Current Events > Can someone explain to me why England is murdering this baby?

(+) Yeah! (+)

No probably. Alfie is going to die, and is already a vegetable with no real brain left. It is only capable of making him experience seizures and this is never going to improve. This is just fact at this point, and nothing about it will change. His fate has been what it is from the start of all this is.

The signs he is showing after coming off of life support aren't uncommon and in line with what the staff expected to see. They don't change anything about his fate.

Even the hospital that is willing to give him the same palliative care he had been (and that's all they can give) have said transporting him is dangerous and will likely cause him harm.

The parents had also had their supports line up and threaten staff treating extremely sick children. They stopped an ambulance from getting in as well. The dad has made a case to try and sue the doctors for murder and has routinely called them scum, before flip flopping to call them "wonderful people" when he think he might get something out of it.
---

Because the parents are wrong and need to let him die
---

In the UK, the state apparently won't even let you seek treatment in another country, on your own dime, if the state determines you are beyond saving.

It's an insult to people who care about freedom and personal liberty anywhere in the world.
---

Funkydog posted...

Even the hospital that is willing to give him the same palliative care he had been (and that's all they can give) have said transporting him is dangerous and will likely cause him harm.

As opposed to having him killed? When death is the alternative anyways, the idea that the state is forcing this down the throats of the parents is horrifying.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Funkydog posted...

Even the hospital that is willing to give him the same palliative care he had been (and that's all they can give) have said transporting him is dangerous and will likely cause him harm.

As opposed to having him killed? When death is the alternative anyways, the idea that the state is forcing this down the throats of the parents is horrifying.

He's going to die anyway. He doesn't experience anything other than seizures, that transporting is liable to cause. What is keeping him alive doing if all that it allows him to experience is more seizures before he dies?

Also, the government isn't doing this. A judge (separate from the government) has ruled in favour with the hospital to allow them to turn life support off.
---

Funkydog posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Funkydog posted...

Even the hospital that is willing to give him the same palliative care he had been (and that's all they can give) have said transporting him is dangerous and will likely cause him harm.

As opposed to having him killed? When death is the alternative anyways, the idea that the state is forcing this down the throats of the parents is horrifying.

He's going to die anyway. He doesn't experience anything other than seizures, that transporting is liable to cause. What is keeping him alive doing if all that it allows him to experience is more seizures before he dies?

Because I don't think the state should have the final say in someone's medical treatment, particularly if that final say is "nope, not worth it, we're letting him die, we don't care if you have made arrangements elsewhere and you are paying for it"
---

ben1741 posted...

pegusus123456 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

So how can the UK say they won't allow it? What's their legal basis? That is fucking crazy

The UK apparently has a law where the state (or maybe certain advocacy groups?) can go before a judge and argue that the child's best interests aren't being served. And going by that same article, it's absolutely in his best interests to be taken off life support. It's stated that he no longer has the neural pathways for taste, sight, hearing, or touch and that his brain is essentially just water and spinal fluid. And any brain activity he does have (or did, wikipedia at least wasn't clear if this is still happening) only happens during seizures. There's no way that can be cured.

That said, I'm not sure I really agree with the government having that kind of power. I think I'm officially on the fence on this one.

The child?s best interests are to be killed? Did you even read what you wrote before you posted it? There is nothing worse than being dead.

The kid's potential life experiences are limited to literally only 2 things at this point. Pain and seizures.
---

I feel conflicted about the case

On the one hand, yeah, it does seem like an overstep from the government to prevent parents from spending the end of their child's life with their child how they see fit

On the other hand, though, we don't take parental sovereignty to be absolute. I'm not a medical professional, so I don't get the specifics. How can someone not have a brain but still suffer? Aren't they just a vegetable?

But if the diagnosis is as many people claim it is, then I think there is some kind of argument to be made. It's not like we would like a parent flagellate their child to exorcise them of demons just because that is what they think would fix them or whatever. To the extent this case is analogous to that, then it seems you can justify it on that basis.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Funkydog posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Funkydog posted...

Even the hospital that is willing to give him the same palliative care he had been (and that's all they can give) have said transporting him is dangerous and will likely cause him harm.

As opposed to having him killed? When death is the alternative anyways, the idea that the state is forcing this down the throats of the parents is horrifying.

