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

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

It’s not my confusion I understand the system

It’s my objection

You are wrong that this is how all other civilized countries are

I can speak for the USA

In the us there have been court cases about forcing parents to GIVE their child treatment

But there is no such thing as the court saying the parents must let their child die and can’t receive treatment

No there have been cases where some families want to take off life support, and others do not, but that is different

In fact during talks of obama care and other state healthcare options the idea of “death panels” or panels of doctors and judges saying that certain people were not allowed to get treatment was so loathed those pushing for the state healthcare options assured everyone this would never happen

Yet as this thread shows, that is a real possibility and people will defend it, at least in the U.K.

So again, I stand by my objection

www.latimes.com...

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes saw that case

The court did not say that the family was not allowed to get outside treatment


In fact they did just that

The court ruled the hospital was allowe to take the child off of life support

I am fine with that

The family didn’t have enough time or resources to move the child to another facility again

But no where in this case did the court say the familiy could not take the child in their own dime or in a charity or another hospitals dime

When are parents denied the final say?

Alfie Evans parents appeal against Italy travel ban ruling

The judges also heard that Ms James is now represented by a different barrister from Alfie's father.

Like many have said, this case isn't just about poor Alfie. It's about the people around Alfie using him for there own purposes. The quote is from the second link and other news stories are pointing out the fact that the Father is the one making claims about the health of Alfie.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: paraphi

Clinicians fighting to keep a child alive vs fighting to kill him....not quite the same, are they?

Emotive language not actually grounded in fact.

Why do you think these doctors (note the plural) would want to kill him (your choice of words) ? Do you think that there is some supersecret NHS bonus scheme for killing small children?

Are the courts also in on this nefarious scheme?

Is it just possible that the dozens of doctors who have examined him and the judges who have heard the evidence are better informed than your opinion based I assume from a Breitbart article or similar?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes saw that case

The court did not say that the family was not allowed to get outside treatment


In fact they did just that

The court ruled the hospital was allowe to take the child off of life support

I am fine with that

The family didn’t have enough time or resources to move the child to another facility again

But no where in this case did the court say the familiy could not take the child in their own dime or in a charity or another hospitals dime

So it's OK to let a child die for lack of money but not based on expert medical opinion?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Clinicians fighting to keep a child alive vs fighting to kill him....not quite the same, are they?

No they are not, which is why the clinicians in this case are not "fighting to kill him". They have fought to keep him alive and treat him, but the poor kid is now only alive because his life is being prolonged artificially. He has no dignity and no hope, and will die at some point in the near future. Better to bring his short life to a managed and dignified end, than let him suffer any more. That is the position of the clinicians.

This type of thing is very rare in the UK. In this case the parents are seeking to prolong life in the vain hope of some God-miracle. The God-miracle is no joke because even the Pope is involved, but even he ain't going to regrow brain cells. I am surprised that the parents have not insisted he is taken to Lourdes, but the hospital in Rome right near the Vatican may allow God to intervene, don't you think?

I am not unsympathetic to the parents as this is nightmare for them, but they are just prolonging their child's suffering.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes saw that case

The court did not say that the family was not allowed to get outside treatment


In fact they did just that

The court ruled the hospital was allowe to take the child off of life support

I am fine with that

The family didn’t have enough time or resources to move the child to another facility again

But no where in this case did the court say the familiy could not take the child in their own dime or in a charity or another hospitals dime

So it's OK to let a child die for lack of money but not based on expert medical opinion?

Its not an either or situation as you are painting it.

The case you outlined also had medical experts weigh in.

The issue is that there is a reasonable argument to be had that the state should not be forced to pay for a treatment that most likely will have no effect

However, the state should not be able to force someone who wants to be able to pay for that treatment out of their own pocket or through someone else willingly paying for it to not get the treatment.

a reply to: Grambler


I find it horrifying that you'd let a child die because of monetary concerns in American, but complain that the courts here in Britain have intervened on behalf of Doctors and medical experts to let this poor child die with some dignity, because his health long term will only get worse.
Also the fact that the parents will not call for calm around Alder Hey Hospital and allow other parents with sick and ill children to have some privacy during their traumatic time is very showing.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes saw that case

The court did not say that the family was not allowed to get outside treatment


In fact they did just that

The court ruled the hospital was allowe to take the child off of life support

I am fine with that

The family didn’t have enough time or resources to move the child to another facility again

But no where in this case did the court say the familiy could not take the child in their own dime or in a charity or another hospitals dime

So it's OK to let a child die for lack of money but not based on expert medical opinion?

