The Murder Of Alfie Evans

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The last several hours in the Alfie Evans story have been dramatic and ultimately appalling. The young boy, who suffers from a mysterious brain condition, was removed from the ventilator at Alder Hey hospital in London. The hospital has decreed that the boy’s life is no longer worth living and so he must die. The parents argue that there is still hope, and they want to take him to a hospital in Italy where further treatment has been offered. The doctors at Alder Hey hospital, however, won the right to kill their son. Last night, they began his execution.

But Alfie defied them again. He continued to breathe on his own, without assistance, for several hours. Eventually the doctors, who were flummoxed by this, agreed to give the boy water but not food. If they could not suffocate him, they would starve him instead. Meanwhile, an air ambulance from Italy waited outside the hospital ready to bring the boy, who was also granted Italian citizenship, to their country for treatment. A small army of police were stationed by the boy’s room to prevent this from happening.

Finally, Alfie’s parents were granted one last hearing with a judge, hoping he would locate enough of a human conscience within himself to allow them to put their boy on the helicopter and bring him to a place that had offered to give him medical care. But he has not even the remnant of a conscience. Their request was denied. The boy must die. This is his “final chapter,” says the judge.


WALSH: There Is No Way To Justify The Murder Of Alfie Evans. It Is Explicitly, Unabashedly Evil.




BREAKING: Judge Effectively Sentences Baby Alfie To Death, Denies Parents Request To Seek Treatment In Italy


Baby Alfie is believed to suffer from encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. His parents wished to seek further treatment for their boy and continue to fight for his life; the U.K. courts sided with Alder Hey Children's Hospital, which claimed keeping Alfie on life-support was not in his "best interests."

On Monday, Alfie had his life-support removed, but to the medical staff's surprise, the little boy is still alive and fighting, sustaining his own life for over 20 hours, six of which were without oxygen, food, and water, per the hospital's denial.

The Italian Embassy came to the family's defense and granted baby Alfie citizenship in hopes the boy could leave the U.K. and seek treatment there. After this was denied, the parents made another legal challenge at a hearing on Tuesday. "A High Court judge is preparing to consider further issues in the case of a 23-month-old boy who has been at the centre of a life-support treatment battle. Mr Justice Hayden is scheduled to oversee another hearing in Alfie Evans’s case in the Family Division of the High Court in Manchester in the next few hours," reported Metro on Tuesday morning.

The parents were denied this right and the judge effectively sentenced the baby to death, yet again.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
NEWSFLASH: that baby was going to die anyway. The parents were just prolonging it.

A more interesting discussion is:

Parents can certainly provide their children with whatever treatment they want - and can pay for. But when the state is paying for it, at what point do we the ones paying for it say enough? At what point is it just a waste of money to appease parents who cannot accept reality? At what point is it just flat out ghoulish to keep people alive artificially, especially when there is no possibility that they will ever lead a life of any kind?

We can also throw in elder care, because it's a similar situation. How much money should we spend to fix the parts of someone who's at the end of their cycle and keep them trucking?
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
NEWSFLASH: that baby was going to die anyway. The parents were just prolonging it.

A more interesting discussion is:

Parents can certainly provide their children with whatever treatment they want - and can pay for. But when the state is paying for it, at what point do we the ones paying for it say enough? At what point is it just a waste of money to appease parents who cannot accept reality? At what point is it just flat out ghoulish to keep people alive artificially, especially when there is no possibility that they will ever lead a life of any kind?

We can also throw in elder care, because it's a similar situation. How much money should we spend to fix the parts of someone who's at the end of their cycle and keep them trucking?

My medical directive says PULL THE PLUG!!!
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
At what point is it just a waste of money to appease parents who cannot accept reality?


Italian Gov wants to step in, then the UK Healthcare System is no longer on the hook so what .... someone thinks it is the right thing to do



Where does it stop ?
Gov. Bureaucrat making a choice who lives and who dies ...
oh you are too young, you have not contributed enough to society to be cost effective to treat
Oh you are too old, for Society to get a proper return on our treatment dollars


and yes I think we should quiet warehousing old folks .... left them pass quietly
but there is a huge middle ground
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Gov. Bureaucrat making a choice who lives and who dies ...
oh you are too young, you have not contributed enough to society to be cost effective to treat
Oh you are too old, for Society to get a proper return on our treatment dollars

I disagree. First of all, nature has already decided who lives and who dies. Gov can overrule that, or it doesn't have to. That is the issue at hand.

