The Murder Of Alfie Evans

[b23hqb]

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.

They simply refused, as they did July of last year for that other child - Charlie Gard - to let the family, The pope, or those private hospitals here in the US that were willing to do promising experimental treatments. But that would look way bad on the Brit single payer system and the courts if something like that worked. You think their progressive, liberal judges over there are any different than the ones we have here? All of their decisions have to fit the agenda, ya know.

 

[GURPS]

https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2018/04/25/real-reason-britain-wont-release-alfie-evans-italy/


But why?

Though still morally squishy there’s a valid argument to be made that when a nation votes for socialist healthcare they are agreeing to let the government treat their lives as algorithms. When the bottom line is measured in dollars rather than lives, the risk a society takes is illustrated in cases like Alfie’s. The NHS simply cannot afford the extremely expensive prospect of keeping alive a little boy who most likely will not live much longer due to an incurable condition. Alfie’s chances of any meaningful recovery were slim to none. It isn’t outside the boundaries of reason that the government tasked with his treatment would deem it simply not worth the effort expended.

It’s cruel, but logical…the inevitable result of a single-payer system.

[clip]

This is exactly the point in the ruling by the NHS and the courts to forbid their free citizens from leaving the country. If they are allowed to flee the heart-wrenching consequences of socialism, then others will want to do the same. How can a socialist system work without the cooperation of everyone? And how can you force people to participate in that socialist system when they discover that system may kill them or their loved ones?

You build a wall.

Great Britain doesn’t yet have a wall to keep its citizens in, but the courts have built one with the law. Just as East Germany could not tolerate the massive loss of defectors who were leaving with their training, intellect and tax dollars, Great Britain’s healthcare system cannot tolerate the defection of those who might find better healthcare somewhere else.

After all, how would it look if Alfie were allowed to leave England (allowed to leave a free country! Even to write the words feels absurd!) and then found a successful treatment in another country?

still looking for something less opinion more fact .... but bits do make sense

 

[vraiblonde]

Timeline from Sky:

https://news.sky.com/story/timeline-the-fight-to-keep-alfie-evans-alive-11344694

It doesn't really answer my question, though. It's tough to find a fact-based comprehensive story about this. Lotsa blogger crap, though.

The parents are clearly in denial about their son's condition - the dad sounds flat insane - which may be a factor in why the judge is denying them their parental right to drag their dying kid to a foreign country.

 

[black dog]

I have found it interesting in my life how easy it is for folks to talk about death, but when it's time for The Dark Horse to leave the barn, most folks run and hide any the thought of turning off the machine or cranking up the morphine to get the job done with a loved one.
Some never realize at the hard truth that no one is getting out alive..

 

[b23hqb]

Timeline from Sky:

https://news.sky.com/story/timeline-the-fight-to-keep-alfie-evans-alive-11344694

It doesn't really answer my question, though. It's tough to find a fact-based comprehensive story about this. Lotsa blogger crap, though.

The parents are clearly in denial about their son's condition - the dad sounds flat insane - which may be a factor in why the judge is denying them their parental right to drag their dying kid to a foreign country.

The dad is probably acting that way because their system and courts made him that way. These failed health care systems just cannot face being out done, not only in medical care, but also in plain old compassion, which the death panels do not have.

This discussion should be on a statement you made a few posts back, when you said the royals obviously had their own health care and if they were footing the bill it was their business. The same thing here. Just because this child was, unroyally, born into the Brit govt health care, there should be no reason whatsoever to object or deny them the right to take the child elsewhere, at no cost to the Brits, for treatment or care. That, and every other single payer healthcare system, just cannot let people go off on their own, and quite possibly, prove how inept that single payer system is or could possibly be.

We went through this last July, and it is obviously becoming a pattern with European countries with unborn and recently born babies. We are going right down the Margret Sanger, Hitler approved street.

 

[black dog]

I find it's interesting how so many in the world get upset over one child that never would or will have zero quality of life and that is dieing, and could give a sh!t less about the zillions that die from simple malnutrition or not being immunized each year in Africa.

