I still don't get how a supposed first world democracy can stop parents from doing what is best for their own kids. Absolute insanity.
You can always count on 85 and other like minded posters to leave out the facts that they don't like to try to attack liberal ideas.
You can always count on 85 and other like minded posters to leave out the facts that they don't like to try to attack liberal ideas.
You can always count on 85 and other like minded posters to leave out the facts that they don't like to try to attack liberal ideas.
The fact that his brain was permanently destroyed from years of seizures and neurological degeneration to the point where there was no recovery possible, a fact that even the Italian doctors acknowledged. Not even the shining beacon that is American privatized healthcare would have treated this child on an insurance company's dime for the next 70 years as he sat in a vegetative state. You can't say things like this is what socialized medical care does when you can almost guarantee that in the US it would be the same result. It's inhumane to do what they were wanting to do.
Painting the death of a child from a terminal illness and getting people who don't understand brain damage to rail against socialized medical care is such a dirtbag thing to do.
Every article I've read on this story said it was terminal. No one was hiding that to rail against the UK's shit system. There you go making up stuff to argue against again.
Being terminal doesn't mean that the parents don't get to try everything possible to save their son. That doesn't mean the government can take a child from it's parents to let him die because the government doesn't want to pay for more treatment.
I find it hard to believe you would just let the government kill one of your kids when there are still other options available.
The fact that his brain was permanently destroyed from years of seizures and neurological degeneration to the point where there was no recovery possible, a fact that even the Italian doctors acknowledged. Not even the shining beacon that is American privatized healthcare would have treated this child on an insurance company's dime for the next 70 years as he sat in a vegetative state. You can't say things like this is what socialized medical care does when you can almost guarantee that in the US it would be the same result. It's inhumane to do what they were wanting to do.
Painting the death of a child from a terminal illness and getting people who don't understand brain damage to rail against socialized medical care is such a dirtbag thing to do.
The fact that his brain was permanently destroyed from years of seizures and neurological degeneration to the point where there was no recovery possible, a fact that even the Italian doctors acknowledged. Not even the shining beacon that is American privatized healthcare would have treated this child on an insurance company's dime for the next 70 years as he sat in a vegetative state. You can't say things like this is what socialized medical care does when you can almost guarantee that in the US it would be the same result. It's inhumane to do what they were wanting to do.
Painting the death of a child from a terminal illness and getting people who don't understand brain damage to rail against socialized medical care is such a dirtbag thing to do.
I find it hard to believe you would just let the government kill one of your kids when there are still other options available.
Government or insurance company will choose, take your pick. You choose to blame the national health service because you can't miss a chance to try and attack liberal ideology despite the good it does.I thought you were an ardent supporter of a mothers right to choose? Or is that only for when she’s playing God with a life inside of her? As soon as the baby is born and ends up in a government run hospital, her right to choose what’s best for her son evaporates and defers to the government. That’s how it goes right?
If you believe he's terminal then you know the government didn't kill their son. Yet here you are saying that.
Government or insurance company will choose, take your pick. You choose to blame the national health service because you can't miss a chance to try and attack liberal ideology despite the good it does.
Government or insurance company will choose, take your pick. You choose to blame the national health service because you can't miss a chance to try and attack liberal ideology despite the good it does.
I don't disagree with most of this, but one thing should be added: there are a lot of hospitals that take on cases like this pro-bono because they have an opportunity to conduct research on the case. Parents in these situations often realize that their child has a terminal illness and allow the hospital to push the fringes of experimental research in return for keeping the child alive longer. I have a close friend who has a child that wasn't supposed to live past 2 years old, but he is now 16. The medical bills for his treatment would have been in the 10s of millions of dollars, but the hospital won't bill a dime of it as long as the parents keep bringing him to that hospital, because they are gaining valuable knowledge of his disease and how it is affected by various treatments.
I'm ok with the government telling the parents that they will not cover the cost of any additional procedures due to the current status of the child. That is what socialized medical care does.
I'm not ok with the government confiscating the child and not giving him back to the parents to seek other care at their own cost.
So, whose decision should it be? The mother’s or government? If the government can tell a mother not to abort when the fetus is fully dependent of her, then they can tell her to stop treatment when the kid is terminalI thought you were an ardent supporter of a mothers right to choose? Or is that only for when she’s playing God with a life inside of her? As soon as the baby is born and ends up in a government run hospital, her right to choose what’s best for her son evaporates and defers to the government. That’s how it goes right?
So, whose decision should it be? The mother’s or government? If the government can tell a mother not to abort when the fetus is fully dependent of her, then they can tell her to stop treatment when the kid is terminal
If the kid was that gone, the British government was actually protecting Alfie from his parents and the doctors.
Bob with more brain dead analogies, 85 acting more emotional than a menopausal woman and everyone else ignoring the actual facts of this case.
About sums up the WC.
I don't think anyone is ignoring the facts, but some people think one set of facts is more important than others. The FACT that the government refused to let the parents take the child elsewhere at no cost to the taxpayer is a pretty important fact to me. The FACT that the government restrained the parents from even touching the child is a pretty inportant fact to me. The FACT that the hospital removed the priest from Alfies room is a pretty important fact to me.
The fact that the child was vegetative and supposedly had no chance of recovery is a moot point to me because we will never know what the outcome would have been if he had been taken elsewhere.
you seem to care more about arguing with 85 than anythingI have said before that the government refusing to allow the parents to take him elsewhere is 100% wrong, but there is no need to twist the truth, or even outright lie like 85 did in the title and leave out extremely important details like many other people are doing. This case is horrendous enough without resorting to lying.
you seem to care more about arguing with 85 than anything
i notice how you dont even dispute the simple fact the only reason you are on this board is to argue with specific users. you were the single greatest factors for the downfall of the wc.Its not really arguing, it's about pointing out how much he lies to advance his painfully obvious political agenda, and how that is exactly what is wrong with America today. People treating politics like a freaking football game, always cheering for "their side" and blindly supporting it 100%.
Newsflash: both "sides" of politics make mistakes. Some people on here never can admit that and I enjoy pointing it out because then they flip out.
i notice how you dont even dispute the simple fact the only reason you are on this board is to argue with specific users. you were the single greatest factors for the downfall of the wc.
Bob in here saying that the government decided that a terminally ill child should die is a perfect example of what happens when people have opinions on stuff they have no idea about. The kid was going to die no matter what. He had irreversible brain damage from years of seizures. Italian doctors knew this. British doctors knew this. American for-profit doctors knew this. He had been semi vegetative for the last year and was deteriorating.
The government didn't decide he was going to die. His disease did you goober.
you seem to care more about arguing with 85 than anything
Bob in here saying that the government decided that a terminally ill child should die is a perfect example of what happens when people have opinions on stuff they have no idea about. The kid was going to die no matter what. He had irreversible brain damage from years of seizures. Italian doctors knew this. British doctors knew this. American for-profit doctors knew this. He had been semi vegetative for the last year and was deteriorating.
The government didn't decide he was going to die. His disease did you goober.
By not allowing the family to seek other treatment or let doctors outside the country see him they killed Alfie. No one knows what else could have been done because the UK wouldn't allow it.
Yes we do know.By not allowing the family to seek other treatment or let doctors outside the country see him they killed Alfie. No one knows what else could have been done because the UK wouldn't allow it.