Police Threaten Arrest If Citizens Speak Out Against the State-Sanctioned Death of Baby Alfie Evans

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think it’s just inherent for them to do so, they have been ruled for centuries up until recent modern times.

It is a little surprising thou not much outcry, I am wondering what would happen if this was tried in the states.

It would be ugly. And our elected folks wpuld have ensured they pandered to their base by doing stuff, whether helpful or not.

For a reference see Terry Schiavo.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think it’s just inherent for them to do so, they have been ruled for centuries up until recent modern times.

It is a little surprising thou not much outcry, I am wondering what would happen if this was tried in the states.

It would be ugly. And our elected folks wpuld have ensured they pandered to their base by doing stuff, whether helpful or not.

For a reference see Terry Schiavo.

That’s right, that was a local story for me. Thanks I remember now.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There was just a royal baby born not long ago if I read correctly

Imagine the courts telling the royal family that they were not allowed to fly their child wherever they wanted to receive care

Oh they wouldn’t do that though would they?

But the regular people with a sick child? They are told they are not allowed to seek treatment for their child

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There was just a royal baby born not long ago if I read correctly

Imagine the courts telling the royal family that they were not allowed to fly their child wherever they wanted to receive care

Oh they wouldn’t do that though would they?

But the regular people with a sick child? They are told they are not allowed to seek treatment for their child

Totally agree with that and the brits would ALL support it.


That sums this story up..

Government authority superseded parental rights.

And people are defending it.


Perhaps it is because many who are arguing for government don't have children. Life, perspective, attitudes change when you become a parent.

originally posted by: Bicent
Totally agree with that and the brits would ALL support it.

Not all, I seem to be the lone Brit on ATS who disagrees with denial of care in a fellow EU member state.
I support the UK doctors deciding that 'they' wished to stop life support, but the decision of the judge to refuse alternative continuing care in an EU approved and regulated healthcare system I can never agree with.
...but I don't just blindly have faith in the subjective ethical opinion of a judge.

a reply to: Peacetime

Those are good arguments to let nature takes it's course but most parents will do anything they possibly can to continue the life of their child, regardless of the odds given by doctors. Few parents remain atheists when their child is dying and the hope of a miracle always stays in the corner of their minds.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Peacetime

Those are good arguments to let nature takes it's course but most parents will do anything they possibly can to continue the life of their child, regardless of the odds given by doctors. Few parents remain atheists when their child is dying and the hope of a miracle always stays in the corner of their minds.

Exactly. Mine are all adults but I still don't think I would be able to deal with one of mine in a life ending situation.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Bicent
Totally agree with that and the brits would ALL support it.

Not all, I seem to be the lone Brit on ATS who disagrees with denial of care in a fellow EU member state.
I support the UK doctors deciding that 'they' wished to stop life support, but the decision of the judge to refuse alternative continuing care in an EU approved and regulated healthcare system I can never agree with.
...but I don't just blindly have faith in the subjective ethical opinion of a judge.

Good. It’s important to think that way, I in no way judge or deem it bad for the British, to inherently agree with their leaders either, doing so has kept them alive allot longer than the USA (100 year war, the Spanish Armada,world war 2) etc. But sometimes it’s not always right.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

My opinion is that either my fellow Brits are so dependent on the warm blanket of the state that they cannot think for themselves any more,

I can think for myself just fine thanks and don't mind being slightly cold without the "warm blanket"

You seem to be missing the fact that even if Alfie had gone to Italy he would have still died, they couldn't have offered him anything else other than the popes prayers. It was the ethics of Italian doctors following the orders of the pope that was out of order, just to move him for the sake of moving him.

a reply to: Bicent

If the Italian state had not offered an alternative it would have been different because I accept the decision of UK doctors deciding 'they' wished to stop life support, fair enough, that is their medical opinion.
But there was a legally approved alternative available which had the child been in that country could have been chosen.
It all boils down to ethics then, the subjective opinion of the judge was that Italian doctors = unethical, and UK doctors = ethical.
The blind faith in the judges decision to deny freedom of movement to another EU state's healthcare system is what troubles me most.

originally posted by: Kurokage
It was the ethics of Italian doctors following the orders of the pope that was out of order, just to move him for the sake of moving him.

Again, a subjective opinion on ethics, we'll have to agree to disagree.

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think it’s just inherent for them to do so, they have been ruled for centuries up until recent modern times.

It is a little surprising thou not much outcry, I am wondering what would happen if this was tried in the states.

We had our civil war thanks, long before America even excited. We are ruled by ourselves, the people we elect on our behalf.

The English civil War

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Kurokage
It was the ethics of Italian doctors following the orders of the pope that was out of order, just to move him for the sake of moving him.

Again, a subjective opinion on ethics, we'll have to agree to disagree.

But your opinion is also subjective, is it not, and ethics have been argued for thousands of years!!

a reply to: Kurokage

Nope, we are ruled by the subjective ethical opinions of judges.
There was an EU approved, regulated, and legal alternative of continuing care available but the judge deemed Italy's method of keeping a child alive in such circumstances as unethical, or pointless as was said in the judgement.
I can never agree to that unless the alternative was with witch doctors in Papua New Guinea. It wasn't.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Kurokage
It was the ethics of Italian doctors following the orders of the pope that was out of order, just to move him for the sake of moving him.

Again, a subjective opinion on ethics, we'll have to agree to disagree.

But your opinion is also subjective, is it not, and ethics have been argued for thousands of years!!

Agreed, but while there was a legal alternative available to the parents in the EU I assert that the judge overstepped the mark to deny that continuing care.
As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree mate, it all comes down to interpretation of ethics and who decides the fate of our child.
Italy has effectively been called unethical for the way they would have offered care for the child.

a reply to: Kurokage

I understand I am just trying to understand the logic.

I haven't read all the posts, so if this was already posted please point me to the answers, but my questions are:
1 - What did the court ruled? Is there a transcript of the ruling or are people just talking with no facts to support their positions?
2 - Do we have an official confirmation from the Italian hospital that they would be able to provide better treatment?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We habe no stake in your politics. This ismt a political outcry. Its moral.

It's some American groups saying "storm the hospital" and "an AR15 would sort this out", it's also certain people not understanding poor Alfies health problems, and what effect this had on him, and some right wing American groups calling British doctors murders and our idea of healthcare wrong!! Why, because it's different to how America does it!!

Why throw "right wing" into this hodge podge?

Random strangers have opinions. But AR 15's are not political.

Id challenge that the morons in charhe of alfies care didmt know much more than the average American. They swore he would die within minutes (under oath). When that failed they had to save face by with holding food from him until he died "naturally" of starvation.

NOW stop there. you can shoot your mouth of about this case BUT DONOT ACCUSSE OUR DOCTORS OF STARVING A CHILD TO PROVE A SICK POINT just becouse your medics wont treat a patient if they dont have the right insurance,
our doctors treat black/white/foragne/illigal or otherwise weather they can aford it or not...

a reply to: SATURN66

can the moderate please end this thread as people seam to be ussing this poor child to air and score political points and this should not be allowed infact them using it to get political points acroos is quite sickning and its shows poor repect for a child who lost his life so early...