He's going to die anyway. He doesn't experience anything other than seizures, that transporting is liable to cause. What is keeping him alive doing if all that it allows him to experience is more seizures before he dies?

Because I don't think the state should have the final say in someone's medical treatment, particularly if that final say is "nope, not worth it, we're letting him die, we don't care if you have made arrangements elsewhere and you are paying for it"

So should parents be allowed to refuse vaccines, blood transfusions, or modern medicine as well? Since judges and doctors have no business telling parents how to parent? How is this not a case of child abuse? The parents do NOT always know best.
---

ben1741 posted...

pinky0926 posted...

ben1741 posted...

The child?s best interests are to be killed? Did you even read what you wrote before you posted it? There is nothing worse than being dead.

"There is nothing worse than being dead."

This is not what long term terminally ill people will tell you.

The child is already braindead. There is no resolution to this that has a happy ending.

Come at this from another angle: consider the enormous social cost to keep a child on life support when there is absolutely nothing that can be done to improve his condition, because he's a slowly deteriorating braindead vegetable.

It?s objective that the worst life is better than the best death.

Yes, you are correct. If you were incorrect, suicide would be a thing that exists. It is not though, so you are right.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Because I don't think the state should have the final say in someone's medical treatment, particularly if that final say is "nope, not worth it, we're letting him die, we don't care if you have made arrangements elsewhere and you are paying for it"

First off, the state isn't ruling anything in this.

Second, it isn't a matter of "not worth it" and the fact you are boiling the argument down to this shows how much you have actually looked into the matter. It centres around the continued suffering of a child

There is no chance for improvement and all that is going to happen if he is kept on life support is he might last a little longer to experience nothing but seizures. What purpose does that serve? How does Alfie benefit from being put through living like that? So his parents get to cling to a futile and none existent hope, Alfie has to suffer?

I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind that thinking. It is inhumane to make someone suffer, just because you don't want to let go.
---

Funkydog posted...

First off, the state isn't ruling anything in this.

On 19 December 2017, Alder Hey applied to the High Court to withdraw parental rights from Alfie's parents and to withdraw ventilation.[2] The case is heard at a public hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London. Alder Hey claimed that continuing life-support treatment would not be in the best interests of Alfie. Lawyers acting on the hospital's behalf further claimed that further treatment for Alfie would be "unkind and inhumane". A doctor treating Alfie further stated that there is "no hope" for the child, and that he was in a semi-vegetative state from a degenerative neurological condition that medics have not been able to definitively identify. The parents denied this, with Alfie's father claiming that his son "looks him in the eye" and "wants help".[3]

The High Court ruled in favour of the hospital on 20 February 2018. In their judgement, the High Court stated that an MRI scan taken in February 2018 revealed that "[Alfie's] brain [was] entirely beyond recovery" and that "the brain was now only able to generate seizure" with "progressive destruction of the white matter of the brain which Dr R interpreted as now appearing almost identical to water and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)"[4]. Following the conclusion of a court case Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Hayden concluded that "I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfies best interest".

?
---

Where I'm from, the judiciary is considered a part of government (specifically, the judicial branch)

Funkydog posted...

There is no chance for improvement

It comes down to the fact that I don't believe the government should have the ability to make this final determination in a case where the parents have made arrangements elsewhere. I don't think the decision of when it is inhumane to make someone suffer versus try to save them is a decision that should be made exclusively by government.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

ben1741 posted...

pinky0926 posted...

ben1741 posted...

The child?s best interests are to be killed? Did you even read what you wrote before you posted it? There is nothing worse than being dead.

"There is nothing worse than being dead."

This is not what long term terminally ill people will tell you.

The child is already braindead. There is no resolution to this that has a happy ending.

Come at this from another angle: consider the enormous social cost to keep a child on life support when there is absolutely nothing that can be done to improve his condition, because he's a slowly deteriorating braindead vegetable.

It?s objective that the worst life is better than the best death.

Yes, you are correct. If you were incorrect, suicide would be a thing that exists. It is not though, so you are right.

Thank you. Im glad we could agree.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Funkydog posted...

First off, the state isn't ruling anything in this.

