The UK government is killing another child against parents wishes
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
He was in the hospital for more than a year and they never figured it out. After that long why weren't the parents allowed to seek other opinions and options?
Who cares? Why weren't the parents given the option to try when other's were willing to help for free?
Because it's not possible to save him with modern medical practices and it's inhumane to try. He had lived out the last 18 months confined to a hospital bed with no hope of ever leaving it.
Then make the argument to just kill him. Put the kid out of his misery in a compassionate way. Don't just pull the plug and let him starve to death or die from dehydration.
What’s inhumane is stripping parents of their God given rights to do what they feel is best for their child. What’s inhumane is relegating the child to a prisoner at time of death
Pretty good article from Fake News.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...opinions/alfie-evans-opinion-snead/index.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...opinions/alfie-evans-opinion-snead/index.html
You're obviously not a parent. Do you seriously want some government bureaucrat making decisions about your loved ones for you?
I'm a parent, I trust the doctors who made the decision. It wasn't elected officials who said that 18 months was long enough, it was doctors and medical professionals. So yeah it obviously sucks but when the Italian doctors were briefed they had the same conclusion that recovery was impossible.
Shocker, more lies from Fab and others who don't know the details of the case but are easily whipped up into an emotional frenzy. Literal sheep.
False. Italy was ready to take the child and try alternate treatments. And they were prepared to do so in a way that didn’t erode the parents rights to make their child’s choices
They had consulted and came to the same conclusions but we're going to take him anyway.
Never happened but that still doesn't matter. The government kidnapped a child and let him starve/dehydrate to death.
Everyone here knows you aren't a doctor (or even an intelligent person) but there aren't a whole lot of alternate treatments for when 70% of your brain is gone. This fact that you purposefully leave it out really tells a lot about how pathetic you are, trying to make this a political topic to whip up tour etour emotional and easily misled base.
I mean, I didn't see it happen but I read about it several times that doctors in Italy were briefed and came to the same conclusion.
What conclusion? The doctors in the UK had no conclusions but again, that doesn't matter. The government took a kid from a supportive caring family and killed him.
Even if that were true, you're still missing the point and you seem to refuse to address the fact that bureaucrats made the decision that the child was not to leave the country effectively taking the parent's rights away. You're okay with that?
I'm sure you are anti death penalty too. After all it's the same judges making life or death decisions on someone's child.
hes either lying about being a parent or lying about being ok with someone else making the decision for him.
No it isn't. In both cases the judge was presented by evidence and has to make a decision on what to do.
Then why did the UK government deny the parents' wishes and leave the kid to starve and suffocate to death?
Much more humane!
he routinely makes fun of people for their "horrible" analogies but then makes that one....
In one case, you have a person that was charged and convicted with a crime that met the standard of death penalty. In the other case, you have a child being controlled by the government instead of his parents.
The only common link is a judge involved but the circumstances are polar opposites.
It's not my fault you aren't smart enough to understand the analogy.
If Fab is pro death penalty, he obviously trusts a judge enough to examine evidence and make a life or death choice based on that evidence. This disproving his remark regarding "gov bureacrat choosing who lives and who dies".
If Fab isn't pro death penalty, then he doesn't trust a gov official to anaylyze the evidence and make a life or death choice. This I would be wrong.
But I'm betting I'm not wrong, because Fab is a massive hypocrite, just like tons of people on here.
Hate to tell you this, but that's pretty much happens whenever someone is taken off of life support, including my dad. He didn't die until several days after his "plug" was pulled. Much like this case, his brain was gone and there was no hope for recovery. Many of you will face this decision with your own family members someday.
Yes, family is usually responsible for these decisions, but when their decisions are not going to make a difference and will only prolong the inevitable, what is the more compassionate thing to do? When parents don't make good decisions for their kids, the government has a right to step in and that's how I feel about this case. The parents didn't want to let go so the government was actually making the compassionate choice in letting the child die.
Killing somebody is not ethically allowed. The only thing you can do is stop the machines that are helping and wait for nature to do the rest.
Ah yes, compassion. By letting the boy starve and suffocate to death after rendering the rights of his parents obsolete. This was all about compassion.
Guess whose fault that was? I'll give you a hint since I'm sure you need it, but it's not the political left who has been blocking right to die laws. Thanks to "your team" we don't have permission from the government to end our own lives, instead people have to starve to death once taken off life support.
Sigh ... a child doesn't have majority. That said ...
If you want to know what a 'Progressive' country looks like, as far as what the 'Progressives' in the US want to do, the UK is pretty much it ...
- "Managed care" with no right to sue, and no right to complain, with criminal actions will being taken**
- "No right to self-defense," with people who 'turn the tables' on home intruders and use the weapon they were once held at gun/knifepoint being convicted of 'manslaghter'
- https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/british-police-social-media-posts-about-alfie-are-being-monitored
- https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...sts-offensive-material-twitter-and-thats-bad/
- "Self-defense" in your own home as "Vigilantism" (e.g., "Stand Your Ground" -- which never applied to Zimmerman)
- "Single payer" as "better" and anything "Multi-payer" as "worse" (e.g., misrepresent "socialism" and "other" systems are "single payer" -- despite "multi-payer" with and without socialism in Europe)
So have you ever had to face this choice? Have you even ever had to put a pet to sleep? So do we always just keep people hooked up to life support forever? We're never ever allowed to make a choice let someone die?
They didn't get to make the choice. They weren't allowed to see other doctors. They weren't allowed to take their son home. The government took their kid and killed him without their consent.
they werent allowed to make that choice and that is the problem.
What ideas?
The same socialist ideas that Hitler, Mussolini and Mao had?
Dems have zero ideas for mainstream middle America. They haven't seen JFK.
JFK and W. are actually not that different. I know a lot of people give me strange looks when I say that, but I don't think people realize how 'Progressive' W. was for a Republican (sometimes in a bad way too, like JFK too).
My main issue is RFK. RFK was not JFK. In fact, if you haven't see these three (3) LBJ movies, I recommend them, historical chronological order ...
- LBJ (2016 or 2017): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4778988/
- All the Way (2016): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3791216/
- The Path to War (2002): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218505/
LBJ was the first, Southerner to be in the Oval Office since before the Civil War. And he was the right man for it. It gets knocked hard because it really makes RFK look bad. But it's about time RFK finally got knocked, and JFK actually showed how 'forward thinking' he was to bring LBJ along. It really 'completes' All the Way. Do not try to compare the two, they are really complementary.
I don't think people realize how LBJ was instrumental in slowly getting some things over the Southern Democrats, not just after JFK passed, but before.
And if you haven't seen it, The Path to War (2002) starts right at/after the '64 CRA and election, and goes through '68, including the all-important '65 decision. It is probably the best 'backroom' Vietnam story of the LBJ administration, including both Secretaries of Defense from early on, including LBJ's long-standing relationship with Clifford, which is just as important as McNamara.
That said, if you're looking for LBJ to be LBJ and throw the 'N' word around, you won't get it. All 3 movies are not going to alienate the viewer by portraying LBJ as actual. He used the 'N' word often, especially with his Southern Democrats. But they won't show that in any of them, because it will alienate the viewer.
