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

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Do you really think he will die in a room on his own , without his parents by his side ?

We know full well we have no democracy , or even individual rights , or freedoms if we do not have the freedom to express ourselves or explore our own consciousness!

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: bastion

Listen to yourself.

To keep him from suffering you are supporting starving him to death.

He's not starving to death and will not starve to death. His brain is dead, his ability to breathe has been greatly exaggerratred, he'll pass within 24 - 48 hours of life support being removed.

Listen to yourself. You're supporting the ongoing torture of a child by artificially keeping them alive when there's absolutely no hope of treatment or cure or alleviatrion of symptoms other than pumping full of painkillers - which cause more seizures due to lowering the seizure threshold.

See? There's no good answers in a tragedy like this. Whatever choices are made, he will die, so why not allow it to go peacefully.

Please keep up with what's happening.
Alfie's life support was withdrawn/switched off over 30 hours ago. To do this the Dr's, under oath in court, said he would die in less than 3 minutes. They were granted by the court t do this....here we are over 30 hours later and the wee mite is breathing by himself although he is intermittently being given oxygen and fluids now. He has opened his eyes. That is not somebody who is brain dead!

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Do you really think he will die in a room on his own , without his parents by his side ?

Yeah but take heart the state will be there.

Nevermind the rape gangs, because why? Because the rape gangs don't fit the multicultural agenda and the people doing it may or may not be from 3rd world Muslim majority countries we might hurt their feelings with really bad words

a reply to: angelchemuel

Maybe alfie will help folks to relearn what grace, compassion, and humanity actually are.

1941 a dog did the same thing, heil hitler and the owner was arrested.

Finland, Nazi friendly too at the time.

Went to court.

Wait for the rest of the story.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

There is an italian hospital who apparently wishes to help. Instead of refusing and starving him to death under the absurd and misguided notion that its going to ease his sufferimg.....why not allow the parents to take their child to seek treatment?

Im not sure what unnerves me more: this smug psychopathic behavior from the UK government or the popular support it seems to be garnering. Im jist not accustomed to parents being shoved out of the way by government authority like that.

Eta: "to all intents brain dead" ismt a clinical term. Either he is brain dead or not. If they believe hes only brain dead "to all intents" then that means he isnt brain dead.

Murder is murder even when a government does it

Again not the government( not sure why people struggle with this distinction).

The Italian doctors already examined him and concluded no further treatment was possible. I understand it the offer is simply to keep him alive in his current condition.

Is turning off life support always murder? If so there are many many more cases than this one for you to be misinformed about.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: angelchemuel

Maybe alfie will help folks to relearn what grace, compassion, and humanity actually are.

I do hope something good comes of this whatever the outcome.
Where there's life, there is hope as they say, and Alfie could very well turn out to be one of those little 'miracles'

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: ScepticScot

So a court rules. That isnt government?

The medical system is a national institute. Thats not government?

Starving someome who would otherwise live is murder. Yes. Food is not life support. Heart/lung assitance is. Hes not recieving the latter. With hilding the former is a human rights violation.

originally posted by: angelchemuel

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: bastion

Listen to yourself.

To keep him from suffering you are supporting starving him to death.

He's not starving to death and will not starve to death. His brain is dead, his ability to breathe has been greatly exaggerratred, he'll pass within 24 - 48 hours of life support being removed.

Listen to yourself. You're supporting the ongoing torture of a child by artificially keeping them alive when there's absolutely no hope of treatment or cure or alleviatrion of symptoms other than pumping full of painkillers - which cause more seizures due to lowering the seizure threshold.

See? There's no good answers in a tragedy like this. Whatever choices are made, he will die, so why not allow it to go peacefully.

Please keep up with what's happening.
Alfie's life support was withdrawn/switched off over 30 hours ago. To do this the Dr's, under oath in court, said he would die in less than 3 minutes. They were granted by the court t do this....here we are over 30 hours later and the wee mite is breathing by himself although he is intermittently being given oxygen and fluids now. He has opened his eyes. That is not somebody who is brain dead!

