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

Also we have heard pver and over again, and in the court decusuin, that the child must die with dignity.

Yet still no one has answered what that means.

I know of a person who wanted to be on life support as long as possible, and was on for a very long time before he passed.

Was his choice undignified? He is somehow shamed in his death?

Who gets to determine what is and is not a dignified death?

I would think that the courts telling my family and loved ones to get lost if they wanted to take me somewhere else for competent treatment would be very undignified.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

"but if he is off breathing/heart regulation and is living then no...he isn't dying"

But 70% of his brain is destroyed already and this will only get progressively worse.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: oldcarpy


I don't doubt the doctors have feelings in this, but the people treating Alfie are more than likely not the ones making the decision on whether or not the family can move him.

Yea the decisions were challenged in court, but it never should have gotten to court, if the family wants to move him and either has the means or the recipient locations has the means to move him why should any hospital say no?

To show my beef with this unfeeling stance is not just with the UK.

Justina was being treated at Tufts Medical Center for mitochondrial disease when her parents brought her to Children’s Hospital with gastrointestinal problems in 2013. Doctors at Children’s concluded that she was a victim of medical child abuse as a result of her parents interfering with her care.A juvenile court judge, relying on the opinion of those doctors, removed Justina from her parents’ custody.

Justina Pelletier

Kid was a figure skater when the state "rescued" her now she is in a wheel chair, pretty much my worst nightmare, bankrupted her parents took them 16 months to regain custody of their kid.

Again though, if the state allows them to move the kid, it rapidly becomes a dead issue, there is no logical reason to prevent the move in my non-medical opinon.

Because parents don't have absolute rights over their children. The court makes a decision based on what it believes is best for the child, not the parent.

And this court has decided that starvation is best for the child.

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet


No, I just suggest you read the whole Judgment. I do find it very sad reading.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes people keep pointing to the judgement like that magically answers anything.

Lets see what it says.

Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

So even the doctors and judge feels it is unlikely alfie is experiencing pain.

So this put people defnding this court in a bind.

If he most likely isnt in pain, there is no reason to not let him travel to italy for treatement.

If he is in pain it is not the trip that they are saying would cause him pain, but merely the fact that he is alive. Therefore if the court is certain there is no possibility of anything helping alfie, and every moment he is alive he may be in pain, why would they not administer a quick death through morphine or other drugs?

Instead they have choses a position that based on their own judegment makes no sense; he can not travel because his mere life, although unlikely, may cauuse him pain. But we will force him to starve out and suffer that pain instead of ending it quickly.

And you cant see why a parent would be upset with that?

Again you are completely missing the point. There is no reason for him to travel to Italy as there is no different treatment on offer.

The judgment was about if it was appropriate for him to continue to be artificially let alive, not about where that should happen.

SO you completely ignore the point.

If the reason that he shouldnt bve allowed to travel to italy is that the extension of his life, although unlikely, could be painful, then why would the uk doctors force the extnsion of his life by not terminating it humanely immediatly?

Instead everyone wants to ignore that, claim I am misunderstanding something.

Its very simple.

The court esaid there is no chance for the child to have a meaningful life. The court also said there is a chance every moment the child lives is painful.

Yet they wont humanely terminate the child.

It makes no sense.

Euthanasia is illegal in the UK. The rights and wrongs of that are a separate subject.

Ah here we are.

So then the court is not allowed to make the most humane decision for the child.

The court has ruled that even though they know that the child may be in horrible pain, they will not mercifully end it.

And although it is most likely that the child is not in this pain, tehy will still not allow the parents to take the child to receive care elsewhere.

It is absurd and a grotesque example of state power.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: oldcarpy


I don't doubt the doctors have feelings in this, but the people treating Alfie are more than likely not the ones making the decision on whether or not the family can move him.

Yea the decisions were challenged in court, but it never should have gotten to court, if the family wants to move him and either has the means or the recipient locations has the means to move him why should any hospital say no?

To show my beef with this unfeeling stance is not just with the UK.

Justina was being treated at Tufts Medical Center for mitochondrial disease when her parents brought her to Children’s Hospital with gastrointestinal problems in 2013. Doctors at Children’s concluded that she was a victim of medical child abuse as a result of her parents interfering with her care.A juvenile court judge, relying on the opinion of those doctors, removed Justina from her parents’ custody.

Justina Pelletier

Kid was a figure skater when the state "rescued" her now she is in a wheel chair, pretty much my worst nightmare, bankrupted her parents took them 16 months to regain custody of their kid.

Again though, if the state allows them to move the kid, it rapidly becomes a dead issue, there is no logical reason to prevent the move in my non-medical opinon.

Because parents don't have absolute rights over their children. The court makes a decision based on what it believes is best for the child, not the parent.

And this court has decided that starvation is best for the child.