 

[GURPS]

....... and could give a sh!t less about the zillions that die from simple malnutrition or not being immunized each year in Africa.

when Oprah and Jackson, Sharpton take up the mantel and 'care' about Africans I'll consider giving a ####

this story is more about a choice being denied [parents right to take their child somewhere else] then Never Having a Choice [no immunizations offered]

 

[black dog]

when Oprah and Jackson, Sharpton take up the mantel and 'care' about Africans I'll consider giving a ####

this story is more about a choice being denied [parents right to take their child somewhere else] then Never Having a Choice [no immunizations offered]

How about the parents should have thought about bringing a child into the world in a country that has control of your healthcare. And were the parents knowledgeable about the defects and huge special needs that this child would need if brought into the world?

So this infant is born into a semi vegetative state, it made none of the normal milestones in it's first 7 months of life. It's been in a comma for the last year, the parents have lost every court case over said child.. There is zero quality of life, there never will be any quality of life. This child is only alive through the gifts of huge amounts of taxpayer cash. The parents should allow this child to die with dignity if that can even happen now.

 

[This_person]

I find it's interesting how so many in the world get upset over one child that never would or will have zero quality of life and that is dieing, and could give a sh!t less about the zillions that die from simple malnutrition or not being immunized each year in Africa.

My draw to this story is with respect to the courts ordering the child to be starved to death against the wishes of the parents who have a FREE plan to pass the problem to a willing other country.

How is that not the real story? We all are going to die, but their government is taking away the parental rights to try.

 

[vraiblonde]

I find it's interesting how so many in the world get upset over one child that never would or will have zero quality of life and that is dieing, and could give a sh!t less about the zillions that die from simple malnutrition or not being immunized each year in Africa.

They have to wait for the media to tell them to care.

 

[This_person]

They have to wait for the media to tell them to care.

I think people care. I think people feel helpless against the size and scope of those issues. As Alinsky teaches, if you personalize an issue (like with a cute name and sympathetic pictures of a sick child), people are more likely to respond.

I was very proud of our country when Bush spent millions saving an incalculable amount of lives in Africa.

:shrug:

Of course, he had no constitutional authority to do that, but that’s a very different issue.

 

[vraiblonde]

I was very proud of our country when Bush spent millions saving an incalculable amount of lives in Africa.

When was this? All I remember is him sending a piss ton of our money over there and it funding the warlords while the people were still starving and still spreading AIDS.

 

[GURPS]

The link goes to their Facebook page. Here’s the full statement from Merseyside Chief Inspector Chris Gibson:

Merseyside Police has been made aware of a number of social media posts which have been made with reference to Alder Hey Hospital and the ongoing situation involving Alfie Evans.

I would like to make people aware that these posts are being monitored and remind social media users that any offences including malicious communications and threatening behaviour will be investigated and where necessary will be acted upon.



What is creepy about the statement is that the police do not define "malicious communications" or "threatening behavior." Rather than just give something concrete like "calls for violence will not be tolerated," they issue a blanket statement where anything from calling the bureaucrats that want Alfie Evans to die a bunch of fascists to calling for a jihad against the hospital could be seen as "malicious communications."

This failure to differentiate between those two dichotomies (speech and threats) stood at the heart of the recent controversy surrounding Scotland's Youtube satirist Count Dankula, who was recently convicted of a "hate crime" for training his girlfriend's adorable little pug to give Nazi salutes.

Fortunately, Count Dankula avoided jail time and was only fined £800 by a U.K. court for being "grossly offensive," but that case set a dangerous precedent for regulating speech. The Merseyside Police warning the public that they are "monitoring" their free speech regarding a little boy being starved to death by the government is truly horrifying.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/29889/uk-police-are-allegedly-monitoring-social-media-paul-bois

 

[vraiblonde]

What is creepy

What is creepy is Dailywire and their manipulative language, not to mention their emotional ploys designed to suck in people who really should have more advanced cognition.

 

[black dog]

My draw to this story is with respect to the courts ordering the child to be starved to death against the wishes of the parents who have a FREE plan to pass the problem to a willing other country.

How is that not the real story? We all are going to die, but their government is taking away the parental rights to try.

Let's also remember that this child has been in this hospital well over two years at huge taxpayer costs and has never had any quality of life.. none..

We expect parents in general to be allowed to make decisions about their children.

Indeed, the concept of parental responsibility is set out in law - in the Children Act 1989 - conferring on parents this right broadly to decide what happens to their child, including the right to consent to medical treatment. But this right is not absolute.