Breathing requires the absolute minimum effort from the body. It is actually triggered by a chemical reaction rather than active brain function. Take the emotion out of the situation because it is a poorly child, and simply look at the facts and it is clear that this would happen, at least short term. It is not an indication of recovery, or similar. His brain is, in effect, mush. If i was in that situation, there is not a chance in hell i would want my life prolonging.

The bit i have most sympathy for the parents with is that given he will die shortly, they should be allowed to take him home to die, if that is their wish. But the medical decision itself was completely correct, given the stated facts of the case. These decisions are not made by individuals, they are the result of consulations between a whole team of experts. That means that a team of experts have agreed that turning off his "life support" is the correct decision in this tragic case.

I never blame parents for going public in similar situations, it must be a horrible situation to be in. But i do blame these parents for the absolutely abhorrent conditions they have caused with protestors at Alder Hey, with staff being verbally attacked and called murderers and the parents of other ill children at the hospital having to run the gauntlet of hate just to get in the hospital. No, the kid is effectively brain dead. There is no treatment that can change his condition. He will never improve, only deteriorate further.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

So a court rules. That isnt government?

The medical system is a national institute. Thats not government?

Starving someome who would otherwise live is murder. Yes. Food is not life support. Heart/lung assitance is. Hes not recieving the latter. With hilding the former is a human rights violation.

No, the court is the judiciary not the government. In point of fact, the judiciary and the government of the day (any day) are often at loggerheads.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

So a court rules. That isnt government?

Correct.

The medical system is a national institute. Thats not government?

Correct.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Is turning off life support always murder? If so there are many many more cases than this one for you to be misinformed about.

I agree with you. This is a really sad case, but the poor kid ain't ever going to have any life, and his brain is not going to re-grow. He can neither see, hear, smell, speak, learn, or recognise his environment. He cannot breath unaided, or enough to sustain his life.

There have been many specialists through his short life who have been asked for opinions, even those brought in by the parent's solicitors. They have all agree on the condition and outlook. If in doubt I encourage those interested to read the February High Court decision which details the medical condition and consequences.

It is a mercy to let the child die. Keeping him alive artificially achieves nothing and serves no purpose.

High Court judgement on Alfie Evans

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

So a court rules. That isnt government?

The medical system is a national institute. Thats not government?

Starving someome who would otherwise live is murder. Yes. Food is not life support. Heart/lung assitance is. Hes not recieving the latter. With hilding the former is a human rights violation.

No courts and doctors are not part of the government. Pretty basic civics.

a reply to: Flavian

Who pays the judiciary?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I know it's wiki but it is factually correct...
Executive and Judiciary (UK)

In terms of control, the independence of the judiciary is confirmed through statute, constitutional convention, and weight of opinion. In England and Wales, judges in superior courts cannot be arbitrarily dismissed by the executive, instead serving whilst in "good behaviour".
Those in lower courts have similar protection from dismissal without due cause. Most members of tribunals cannot be dismissed by members of the government department of which they form part. This is important in cases of judicial review and other judicial methods of preventing government abuse of power.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I get that there are statutes amd whatnot. My point is that the judiciary is paid by the government and utilizes government law to rule.

They are government.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And in that broader sense I agree, but the judiciary is fiercly independent of the executive and has no problem ruling against the government if it sees it appropriate.
My stance on this poor lad though:
It is acceptable for UK state doctors to remove life support where no cure can be shown medically.
I think the child should still receive fluids and sustenance, and pain relief if needed to die naturally of the condition.
I also think if another country's recognised healthcare system wish to accept the expense of simply keeping him alive indefinitely then he should be released to their care.

The argument about him suffering further in transport is a bit lame, people with complex conditions are transferred between hospitals with no problems. Heck the poor mite hasn't even the brain left to know he's moving anywhere.
What's the difference to being on a bed hooked up to machines in a hospital compared to in an air ambulance, I don't see the problem.

Not my child though, I think I would have given it up by now, but everyone is different.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

We agree here pretty much completely