Withdrawing life support for someone in this condition is not the same as letting them starve to death.

This had already been explained to you.

a reply to: Grambler


A morphine pump would in my view be more merciful but at the moment euthanasia is not legal but that is a discussion for another day. It's really the only option - starvation, that is.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes people keep pointing to the judgement like that magically answers anything.

Lets see what it says.

Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

So even the doctors and judge feels it is unlikely alfie is experiencing pain.

So this put people defnding this court in a bind.

If he most likely isnt in pain, there is no reason to not let him travel to italy for treatement.

If he is in pain it is not the trip that they are saying would cause him pain, but merely the fact that he is alive. Therefore if the court is certain there is no possibility of anything helping alfie, and every moment he is alive he may be in pain, why would they not administer a quick death through morphine or other drugs?

Instead they have choses a position that based on their own judegment makes no sense; he can not travel because his mere life, although unlikely, may cauuse him pain. But we will force him to starve out and suffer that pain instead of ending it quickly.

And you cant see why a parent would be upset with that?

Again you are completely missing the point. There is no reason for him to travel to Italy as there is no different treatment on offer.

The judgment was about if it was appropriate for him to continue to be artificially let alive, not about where that should happen.

SO you completely ignore the point.

If the reason that he shouldnt bve allowed to travel to italy is that the extension of his life, although unlikely, could be painful, then why would the uk doctors force the extnsion of his life by not terminating it humanely immediatly?

Instead everyone wants to ignore that, claim I am misunderstanding something.

Its very simple.

The court esaid there is no chance for the child to have a meaningful life. The court also said there is a chance every moment the child lives is painful.

Yet they wont humanely terminate the child.

It makes no sense.

Euthanasia is illegal in the UK. The rights and wrongs of that are a separate subject.

Ah here we are.

So then the court is not allowed to make the most humane decision for the child.

The court has ruled that even though they know that the child may be in horrible pain, they will not mercifully end it.

And although it is most likely that the child is not in this pain, tehy will still not allow the parents to take the child to receive care elsewhere.

It is absurd and a grotesque example of state power.

Are you arguing for euthanasia now?

a reply to: Grambler


You appear determined to twist the truth to suit you and it has gotten past the stage of just being tedious. It is plain dishonest.

a reply to: Grambler

If the child can breathe without a ventilator and just requires fluids/nourishment then to me that is euthanasia the slow way.
Where do we stop? The old lady who needs hoists to get out of bed, carers to wash their arse, carers to feed them, no understanding of their surroundings, do we stop feeding them as well, starve them to death?

Friends of mine keep many people 'artificially' alive every day.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Grambler

If the child can breathe without a ventilator and just requires fluids/nourishment then to me that is euthanasia the slow way.
Where do we stop? The old lady who needs hoists to get out of bed, carers to wash their arse, carers to feed them, no understanding of their surroundings, do we stop feeding them as well, starve them to death?

Friends of mine keep many people 'artificially' alive every day.

Not remotely the same.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


You appear determined to twist the truth to suit you and it has gotten past the stage of just being tedious. It is plain dishonest.

I am sorry to use the judgemet you find to be so important, directly quote from it, and make a point.

Where am I being dishonest?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Explain how?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes people keep pointing to the judgement like that magically answers anything.

Lets see what it says.

Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

So even the doctors and judge feels it is unlikely alfie is experiencing pain.

So this put people defnding this court in a bind.

If he most likely isnt in pain, there is no reason to not let him travel to italy for treatement.

If he is in pain it is not the trip that they are saying would cause him pain, but merely the fact that he is alive. Therefore if the court is certain there is no possibility of anything helping alfie, and every moment he is alive he may be in pain, why would they not administer a quick death through morphine or other drugs?

Instead they have choses a position that based on their own judegment makes no sense; he can not travel because his mere life, although unlikely, may cauuse him pain. But we will force him to starve out and suffer that pain instead of ending it quickly.

And you cant see why a parent would be upset with that?

Again you are completely missing the point. There is no reason for him to travel to Italy as there is no different treatment on offer.

The judgment was about if it was appropriate for him to continue to be artificially let alive, not about where that should happen.

SO you completely ignore the point.

If the reason that he shouldnt bve allowed to travel to italy is that the extension of his life, although unlikely, could be painful, then why would the uk doctors force the extnsion of his life by not terminating it humanely immediatly?

Instead everyone wants to ignore that, claim I am misunderstanding something.

Its very simple.

The court esaid there is no chance for the child to have a meaningful life. The court also said there is a chance every moment the child lives is painful.

Yet they wont humanely terminate the child.

It makes no sense.

Euthanasia is illegal in the UK. The rights and wrongs of that are a separate subject.

Ah here we are.

So then the court is not allowed to make the most humane decision for the child.