On 19 December 2017, Alder Hey applied to the High Court to withdraw parental rights from Alfie's parents and to withdraw ventilation.[2] The case is heard at a public hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London. Alder Hey claimed that continuing life-support treatment would not be in the best interests of Alfie. Lawyers acting on the hospital's behalf further claimed that further treatment for Alfie would be "unkind and inhumane". A doctor treating Alfie further stated that there is "no hope" for the child, and that he was in a semi-vegetative state from a degenerative neurological condition that medics have not been able to definitively identify. The parents denied this, with Alfie's father claiming that his son "looks him in the eye" and "wants help".[3]

The High Court ruled in favour of the hospital on 20 February 2018. In their judgement, the High Court stated that an MRI scan taken in February 2018 revealed that "[Alfie's] brain [was] entirely beyond recovery" and that "the brain was now only able to generate seizure" with "progressive destruction of the white matter of the brain which Dr R interpreted as now appearing almost identical to water and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)"[4]. Following the conclusion of a court case Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Hayden concluded that "I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfies best interest".

?

thats not the state
---

ThePopcornKing posted...

thats not the state

huh?
---

ThePopcornKing posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Funkydog posted...

First off, the state isn't ruling anything in this.

On 19 December 2017, Alder Hey applied to the High Court to withdraw parental rights from Alfie's parents and to withdraw ventilation.[2] The case is heard at a public hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London. Alder Hey claimed that continuing life-support treatment would not be in the best interests of Alfie. Lawyers acting on the hospital's behalf further claimed that further treatment for Alfie would be "unkind and inhumane". A doctor treating Alfie further stated that there is "no hope" for the child, and that he was in a semi-vegetative state from a degenerative neurological condition that medics have not been able to definitively identify. The parents denied this, with Alfie's father claiming that his son "looks him in the eye" and "wants help".[3]

The High Court ruled in favour of the hospital on 20 February 2018. In their judgement, the High Court stated that an MRI scan taken in February 2018 revealed that "[Alfie's] brain [was] entirely beyond recovery" and that "the brain was now only able to generate seizure" with "progressive destruction of the white matter of the brain which Dr R interpreted as now appearing almost identical to water and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)"[4]. Following the conclusion of a court case Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Hayden concluded that "I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfies best interest".

?

thats not the state

That's always been my knowledge of our courts, yeah. The are separate from the governement.
---

it only exists as an established authority through an act of parliament

thats the only way that civil institutions are considered part of the state ever

are all the functions of government typically not considered 'the state' in the UK? its ltierally just if they vote on it in parliament directly?
---

if the state is ruled against by a court is that the state ruling on the state?

no
---

ThePopcornKing posted...

if the state is ruled against by a court is that the state ruling on the state?

yes

why is that problematic? different government organizations have standing against each other depending on the case
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

It comes down to the fact that I don't believe the government should have the ability to make this final determination in a case where the parents have made arrangements elsewhere. I don't think the decision of when it is inhumane to make someone suffer versus try to save them is a decision that should be made exclusively by government.

So parents should be allowed to take their sick children to other countries if they disagree with the diagnoses in their current country? Like if they are scared of heart surgery and prefer faith healers? Just because someone sprung from your loins, you should have the ultimate say on everything even if it's harmful or abusive? Is this why social services, foster care and power of attorney transfers don't exist?
---

Balrog0 posted...

it only exists as an established authority through an act of parliament

I mean, you could include vast number of things as "part of the government" if they only exist at the will of it.

I think the main point this isn't something the Tories/May have any voice/decision in and is done by a body that runs independently effectively.
---

Funkydog posted...

I mean, you could include vast number of things as "part of the government" if they only exist at the will of it.

yeah, and I do, thus me asking what you guys consider part of the government

Funkydog posted...

I think the main point this isn't something the Tories/May have any voice/decision in and is done by a body that runs independently effectively.

okay, and his main point is that their authority is established by government fiat
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

The kid was given Italian citizenship and they won't let him leave for treatment and they refuse to treat in England?

Socialized medicine leading to death panels? This why I need an AR-15. God knows my kid would be on a plane right now but how can you fight back in a country that makes butter knives illegal.

You just answered your topic question. That's exactly what it is.

the usa doesnt have the concept of judicial independence? smh no wonder its such a pro child abuse third world country
---

ThePopcornKing posted...

the usa doesnt have the concept of judicial independence?

we have a lot of government organizations that function independently of the executive and legislative branches at various levels in our federal system
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

It comes down to the fact that I don't believe the government should have the ability to make this final determination in a case where the parents have made arrangements elsewhere. I don't think the decision of when it is inhumane to make someone suffer versus try to save them is a decision that should be made exclusively by government.

