NHS: Starving Alfie to death was just 'redirecting care'

In Britain they did. Unfortunately for them the doctors agreed with the hospital

 

No one said "no say" except you (inaccurately). But they don't necessarily get the final say. Nor should they - that's common sense surely: I can't believe this is even up for debate! What if the parents are JWs whose child needs a life saving blood transfusion but refuse on religious grounds? Would you say that their wishes trump the need of the medics to treat the child? No of course not!

Incorrect: they got at least two independent second opinions. Sadly those opinions concurred with the hospital's conclusion

 

The UK court showed the dark side of the NHS when they did not allow the toddler to leave since the care provided outside was good. At this point, the UK court showed the ugliness of UK NHS law.

NHS is forever broke and needs to be replaced but the UK is being dragged down by leftist ideology, PC thinking, and too many immigrants so I am not holding my breath.

 

I don't agree with some of the anti-religious rhetoric and comment of this article but it is otherwise excellent on both the facts of the case and the legal analysis and gives the lie to some of the wilder assertions that have been made here:

The Tragic Case of Alfie Evans - Quillette

 

How do you know the care provided outside was 'good'? On what evidential basis are you making that assertion? Show me, adducing evidence, how its alleged benefits outweighed the prejudicial effects of trying to move the boy.

Yes the NHS is broke but that's because its been deliberately and cynically defunded by Conservative cuts so that people like you can say it needs to be replaced by a system run by profiteering capitalists

 

There is not enough money in the world to fund socialized medicine. Even the Russians couldn't do.

Do you really think the care offered by the Vatican was not as good as Alder Hey?

The UK NHS is noted for what it does not do. Michael Moore might be right that the Cuban system is the best in the world although he himself does not go to Cuba.

 

You haven't answered my evidential question. I don't expect the treatment on offer was inferior to that of Alder Hey; the issue was whether it was "better enough " to justify the trauma of moving him. The evidence adduced was that it was not.

 

That question has already been answered by us Americans. The NHS should not own people. If the parents wanted to move the child to somewhere more loving and kind, they should have been allowed. The Vatican may have had better doctors. UK law is fully socialistic on this point.

 

And if parents want to withhold a life-saving blood transfusion from their child, should they be allowed? If parents on religious grounds want to perform an exorcism resulting in a child's death, should they be allowed? Witchcraft beliefs and exorcisms are killing children in the UK

The NHS does not own people. Neither do parents own their children. People are people in their own right. There are occasions when those who are not legally competent (minors, people with learning difficulties, mental health issues or who are incapacitated through conditions like stroke or Alzheimers) to make their own decisions are referred to the jurisdiction of the courts; this is a long-established (going back centuries) legal principle of wardship which long pre-dates and has nothing to do with your socialism boogeyman. In the US I believed they are termed 'Wards of the State', here they are 'Wards of Court'.

 

Yes and in most instances, it’s appropriate name should be called, “over reach.” The child is taken away from the loving parents, away from the family and put in some home where they generally get inadequate care (which generally leads to an early death by the patient).

 

How then would you deal with the JWs refusing a transfusion for or African Pentecostals wanting to perform a violent exorcism on their children?

 

The JWs are dying like flies in Brooklyn and elsewhere over the idea that not eating animal blood (Don't Brits eat animal blood?) Is the same as transfusion. The courts can save minors on child abuse laws but not adults.

This is not analogous to what Alder Hey did because the parents wanted to transfer to better medical care but Alder Hey took legal action against them. Alder Hey is noted for hospital acquired infections. The court was vicious in this case.

 

It's the same principle at work and, contrary to what you assert, the care being offered elsewhere was not 'better'; this was found as a matter of fact and was the unanimous medical opinion of all the medical experts giving evidence including those for Tom Evans - read the judgments again.

 

The JWs are accused of denying treatment to their children. It is impossible to see how treatment involving the highest level of the Vatican could be anything but better than the dubious Alder Hey Hospital, which once sold baby parts like Planned Parenthood still does in the USA. Are you forgetting how cold-hearted socialized medicine is? You have underpaid medical personnel, shortages of everything, and ill-equipped facilities.

We are facing the same issues in the USA as leftist want to destroy the USA with even more socialism than we already have.

 

Bambini Gesu scarcely has a great reputation either.

 

Willful ignorance, petty ad hominim’s, jingoistic insecurity. This is the quintessential B.B. thread. This place sucks. I’m out.

 

The facts say otherwise.

 

LOL Touchy about your pursuit of PC perfection, aren't you?

Big brother is listening. :Laugh

 

I'm in touch with state sponsored murder of a child, and we just witnessed it. In the UK.

Ahh the Brits, they'll kill your kids to save money on medical expenses, but don't you dare hurt anyone's feelings.

 

More whining because someone realized your welfare state is unsustainable and is trying to stop the bleeding. Well, they have one less mouth to feed. Little Alfie was starved to death.