Its not an either or situation as you are painting it.

The case you outlined also had medical experts weigh in.

The issue is that there is a reasonable argument to be had that the state should not be forced to pay for a treatment that most likely will have no effect

However, the state should not be able to force someone who wants to be able to pay for that treatment out of their own pocket or through someone else willingly paying for it to not get the treatment.

I agree but in this case the patient is a child in a vegetative state who has no ability to make a decision for himself.

Parents do not have absolute authority over their children for very good reasons.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


I find it horrifying that you'd let a child die because of monetary concerns in American, but complain that the courts here in Britain have intervened on behalf of Doctors and medical experts to let this poor child die with some dignity, because his health long term will only get worse.
Also the fact that the parents will not call for calm around Alder Hey Hospital and allow other parents with sick and ill children to have some privacy during their traumatic time is very showing.

Yes of course you find that horrifying.

You are a good little socialist.

The state should be forced to pay for everything, and also have the power to tell people they may not pay for things on their own.

I do not want to see a child die do to lack of money and that is no where near the argument i am making. My argument is about government forcing people to not be allowed to spend their own money on treatments.

The state has a reasonable argument to make that if they are paying for treatment, they have a right to end that treatment if they deem it worthless. You think the state should be able to go a step further and say and also the family are forced not to pay for the childs treatment on their own.

Honestly this thread is becoming one of the best examples of why socialists solutions and sate control of things like health care is an absolute disaster, so I thank you all for that.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes saw that case

The court did not say that the family was not allowed to get outside treatment


In fact they did just that

The court ruled the hospital was allowe to take the child off of life support

I am fine with that

The family didn’t have enough time or resources to move the child to another facility again

But no where in this case did the court say the familiy could not take the child in their own dime or in a charity or another hospitals dime

So it's OK to let a child die for lack of money but not based on expert medical opinion?

Its not an either or situation as you are painting it.

The case you outlined also had medical experts weigh in.

The issue is that there is a reasonable argument to be had that the state should not be forced to pay for a treatment that most likely will have no effect

However, the state should not be able to force someone who wants to be able to pay for that treatment out of their own pocket or through someone else willingly paying for it to not get the treatment.

I agree but in this case the patient is a child in a vegetative state who has no ability to make a decision for himself.

Parents do not have absolute authority over their children for very good reasons.

They are the legal guardians of that child and do in fact have control over many things in that childs lief.

They should have the right to pay for competent treatment of their child if they see fit.

They are far more suited to do this than the state.

a reply to: Grambler


What I find horrific is that you are using this case of a poor child to take a dig at others because of your supposed better political ideals!!

You politicize a childs ill health so that you can feel better about how terrible America compares with the rest of the world when it comes to health care.

a reply to: Grambler

They should have the right to pay for competent treatment of their child if they see fit.

They can't afford to pay for treatment for Alfie.

ETA. thats why I stated in the first page that if this was America, he would have died long ago.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


I find it horrifying that you'd let a child die because of monetary concerns in American, but complain that the courts here in Britain have intervened on behalf of Doctors and medical experts to let this poor child die with some dignity, because his health long term will only get worse.
Also the fact that the parents will not call for calm around Alder Hey Hospital and allow other parents with sick and ill children to have some privacy during their traumatic time is very showing.

Yes of course you find that horrifying.

You are a good little socialist.

The state should be forced to pay for everything, and also have the power to tell people they may not pay for things on their own.

I do not want to see a child die do to lack of money and that is no where near the argument i am making. My argument is about government forcing people to not be allowed to spend their own money on treatments.

The state has a reasonable argument to make that if they are paying for treatment, they have a right to end that treatment if they deem it worthless. You think the state should be able to go a step further and say and also the family are forced not to pay for the childs treatment on their own.

Honestly this thread is becoming one of the best examples of why socialists solutions and sate control of things like health care is an absolute disaster, so I thank you all for that.

The relevant law on parental rights and responsibilities dates from 1989.

I guess Thatcher was a socialist?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


What I find horrific is that you are using this case of a poor child to take a dig at others because of your supposed better political ideals!!

You politicize a childs ill health so that you can feel better about how terrible America compares with the rest of the world when it comes to health care.

If I am doing that, how are you not doing the same thing?

You falsely accuse me of defedning letting a child die of monetary concerns.

I am so sick of this!

So if anyone disagrees with you that the parenst should be allowed to pay for tretament of this kid, they are using the childs health for political purposes.