So parents should be allowed to take their sick children to other countries if they disagree with the diagnoses in their current country? Like if they are scared of heart surgery and prefer faith healers? Just because someone sprung from your loins, you should have the ultimate say on everything even if it's harmful or abusive? Is this why social services, foster care and power of attorney transfers don't exist?

When it comes to a very serious diagnosis, particularly one in which the home government has decided that letting the child slowly die is the correct option, then yes I think that parents should be able to do that. I think that you can still allow for the state to intervene in the case of abusive parents via things like social services, foster care, and power of attorney transfers while still giving the parents the right in this specific context.

The idea that this is being compared with faith healers is quite disingenuous.
---

ThePopcornKing posted...

the usa doesnt have the concept of judicial independence? smh no wonder its such a pro child abuse third world country

Are you dense or something?

We have three fucking branches of government

Executive, Judicial, Legislative.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

It comes down to the fact that I don't believe the government should have the ability to make this final determination in a case where the parents have made arrangements elsewhere

It isn't the government making the determination, it's the doctors. Both the doctors in the UK and in Italy agree he isn't going to get better.

Im_JustMe0129 posted...

And I second what you said, I'd have my kid on that plane in a heartbeat.....if I had to smuggle him out of the hospital myself.

So like the parents you care more about denial and false hope then ending your child's suffering. "Moral"
---

JE19426 posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

It comes down to the fact that I don't believe the government should have the ability to make this final determination in a case where the parents have made arrangements elsewhere

It isn't the government making the determination, it's the doctors. Both the doctors in the UK and in Italy agree he isn't going to get better.

The government is refusing to allow them to seek treatment elsewhere. From what I understand, the government is forcing the child to no longer receive treatment, regardless of who is paying for it.
---

Balrog0 posted...

ThePopcornKing posted...

the usa doesnt have the concept of judicial independence?

we have a lot of government organizations that function independently of the executive and legislative branches at various levels in our federal system

So why is it hard to grasp then?

The government has minimal involvement in the matter and no involvement at all in any cases it sees
---

Funkydog posted...

So why is it hard to grasp then?

The government has minimal involvement in the matter and no involvement at all in any cases it sees

we don't use the term government or state to refer to the currently elected executive and legislative branches. it refers to all three legs of government, which you all also have

why is that hard for you to grasp?
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

From what I understand, the government is forcing the child to no longer receive treatment, regardless of who is paying for it

No.

The courts have simply allowed the doctors to decide to take him off life support so he can die.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

From what I understand, the government is forcing the child to no longer receive treatment, regardless of who is paying for it.

You understand wrongly, the NHS is still providing treatment. The courts and doctors aren't stopping that.

Sativa_Rose posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

It comes down to the fact that I don't believe the government should have the ability to make this final determination in a case where the parents have made arrangements elsewhere. I don't think the decision of when it is inhumane to make someone suffer versus try to save them is a decision that should be made exclusively by government.

So parents should be allowed to take their sick children to other countries if they disagree with the diagnoses in their current country? Like if they are scared of heart surgery and prefer faith healers? Just because someone sprung from your loins, you should have the ultimate say on everything even if it's harmful or abusive? Is this why social services, foster care and power of attorney transfers don't exist?

When it comes to a very serious diagnosis, particularly one in which the home government has decided that letting the child slowly die is the correct option, then yes I think that parents should be able to do that. I think that you can still allow for the state to intervene in the case of abusive parents via things like social services, foster care, and power of attorney transfers while still giving the parents the right in this specific context.

The idea that this is being compared with faith healers is quite disingenuous.

Sometimes death is the answer. He's just going to go to Italy and suffer and die even slower than if they pull the plug now. Doctors in Italy have not said that they can cure him. What is unique in this situation to others I mention? Is this not parents rejecting medical experts and all logic to the detriment of their child? What other context is there?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Im_JustMe0129 posted...

And I second what you said, I'd have my kid on that plane in a heartbeat.....if I had to smuggle him out of the hospital myself.

So like the parents you care more about denial and false hope then ending your child's suffering. "Moral"

So like every liberal/socialist you care more about a death panel playing God and deciding who's fit and unfit to live. Got it.

