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

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

No matter where you look.

Idiots run things.

My contempt of modern civilization grows each day.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Sounds like another Terri Schiavo case, then?

No, that one took 7 years through the US Courts.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kurokage
Italy has offered citizenship to Alfie but can't offer him any other type of diffrent care that what he is already recieving.
You guys scream blue murder if a Brit makes a comment in a thread about your treasured firearms but the supposed "greatest" country on earth will let people die if they don't have enough money to pay for care!!!

My mother couldn't afford the $40k/wk for chemo....and yet she is still here with me 15 years later.

Any other BS stories you want to make up?

You may find this interesting.

www.thenation.com...

Here is the link supplied by Alldaylong

Thanks old carpy for pointing it out.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


No, it is the High Court which is not a "death panel".

Have you actually read the Judgment? Obviously not, judging by the nonsense you keep posting.

Yesd I did read it.

Perhaps you didnt.

You claim it wasnt the decision of doctors, yet all thorugh the dceision it cites the opinion of doctors.

Inclduing Dr. M, Dr. R., the peditrician, the anetsthiaologist, Professor Cross, a litant of doctors listed on point 18.

yes I klnow, the judge said that ytreatment will no longer help, and that life support would be pain for the babyy.

This is exactly the type of thing that was discussed during the idea of deah panels.

Doctors or bureaucrats say that life support would be painful, so they focibly remove it.

The justification at that time was worried to be that the state providing insurance should not have to bear the cost of a teratment that couldnt be effective.

This case is even worse, because the state would not have to bear the cost.

It is the state telling parents they may not take their child where they want for treatment or a final place to be when the child dies.

You keep saying read the judgement, which I did, as somehow proof this isnt the case.

But you are wrong.

a reply to: TrueBrit


Yes. Here 'tis:

Judgment

Very sad.

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?

The PARENTS?

WTF, people actually have no problem with the government making this decision???

To see people ok with, even praising cradle to grave big brother is truly horrifying.

a reply to: Grambler


So, you would just leave him as he is with no decision?

Do shut up about death panels.

a reply to: stosh64


Not the Government. The High Court. Not the same thing.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


So, you would just leave him as he is with no decision?

Do shut up about death panels.

Dont tell me to shut up, you have no right to tell me what I can discuss.

But seeing as you you are someone who thinks advocating free speech can be fanatical, I am not surprised y0ou would attempt to control what other people say.

I feel the court has every right to say we will not provide this child care we think is costing the tax payers money if we tghink it is ineffective.

I do not see how they can then use police to force the family for taking their child elsewhere to get health care.

If I had severe brain damage equivalent to what this kid has, I would not want to save myself. I also would feel compassion for any one of my kids that had brain damage like this kid has, allowing them to pass away if possible.

My dad had brain cancer, they took out a big chunk of his brain. He was all messed up and died about a year later, suffering for a year. I could see the pain in his eyes when he could not talk right. When he was just surviving yet could not think correctly anymore.

If this kid had a chance at even a life at all, I could see keeping him alive, there is too much damage for this kid to ever have a decent life. Maybe in a hundred years we may be able to correct something like this, but not now. Let the kid die with dignity, he is not a cash cow for medical and Pharmaceutical interests.

These people can hopefully have another kid who will be healthier, I see more into helping them with that than torturing this kid with treatments and pain and suffering.

Maybe I am old fashioned, I believe that it is my responsibility to put down my pets if it is time. We have a twenty one year old cat that I am keeping going, but someday I know she might need my help to die. I am hoping that she will die on her own when things go south, it would be better for me. I have been able to get her up and running and somewhat healthy without going to a vet but that will only go so far. A vet would have told us to put her down over a year ago, she is doing alright, a little research and diet change and supplements will not help the bump on her back though, that is a tumor that has something to do with the spine.

I hated seeing my dad suffer, I felt that getting the brain surgery just made him suffer longer. I was close to my dad, I knew how he felt because he is the one who taught me. He would try hard to fix things but knew when to give up and do what needed to be done. Let this poor kid die if he has no life to look forward to.

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.

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?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


Yet in America Alfie would be left to die any way if he was black or his parents couldn't afford health care.......??
Alfie is brain dead and has been on life support.
Some American members have know 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.

I took 6 posts to move this to African Americans... What took so long? lol

Over 95% of children in America under the age of 18 have private or public health insurance, and a big part of that missing 5% is due to the parents just not putting forth the effort to get it, so it is not as bleak as you seem to think with your UHC. The problem is if the parents wanted other treatment that they would pay for I find it wrong with the State stepping in to saying the death panel has voted for the baby to die and so that is what it will do.

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.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You are exactly right.

here is a part f the conclusions from the judgement.

Alongside all this it must be remembered that Alfie can not sustain life on his own. It is the ventilator that has been keeping him alive for many months, he is unable to sustain his own respiratory effort.

Point 61. in the judgement.

www.judiciary.gov.uk...

Now there is a new hearing set forth about this.

Sick 21-month-old Alfie Evans is defying the medical team at Alder Hey Children's Hospital, still fighting for his life after the state mandated that his life-support be removed. After breathing on his own for hours on end, the hospital finally gave the boy oxygen and water, says father Tom Evans.

And, now, more hope is seemingly on the horizon for the young family: "A High Court judge is preparing to consider further issues in the case of a 23-month-old boy who has been at the centre of a life-support treatment battle. Mr Justice Hayden is scheduled to oversee another hearing in Alfie Evans’s case in the Family Division of the High Court in Manchester in the next few hours," reported Metro on Tuesday morning.

www.dailywire.com...

Now keep in mind, its not just that the court said the state would no longer pay for treatment, its that it said the family was not allowed to provide outside treatment to the baby, and placed armed police tpo make sure the parents didnt attempt.

No it turns out that the doctors are stunned that their prognosis for when alfie would die without life support was wrong.

This is why it is disgusting to leave it up to the government, rather it be doctors or judges, that say a familiy is not allowed to provide their own treatment to a family member.

This isn't a government decision,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION

A parent may want to keep a child alive even if that child is suffering, no parent wants to see there child die, so sometimes a court makes the decision based on the evidence provided by the NHS trust that provides the childs care.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


Yet in America Alfie would be left to die any way if he was black or his parents couldn't afford health care.......??
Alfie is brain dead and has been on life support.
Some American members have know 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.

I took 6 posts to move this to African Americans... What took so long? lol

Over 95% of children in America under the age of 18 have private or public health insurance, and a big part of that missing 5% is due to the parents just not putting forth the effort to get it, so it is not as bleak as you seem to think with your UHC. The problem is if the parents wanted other treatment that they would pay for I find it wrong with the State stepping in to saying the death panel has voted for the baby to die and so that is what it will do.

There is no death panel. Stop making stuff up.

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.

a reply to: ScepticScot

switching life support off does not make a person die instantly.

This is very true sadly.

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.