The court has ruled that even though they know that the child may be in horrible pain, they will not mercifully end it.

And although it is most likely that the child is not in this pain, tehy will still not allow the parents to take the child to receive care elsewhere.

It is absurd and a grotesque example of state power.

Are you arguing for euthanasia now?

I am arguing that the court by their own judgement is not making what they would deem the most painless humane solution for the child.

a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes people keep pointing to the judgement like that magically answers anything.

Lets see what it says.

Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

So even the doctors and judge feels it is unlikely alfie is experiencing pain.

So this put people defnding this court in a bind.

If he most likely isnt in pain, there is no reason to not let him travel to italy for treatement.

If he is in pain it is not the trip that they are saying would cause him pain, but merely the fact that he is alive. Therefore if the court is certain there is no possibility of anything helping alfie, and every moment he is alive he may be in pain, why would they not administer a quick death through morphine or other drugs?

Instead they have choses a position that based on their own judegment makes no sense; he can not travel because his mere life, although unlikely, may cauuse him pain. But we will force him to starve out and suffer that pain instead of ending it quickly.

And you cant see why a parent would be upset with that?

Again you are completely missing the point. There is no reason for him to travel to Italy as there is no different treatment on offer.

The judgment was about if it was appropriate for him to continue to be artificially let alive, not about where that should happen.

SO you completely ignore the point.

If the reason that he shouldnt bve allowed to travel to italy is that the extension of his life, although unlikely, could be painful, then why would the uk doctors force the extnsion of his life by not terminating it humanely immediatly?

Instead everyone wants to ignore that, claim I am misunderstanding something.

Its very simple.

The court esaid there is no chance for the child to have a meaningful life. The court also said there is a chance every moment the child lives is painful.

Yet they wont humanely terminate the child.

It makes no sense.

Euthanasia is illegal in the UK. The rights and wrongs of that are a separate subject.

Ah here we are.

So then the court is not allowed to make the most humane decision for the child.

The court has ruled that even though they know that the child may be in horrible pain, they will not mercifully end it.

And although it is most likely that the child is not in this pain, tehy will still not allow the parents to take the child to receive care elsewhere.

It is absurd and a grotesque example of state power.

Are you arguing for euthanasia now?

I am arguing that the court by their own judgement is not making what they would deem the most painless humane solution for the child.

Again euthanasia is illegal.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Explain how?

A because a child with degenerative brain disease, from which he will never recover, has no ability and never has had the ability to indicate or even form a judgment about what they would want to happen to them. That is why we have a legal system to look after their interests.

Not the same as a granny who needs a home help.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes people keep pointing to the judgement like that magically answers anything.

Lets see what it says.

Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

So even the doctors and judge feels it is unlikely alfie is experiencing pain.

So this put people defnding this court in a bind.

If he most likely isnt in pain, there is no reason to not let him travel to italy for treatement.

If he is in pain it is not the trip that they are saying would cause him pain, but merely the fact that he is alive. Therefore if the court is certain there is no possibility of anything helping alfie, and every moment he is alive he may be in pain, why would they not administer a quick death through morphine or other drugs?

Instead they have choses a position that based on their own judegment makes no sense; he can not travel because his mere life, although unlikely, may cauuse him pain. But we will force him to starve out and suffer that pain instead of ending it quickly.

And you cant see why a parent would be upset with that?

Again you are completely missing the point. There is no reason for him to travel to Italy as there is no different treatment on offer.

The judgment was about if it was appropriate for him to continue to be artificially let alive, not about where that should happen.

SO you completely ignore the point.

If the reason that he shouldnt bve allowed to travel to italy is that the extension of his life, although unlikely, could be painful, then why would the uk doctors force the extnsion of his life by not terminating it humanely immediatly?

Instead everyone wants to ignore that, claim I am misunderstanding something.

Its very simple.

The court esaid there is no chance for the child to have a meaningful life. The court also said there is a chance every moment the child lives is painful.

Yet they wont humanely terminate the child.

It makes no sense.

Euthanasia is illegal in the UK. The rights and wrongs of that are a separate subject.

Ah here we are.

So then the court is not allowed to make the most humane decision for the child.

The court has ruled that even though they know that the child may be in horrible pain, they will not mercifully end it.

And although it is most likely that the child is not in this pain, tehy will still not allow the parents to take the child to receive care elsewhere.

It is absurd and a grotesque example of state power.

Are you arguing for euthanasia now?

I am arguing that the court by their own judgement is not making what they would deem the most painless humane solution for the child.

Again euthanasia is illegal.

Yes I get that.

My point is that unlike what many people here are arguing, the court is not deciding based solely on what is best for the child. They are arguing what they feel is best for the child within the confines of laws that do not alow what would be best for the child (under their own judgement)