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

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

And yet he lasted for such an extended period of time without sustenance nor life support.

Courts present evidence to suit the demands of the powers that be.

It's not about truth, it's about justice(LoL) being seen to be done by a blind tart with scales and the laws of the land enforced.

And at what cost???

a reply to: Bicent

The problem with this question, thou is most people in the medical field are very desensitized to emotion and just look at the biological or logical problem,

What utter crap.

I have seen a whole group of us all go into a room to cry after losing a patient.

Have some respect for the people who will one day be caring for you when you need it

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: notsure1
Not one of you that agree with this have said yes I have children..

Im sorry but in this instance if you dont have children your opinion on this is completely worthless..

I have a 3 year old son but that’s none of your business and does not make my views any more or less credible

It makes your views more credible..

So you would be allright with the state making this decision for your son?

Nope I would have fought to keep him alive so long as there was hope. But thankfully it was not my son, so I can look at this more objectively and rationally

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Hence the word most.. If doctors and nurses did not desensitize they would never be successful... it’s not a vice. Answer my question I asked earlier please.

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I guess I will fight for what I think is right tonight. Again, why did a court intervene with what parents of a sick child want to do?

Because it was the belief of the medical team that although well intentioned they would not be acting in the child’s best interests

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

And i have seen an old lady with double pneumonia fight it off on 3 occasions, last another 5 years, until the age of 91 when doctors gave her 24 hours to survive then weeks, then months, which turned out to be half a decade.

Utter crap is where you find it.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It's pathetic.

The ending of a life reliant on machines to keep is never taken lightly. Ever.

Garbage like this thread just goes to show how out of touch with reality some people can be, the police statement for instance... It's sad, public servant's receiving abuse and harassment for doing their job.

Like as if every member of staff took turns in torturing a child. Muppets man, absolute muppets.

It's a sad case, this child suffered and would've inevitably kept suffering. There's no good that could've came from the situation.

Alfie was on life support for 3/4 of his life.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

And i have seen an old lady with double pneumonia fight it off on 3 occasions, last another 5 years, until the age of 91 when doctors gave her 24 hours to survive then weeks, then months, which turned out to be half a decade.

Utter crap is where you find it.

Yeah nice to see you show so much respect to those who saved her life all those times then.

originally posted by: notsure1
I would love to know how many of the people arguing this was the right call actually have children..

I think that keeping alive a person that has no prospect of ever having a real life and that may be suffering is less humane than let the person die a natural death.

Answering your question, no, I don't have any children.

Would my opinion be different if I had children? I cannot really know, but I think it would.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I see so the medical decided the fate of the child killing it over the wishes of the parents. So lemme ask since you have shared with us your hands on, do you agree with taking the rights away from you as a parent to kill your child because you deemed it not in your child’s best interest? Killing the child as opposed to trying to prolong treatment somewhere else?

a reply to: notsure1

But shouldnt it be your choice in the end?

Tough question , ideally yes but in the face of the medical evidence the doctors and specialists had I think the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the parent , if it meant his life would be no more than existing in a vegetative state hooked up to a machine for the sake of others then I think the decision is clear.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Respect is earned.

They also tossed her out a nursing home and sent her home to die.

But that is another story.

Was respect shown to the parent of that child, were there wishes taken into consideration or granted?

I think not, so on this occasion, i will hold off on the respect, simply because is not darn well warented.

Respect "There" authority seems to be the rule of the day.

a reply to: ArMaP

There is always a chance but I respect that opinion but I am having a problem with wrapping my head around not being able to decide what I want for my child...

I would be gutted the rest of my life thinking maybe I could have saved my kid.

originally posted by: Bicent
The government knowing best never ends well in history.

It wasn't a question of the government knowing best, turning off life support was a medical decision, supported by the court ruling.

a reply to: Bicent

Nobody killed the child that implies murder, this child died of a disease.

When you use Language like killed it’s difficult to answer

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Or maybe you never had any common sense in the first place?

Educate yourself on the situation, nobody was getting starved to death and as far as I can tell you don't know shot about this case or the treatment this child received.

Prove me wrong and show me the medication treatment sheet and your own credentials that prove you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about.

I'll not hold my breath.

Lol I've been following this case since it started its

So you're going to sit here and try to throw out "facts" and say mine are wrong because I don't have his treatment plan.....

And claim you're right...... And you don't have his treatment plan.....

Sure makes sense.... hypocrite

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Is "allow to die" the better terminology?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Bicent

Nobody killed the child that implies murder, this child died of a disease.

When you use Language like killed it’s difficult to answer

No the child died because they stopped feeding him and removed his breathing tube and refused any additional treatment..... Even from another country

Fact

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Label it as you wish, you can decline to answer the question we can polish the effect however we wish, it’s still the truth.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Bicent

Nobody killed the child that implies murder, this child died of a disease.

When you use Language like killed it’s difficult to answer

No the child died because they stopped feeding him and removed his breathing tube and refused any additional treatment..... Even from another country

Fact

Wrong he was not starved to death.

Get a better argument