We're not talking about "treatment" here, as in a course of action that will correct or alleviate the problem. We're talking about prolonging the inevitable with no positive outcome, and spending a crap ton of taxpayer money to do it.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
All of this is the final result of a system of thought that places parental control of children below the expertise of bureaucrats on the scale of priorities. It's one thing for the government to step in when parents are preventing children from receiving life-saving care. It's another when the government steps in to prevent parents from pursuing potentially life-saving care. And yet that's just what has happened repeatedly in the United Kingdom.

Why? Why would British society place parents' wishes below the wishes of the state? Because a bureaucratic society of experts generally sees parents as an obstacle to proper development. Parents, in this view, treat their children as chattel to be owned and trained -- but the state can treat children with the dignity they are due. This means placing parental wishes to the side in every case in which those wishes come into conflict with the priorities of the state.

The bureaucrats of Britain don't merely usurp parental rights in the realm of life and death; they do so in the realm of upbringing as well. They have threatened religious Jewish schools for failing to inculcate children with LGBT propaganda; meanwhile, they have ignored the targeting of young women in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and Newcastle because the perpetrators are disproportionately Muslim.

All of this is untenable, both morally and practically. Parents will not continue to give the power to control their children away to bureaucrats who do not know their children's names.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/29859/who-controls-your-kids-lives-ben-shapiro
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
We're talking about prolonging the inevitable with no positive outcome, and spending a crap ton of taxpayer money to do it.

sure, I recall the Gov. refused to all the parents to take the boy home .... [maybe that was Charlie G]
 

terbear1225

Well-Known Member
I disagree. First of all, nature has already decided who lives and who dies. Gov can overrule that, or it doesn't have to. That is the issue at hand.

We're not talking about "treatment" here, as in a course of action that will correct or alleviate the problem. We're talking about prolonging the inevitable with no positive outcome, and spending a crap ton of taxpayer money to do it.

IIRC, there was, at least at one time, a belief that the child may have been misdiagnosed and that other doctors were of the opinion that his condition could be improved or reversed with the proper treatment. I could be remembering that wrong though.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
IIRC, there was, at least at one time, a belief that the child may have been misdiagnosed and that other doctors were of the opinion that his condition could be improved or reversed with the proper treatment. I could be remembering that wrong though.

No idea, this is the first I've heard of it.

But presuming the diagnosis is correct (Dailywire is clearly biased and preying on emotion, and they write as though the diagnosis is correct, so I'm inclined to believe it) and Baby Alfie is not going to have a normal life by any reason, or even grow into adulthood, should the government (aka the taxpayers) still pick up the tab to keep him on life support indefinitely?
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Sad, depressing times we live in when supposedly humane people refuse to let a patient go to their family to die, or another entity (the pope and Italy) volunteering to take the child off single payer healthcare (England) into private hospitals that believe there is hope.

This country is heading right down that path, the path where all those ridiculed for saying "death panels" about govt run single payer plans, are now just shaking their heads, mine included. We live in a very sick society when the govt decides who dies, when, and where, regardless of family choice.

Say, for instance, something tragically happens to the newest born "royal":sarcasm: of similar circumstances: Do you honestly think that child will have to go through that with the govt/courts overruling the wishes of the "royal":sarcasm: family?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
This decision is not up to the judge, or should not be. The parents are not asking for the taxpayer to keep footing the bill. They're asking for the right to remove their child under other medical care. The judge is accepting the hospital's decision to kill the child, literally starving him to death.

This is state run health care.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Say, for instance, something tragically happens to the newest born "royal":sarcasm: of similar circumstances: Do you honestly think that child will have to go through that with the govt/courts overruling the wishes of the "royal":sarcasm: family?

I'm not a fan of extrordinary effort wasted but I am certain this would not play out the same in your scenario.

That's the hazard of having a "political class" in your system. Whether it be a monarch or aristocrat.

That and they are subjects not citizens.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I'm not a fan of extrordinary effort wasted but I am certain this would not play out the same in your scenario.

That's the hazard of having a "political class" in your system. Whether it be a monarch or aristocrat.

What's wrong with "extraordinary effort" if it does not cost anybody (taxpayers) else's money and time but those volunteering to take that effort on?