Thats it, end of discussion.

No one can disagree with this, becase if you are against the state, you are a bad person that is politicizng the death of a child.

This statement is exactly you trying to use the shame of a childs ill health to have your political opinion remain untouchable.

Truly disgusting.

And then you dig at america, presumably politiciong the people who die in that health care system to further your political point.

See I am saying that people can argue about this policy on either side without being accused of using the child as a political prop.

You feel that anyone against you is being bad, but you may do exactly what you critize and its ok for you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


I find it horrifying that you'd let a child die because of monetary concerns in American, but complain that the courts here in Britain have intervened on behalf of Doctors and medical experts to let this poor child die with some dignity, because his health long term will only get worse.
Also the fact that the parents will not call for calm around Alder Hey Hospital and allow other parents with sick and ill children to have some privacy during their traumatic time is very showing.

Yes of course you find that horrifying.

You are a good little socialist.

The state should be forced to pay for everything, and also have the power to tell people they may not pay for things on their own.

I do not want to see a child die do to lack of money and that is no where near the argument i am making. My argument is about government forcing people to not be allowed to spend their own money on treatments.

The state has a reasonable argument to make that if they are paying for treatment, they have a right to end that treatment if they deem it worthless. You think the state should be able to go a step further and say and also the family are forced not to pay for the childs treatment on their own.

Honestly this thread is becoming one of the best examples of why socialists solutions and sate control of things like health care is an absolute disaster, so I thank you all for that.

The relevant law on parental rights and responsibilities dates from 1989.

I guess Thatcher was a socialist?

If thatcher argued that the state should pay for all health care, and that the state has the right to tell people that they can not pay for competent health care on their own, tehn she was arghuing for a socialist policy.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

They should have the right to pay for competent treatment of their child if they see fit.

They can't afford to pay for treatment for Alfie.

ETA. thats why I stated in the first page that if this was America, he would have died long ago.

And here you are again, politicizing the issue.

Again, seeing as how you clearly have a problem with that, you ought to be ashamed.

I on the other hand have no problem with you bringing up America.

The issue is they found people willing to pay in italy. Rather the family can pay out of pocket, or has others willing to pay out of pocket is irrelevant.

The UK is saying that they may not seek treatment that is clearly readily available and not paid for by the UK state.

a reply to: Grambler

So if anyone disagrees with you that the parenst should be allowed to pay for tretament of this kid

You seem to know absolutely nothing about the UK in terms of real life other than what you read in right wing newspaper articles.
The parents could never afford to pay for Alfie's care.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


I find it horrifying that you'd let a child die because of monetary concerns in American, but complain that the courts here in Britain have intervened on behalf of Doctors and medical experts to let this poor child die with some dignity, because his health long term will only get worse.
Also the fact that the parents will not call for calm around Alder Hey Hospital and allow other parents with sick and ill children to have some privacy during their traumatic time is very showing.

Yes of course you find that horrifying.

You are a good little socialist.

The state should be forced to pay for everything, and also have the power to tell people they may not pay for things on their own.

I do not want to see a child die do to lack of money and that is no where near the argument i am making. My argument is about government forcing people to not be allowed to spend their own money on treatments.

The state has a reasonable argument to make that if they are paying for treatment, they have a right to end that treatment if they deem it worthless. You think the state should be able to go a step further and say and also the family are forced not to pay for the childs treatment on their own.

Honestly this thread is becoming one of the best examples of why socialists solutions and sate control of things like health care is an absolute disaster, so I thank you all for that.

The relevant law on parental rights and responsibilities dates from 1989.

I guess Thatcher was a socialist?

If thatcher argued that the state should pay for all health care, and that the state has the right to tell people that they can not pay for competent health care on their own, tehn she was arghuing for a socialist policy.

Not what the case was about as already explained.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler

They should have the right to pay for competent treatment of their child if they see fit.

They can't afford to pay for treatment for Alfie.

ETA. thats why I stated in the first page that if this was America, he would have died long ago.

And here you are again, politicizing the issue.

Again, seeing as how you clearly have a problem with that, you ought to be ashamed.

I on the other hand have no problem with you bringing up America.

The issue is they found people willing to pay in italy. Rather the family can pay out of pocket, or has others willing to pay out of pocket is irrelevant.

The UK is saying that they may not seek treatment that is clearly readily available and not paid for by the UK state.

There is no treatment available in Italy. They will just keep him on life support.