zero say or recourse in that decision to the point of arm guards being used. So what do you call that?

The degenerative brain disease he has decided he was going to die.

Multiple courts acting on the best advice of the doctors actually treating him decided that keeping him alive artificially was not in his interest.

The NHS Trust that Alfie is under have stated that Alfie could breath on his own for up to 10 days but that he will die and that all they can do is make him as comfortable as possible.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: oldcarpy

So... this is actually a case history, not just the judgement.

Also, given that the wee fella has been breathing on his own for a great many hours now, someone needs to look at this judgement again, and force the doctors to revisit the question as well, because the boy clearly has the necessary functions remaining to actually exist, it is whether or not he will do more than merely survive, that must be answered now.

The doctors, as evidenced by his status as still currently alive, were wrong. Given that this judgement was made on the basis of the advice of the people who made the wrong call, its conclusions must be assumed faulty as well.

Unlike in the movies switching life support off does not make a person die instantly. People continuing to breath for quite a while is common place and doctors advise the family of this.

But the doctors admitted to betrump ng shocked in this case, and out the child back on life support

Why would they do that if it was business as usual?

Maybe they were, maybe not. Individuals vary which is why the armchair medical experts here claiming they know better than the doctors actually treating him is ludicrous.

As far as I can tell the claim the doctors were so surprised cones from the kids father, not any actual statement from, the hospital. Happy to be corrected if otherwise.

I am not claiming to be an armchair doctor.

I am saying there was a court order to take him off of support, they did, the child lived for 15 hours, they put him back on, and are having another court hearing.

That doesnt sound like things went as the doctors had predicted.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


Yet in America Alfie would be left to die any way if he was a minority or his parents couldn't afford health care.......??
Alfie is brain dead and has been on life support.
Some American members have no idea what goes on the other side of the pond and make ridiculous claims based on tabloid newspapers, it makes you guys look so gullible and easily manipulated by the media.

The parents wanted to move the child to Italy for palliative care. There is NO reason for the UK to step in and refuse to allow it. If the parents want to move and Italy has no issues allowing them there for the care, AND they can afford to pay for said care, then the UK health system has no right to deny them. This is little more than eugenics in action: a slippery slope in which the bar for what is considered to be not worthy of treating keeps getting lower and lower.

And, this isn't the first time the UK has refused to allow parents to decide what is the best care for a child. There was also the case of Charlie Gard. His parents wanted to take him home to allow him to die in peace with his family and the Health authorities refused. Prior to that, his parents had wanted to take him to the US for experimental treatment of his disorder. That was also refused.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Yeah, it's the dailymail, but this story was all over the media back then.

I'm not saying that the US doesn't have a boatload of medical nonsense going on either, but declaring 'Nothing to see here; you Yanks are just deluded and misinformed' isn't a great response in the face of it all.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
it pretty much sums up American idea of healthcare.

The US is a pretty big place with different states not really handling things the same. There is not really one idea of American healthcare IMO just based off my own experience. I live in California and when i was going through some mental health problems with zero dollars to my name, i got the help i needed. Everything was covered from doctors visits to prescriptions.

I know a lot of people hate "commiefornia" on this site, hell i even had people here say they wish it would fall off into the ocean, which i thought was a bit harsh, but i am really grateful that my local government helped me get back on my feet.

Anyhow just wanted to say you might see a big range of differences when it comes to healthcare in the US when looking into different areas.

a reply to: Grambler

this is exactly why we cant let the left win in america and turn our the USA into a fascist dystopia.

a reply to: Subrosabelow

Yes this is exactly my point.

I dont have a problem with the doctors or hosipital saying they will no longer treat someone.

I dont even really have a big problem with the government or courts saying they will no longer pay for treatments that will have no effect.

But to then take the extra step and say the family may not get care on their own is astonishing!

And then to further enforce that by lining the room with police officers is even worse.

a reply to: Subrosabelow

AND they can afford to pay for said care

Alfie's care is free here in Great Britain.

This is little more than eugenics

How is this eugenics???

And, this isn't the first time the UK has refused to allow parents to decide what is the best care for a child.

This happens when the child is suffering, or his condition is worsening, or unchanging like Alfies who has a brain disorder.

Charlie Gard. His parents wanted to take him home to allow him to die in peace with his family and the Health authorities refused. Prior to that, his parents had wanted to take him to the US for experimental treatment of his disorder. That was also refused.

The US doctor hadn't even looked at Charlie when they offered him experimental treatment for his condition and when they did they decided that no treatment would help him.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: oldcarpy

So... this is actually a case history, not just the judgement.

Also, given that the wee fella has been breathing on his own for a great many hours now, someone needs to look at this judgement again, and force the doctors to revisit the question as well, because the boy clearly has the necessary functions remaining to actually exist, it is whether or not he will do more than merely survive, that must be answered now.

The doctors, as evidenced by his status as still currently alive, were wrong. Given that this judgement was made on the basis of the advice of the people who made the wrong call, its conclusions must be assumed faulty as well.

Unlike in the movies switching life support off does not make a person die instantly. People continuing to breath for quite a while is common place and doctors advise the family of this.

But the doctors admitted to betrump ng shocked in this case, and out the child back on life support

Why would they do that if it was business as usual?

Maybe they were, maybe not. Individuals vary which is why the armchair medical experts here claiming they know better than the doctors actually treating him is ludicrous.

As far as I can tell the claim the doctors were so surprised cones from the kids father, not any actual statement from, the hospital. Happy to be corrected if otherwise.

I am not claiming to be an armchair doctor.

I am saying there was a court order to take him off of support, they did, the child lived for 15 hours, they put him back on, and are having another court hearing.

That doesnt sound like things went as the doctors had predicted.

It sounds as if they have put him on a minimal level of support to prevent any unnecessary suffering.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: oldcarpy

So... this is actually a case history, not just the judgement.

Also, given that the wee fella has been breathing on his own for a great many hours now, someone needs to look at this judgement again, and force the doctors to revisit the question as well, because the boy clearly has the necessary functions remaining to actually exist, it is whether or not he will do more than merely survive, that must be answered now.

The doctors, as evidenced by his status as still currently alive, were wrong. Given that this judgement was made on the basis of the advice of the people who made the wrong call, its conclusions must be assumed faulty as well.

Unlike in the movies switching life support off does not make a person die instantly. People continuing to breath for quite a while is common place and doctors advise the family of this.

But the doctors admitted to betrump ng shocked in this case, and out the child back on life support

Why would they do that if it was business as usual?

Maybe they were, maybe not. Individuals vary which is why the armchair medical experts here claiming they know better than the doctors actually treating him is ludicrous.

As far as I can tell the claim the doctors were so surprised cones from the kids father, not any actual statement from, the hospital. Happy to be corrected if otherwise.

I am not claiming to be an armchair doctor.

I am saying there was a court order to take him off of support, they did, the child lived for 15 hours, they put him back on, and are having another court hearing.

That doesnt sound like things went as the doctors had predicted.

It sounds as if they have put him on a minimal level of support to prevent any unnecessary suffering.

So here is what would have happened for that to be true.

They decide to totally remove him from life support.

Then after many hours, they decide to put him back on to stop suffering.

So then they cause suffering by taking him off of that support in the first place, right?