And I agree with your second statement - we would never, ever see this happen to a child of a celebrity/politician type in any country, regardless of what any court or govt body would rule.

And your final sentence - that is why the 2A is vitally important - so we the people remain CITIZENS and not subjects.
 
Last edited:

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
What's wrong with "extraordinary effort" if it does not cost anybody (taxpayers) else's money and time but those volunteering to take that effort on?

Rarely does something not cost taxpayers anything in such circumstances, but if privately funded. It's their money do what you want with it.

That said, I've seen too many cling desperately to false hope.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Say, for instance, something tragically happens to the newest born "royal":sarcasm: of similar circumstances: Do you honestly think that child will have to go through that with the govt/courts overruling the wishes of the "royal":sarcasm: family?

I believe the royals have private health care and not the "free" government stuff that the rabble begged for.

So if they were willing to pay for it, it's their business.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
.... we would never, ever see this happen to a child of a celebrity/politician type in any country, regardless of what any court or govt body would rule.


Kimmel goes on TV - thank you Obamacare ..... then Ben S destroys him with rejoinder Obamacare had nothing to do with your child's treatment


https://www.dailywire.com/news/21441/sick-late-night-host-jimmy-kimmel-got-healthcare-emily-zanotti

A source close to Schumer's office, with knowledge of conversations between Kimmel and the Senator's staff, defended using the comedian as a lobbying tool: “Jimmy wanted to learn more about what was going on politically and policy-wise,” the source said. “[And] he wanted to fight this thing.”

That's all well and good, but Kimmel's story became unassailable, even as his argument's quickly unraveled. Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro told an identical story — Shapiro's daughter had the same surgery, at the same hospital, with the same care team — but noted that the medical center was a charitable operation, and those who can't pay for their baby's emergency care aren't turned away, with their children left to die.

Similarly, conservatives took to Twitter to complain that Kimmel, whose net worth hovers around $35 million, would be more than able to afford the best care possible for his children, even in a fully single-payer society. But as the comedian enjoyed his health care perks, the masses would be left to struggle with the remnants of Obamacare, where if you aren't able to find employer-provided coverage, and don't qualify for subsidies, the "insurance" is bare-bones, and often incredibly expensive.

The only "gold" plans left in Illinois, for example, can run families a thousand dollars a month in premiums — with a $12,000 to $14,000 deductible, and a comparable out of pocket limit; having a sick child like Kimmel's under Obamacare could wipe a family out.



5 Things You Need To Know About The Hospital Where Jimmy Kimmel Took His Son, And Why It's Not A Case For Obamacare

1. The hospital that treated Kimmel's baby is a private charity hospital.

2. What that means is that private charity is a valid solution to help those who are in need, which is the point that Shapiro makes in his response to Kimmel's monologue.

3. Prior to Obamacare, people were not dying in the streets as the result of being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

4. The pre-existing conditions mandate is one of the key factors in driving up healthcare costs.

5. Kimmel did not provide an example of a baby getting denied care due to a pre-existing condition
 

terbear1225

Well-Known Member
This decision is not up to the judge, or should not be. The parents are not asking for the taxpayer to keep footing the bill. They're asking for the right to remove their child under other medical care. The judge is accepting the hospital's decision to kill the child, literally starving him to death.

This is state run health care.

this is the key for me. The parents are not asking the hospital to continue care, they are asking for "permission" to take their own child out of the hospital. It absolutely astounds me that they are not being allowed to do so. It would cost the hospital and the taxpayers nothing to allow them to take Alfie out of the hospital.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
What's wrong with "extraordinary effort" if it does not cost anybody (taxpayers) else's money and time but those volunteering to take that effort on?

I have to run errands but I'm curious why the Brit hospital wouldn't release the child. There has to be more to the story and a reason behind it, and Dailywire is agenda-driven so they're not going to tell us that part. They just want to pretend that Brit doctors are a bunch of ghouls who enjoy killing babies.

When I get back, if I remember, I'll run it down unless someone else beats me to it.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Rarely does something not cost taxpayers anything in such circumstances, but if privately funded. It's their money do what you want with it.

That said, I've seen too many cling desperately to false hope.

But it is their, and their family's false hope, and not costing anyone else. Sad, morally bankrupt times we live in, for sure. This is the same way Hitler and regime started, being "compassionate" by deciding for someone else that their life is not worth living, regardless of who is footing the bill.
 
Top