Funkydog posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

From what I understand, the government is forcing the child to no longer receive treatment, regardless of who is paying for it

No.

The courts have simply allowed the doctors to decide to take him off life support so he can die.

Okay, so the parents still don't have the ability to tell the doctors no? That's essentially the same situation.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Okay, so the parents still don't have the ability to tell the doctors no? That's essentially the same situation.

No. There's a big difference between "you can't whatever the fuck want with a child" and "this kid can't receive any medical care whatsoever".

Im_JustMe0129 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Im_JustMe0129 posted...

And I second what you said, I'd have my kid on that plane in a heartbeat.....if I had to smuggle him out of the hospital myself.

So like the parents you care more about denial and false hope then ending your child's suffering. "Moral"

So like every liberal/socialist you care more about a death panel playing God and deciding who's fit and unfit to live. Got it.

Dying people are unfit to live, yes. Thus why they are dying. You're pushing the mentality that prevents euthanasia from becoming more accepted. Refusing to let people die when life is futile is not sensible and I would argue it isn't moral. The parents believe they have good intentions, but they don't realize they are fighting this for themselves and not their son. What does Alfie gain? More time seizing?

God can keep him miraculously alive after the plug is pulled if that's his plan. Otherwise, guess he is cool with ending this kid's pain.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

It comes down to the fact that I don't believe the government should have the ability to make this final determination in a case where the parents have made arrangements elsewhere. I don't think the decision of when it is inhumane to make someone suffer versus try to save them is a decision that should be made exclusively by government.

So parents should be allowed to take their sick children to other countries if they disagree with the diagnoses in their current country? Like if they are scared of heart surgery and prefer faith healers? Just because someone sprung from your loins, you should have the ultimate say on everything even if it's harmful or abusive? Is this why social services, foster care and power of attorney transfers don't exist?

Didn't the uk recently kill another kid who wanted to go get experimental treatment? Yes if you're telling me my child is going to die and I think someone else can save him if should absolutely be my right to take them elsewhere.
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Didn't the uk recently kill another kid who wanted to go get experimental treatment?

No.

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

It comes down to the fact that I don't believe the government should have the ability to make this final determination in a case where the parents have made arrangements elsewhere. I don't think the decision of when it is inhumane to make someone suffer versus try to save them is a decision that should be made exclusively by government.

So parents should be allowed to take their sick children to other countries if they disagree with the diagnoses in their current country? Like if they are scared of heart surgery and prefer faith healers? Just because someone sprung from your loins, you should have the ultimate say on everything even if it's harmful or abusive? Is this why social services, foster care and power of attorney transfers don't exist?

Didn't the uk recently kill another kid who wanted to go get experimental treatment? Yes if you're telling me my child is going to die and I think someone else can save him if should absolutely be my right to take them elsewhere.

The doctors in Italy don't even think they can save him. They are just willing to let him be braindead there.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Funkydog posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

From what I understand, the government is forcing the child to no longer receive treatment, regardless of who is paying for it

No.

The courts have simply allowed the doctors to decide to take him off life support so he can die.

Okay, so the parents still don't have the ability to tell the doctors no? That's essentially the same situation.

Not when what they want is to torture Alfie, no.
---

JE19426 posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Didn't the uk recently kill another kid who wanted to go get experimental treatment?

No.

For ten months, Charlie has been living in the intensive-care unit at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. In March, his doctors decided that there was nothing more they could do for him, and they recommended that his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, withdraw his ventilator. They refused, on the grounds that an untried experimental treatment was available in the United States. The hospital, in accordance with British law, applied to the courts to forestall further treatment.

Petition granted and child murdered.
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

JE19426 posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Didn't the uk recently kill another kid who wanted to go get experimental treatment?

No.

For ten months, Charlie has been living in the intensive-care unit at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. In March, his doctors decided that there was nothing more they could do for him, and they recommended that his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, withdraw his ventilator. They refused, on the grounds that an untried experimental treatment was available in the United States. The hospital, in accordance with British law, applied to the courts to forestall further treatment.

A case, from what I recall, where the doctor in America withdrew his suggestion about the treatment as well on learning just how severe Charlie's condition was on the grounds it actually was futile.
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

Petition granted and child murdered.

You should look up the definition of murder before making such ridiculous claims.