So when can their wishes be overruled?

If a public body considers that a parent's choices risk significant harm to their child, it can challenge these choices - but it must go to court in order to override the legal state of parental responsibility.

And that's what has happened repeatedly their with this child..
And I find it odd that people are saying it will not cost the taxpayer any money to move and care for this child in another country but as of Tues a German Military Air Ambulance was sitting waiting and if allowed, pickup said child and transport.

Who's paying for s air ambulance to sit and wait? The German Taxpayer?

 

[This_person]

When was this? All I remember is him sending a piss ton of our money over there and it funding the warlords while the people were still starving and still spreading AIDS.

Even his harshest critics say he saved millions of lives:

This is a moment for all Americans to be proud of the best thing George W. Bush did as president: launching an initiative to combat AIDS in Africa that has saved millions of lives.

All week, more than 20,000 delegates from around the world have been attending the 19th International AIDS Conference here in Washington. They look like any other group of conventioneers, laden with satchels and garlanded with name tags. But some of these men and women would be dead if not for Bush’s foresight and compassion.

Those are not words I frequently use to describe Bush or his presidency. But credit and praise must be given where they are due, and Bush’s accomplishment — the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR — deserves accolades. It is a reminder that the United States can still be both great and good.

 

[This_person]

Let's also remember that this child has been in this hospital well over two years at huge taxpayer costs and has never had any quality of life.. none..

We expect parents in general to be allowed to make decisions about their children.

Indeed, the concept of parental responsibility is set out in law - in the Children Act 1989 - conferring on parents this right broadly to decide what happens to their child, including the right to consent to medical treatment. But this right is not absolute.

So when can their wishes be overruled?

If a public body considers that a parent's choices risk significant harm to their child, it can challenge these choices - but it must go to court in order to override the legal state of parental responsibility.

And that's what has happened repeatedly their with this child..
And I find it odd that people are saying it will not cost the taxpayer any money to move and care for this child in another country but as of Tues a German Military Air Ambulance was sitting waiting and if allowed, pickup said child and transport.

Who's paying for s air ambulance to sit and wait? The German Taxpayer?

While we can debate who should have the right to decide what quality of life justifies not being forced to starve to death by government mandate, I'll simply answer the final question - whoever is paying for the air ambulance or the Italian citizenship given the child or the Italian hospital care, it is not the UK taxpayer, and thus none of the UK judicial system's concern.

 

[terbear1225]

Let's also remember that this child has been in this hospital well over two years at huge taxpayer costs and has never had any quality of life.. none..

We expect parents in general to be allowed to make decisions about their children.

Indeed, the concept of parental responsibility is set out in law - in the Children Act 1989 - conferring on parents this right broadly to decide what happens to their child, including the right to consent to medical treatment. But this right is not absolute.

So when can their wishes be overruled?

If a public body considers that a parent's choices risk significant harm to their child, it can challenge these choices - but it must go to court in order to override the legal state of parental responsibility.

And that's what has happened repeatedly their with this child..
And I find it odd that people are saying it will not cost the taxpayer any money to move and care for this child in another country but as of Tues a German Military Air Ambulance was sitting waiting and if allowed, pickup said child and transport.

Who's paying for s air ambulance to sit and wait? The German Taxpayer?

if this child has no quality of life, and never did, how can the parents' desire to remove him from the hospital risk significant harm to him? This above all else is what I don't understand. The hospital has decided that it is not worth providing additional care to the child, that his life is no longer worth fighting for, so why on earth would they not allow the parents' to remove him from the hospital.

 

[vraiblonde]

Even his harshest critics say he saved millions of lives:

Eugene Robinson is so full of #### that if he praises something you can be pretty certain it's either a lie or advances the leftwing cause.

 

[vraiblonde]

if this child has no quality of life, and never did, how can the parents' desire to remove him from the hospital risk significant harm to him? This above all else is what I don't understand. The hospital has decided that it is not worth providing additional care to the child, that his life is no longer worth fighting for, so why on earth would they not allow the parents' to remove him from the hospital.

I'm guessing because the logistics and liability involved in transporting a terminally ill toddler to a foreign country.

But that's just a guess. I'd like to see where they justified their decision but I can't get past the pages and pages of blogger crap in the search engines.