It’s brought up by Americans because our system has so inculcated the “OMG! HOW AM I GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?!?” meme into their thoughts that they can not consider medical decisions without factoring in cost.
Those of you who think youre refuting me are doing no such thing.
The British GOVERNMENT made a decision that Alfie was better off dead, and made that happen by force. They were arrogant, patronizing, cruel, and insulting at every step of the way. Telling parents they’d better show a “sea change” in their attitude is not something compassionate people would ever do. That’s a demand for deference. The NHS wasn’t content to kill Alfie, they demanded his parents kowtow to them while They did so.
They wanted Alfie dead, decided they knew better than his parents, took custody, and killed him. You can’t deny that’s what happened- you can ONLY say the government was RIGHT to take Alfie from his parents and kill him.
Which is essentially what you are saying.
Of course it cost something. Sustaining the baby on indefinite life support costs money. Not to the parents, but someone’s parents are working and paying taxes. Yes, medical treatments are expensive. Doctors and nurses receive salaries. Hospitals have a bottom line. Wonder what the cost of all those court cases were? Lawyers are expensive. How much council did the hospital have. I am pretty sure the family was getting council from the religious group, pro-bono. Yes, this case cost someone, for sure. All that expense and guess what? The baby is still dead, the family is still grieving, and the religious fanatics are still screaming. No winners here. Poor little Alfie, I hope you have some comfort now.
Nobody killed him, you are again factually wrong there. He died naturally, after being kept alive (if “alive” is really the right term here) artificially for no reason other than to make the parents feel better.
However, if someone is mistreating their child, it is absolutely fucking right and necessary to insist there is a sea change in their attitude.
The government (who make the laws), the courys (who apply them) and the medical staff (who informed the courts of the facts) do all know better than the parents. This is unfortunate, mostly because the parents have been continually lied to, and taken advantage of. They clearly wanted to do what was best for their son, but were wrong about what that was.
This attitude that parents always know what is best for their kids is extremely dangerous, and it would be better all round if courts stepepd in far more frequently to protect childrenfrom dangerous parents, whether that’s intentional abusers, ignorant anti-vaxxers, homeschoolers, those raising their kids in a fundamentalist religious environment, or anything else that will (whatever the intentions) seriously damage the kids.
This case is slightly different because the clear best outcome is the death of the child, which is an extremely rare situation and one which seems emotionally contradictory, but the principle remains that the parents do not ultimately have the right to consistently act against the best interests of the child.
Who do you think, if not the courts and the government, should act to protect children against their parents?
Wow. You make it sound like some sinister government agent went into the kid’s room with a knife and stabbed him a few hundred times.
I’d say “let him die” was more accurate.
How would it change your view (if at all) if it had been Alfie’s parents who chose to take him off life support and let him die?
Bambino Gesu is run and supported by the Catholic Church. If he had been transferred there his care would have been paid for by the Church, which is full of people who would have supported that decision. Seems to me that would have been a win/win but no one asked me.
You are doing the job yourself by using such hyperbolic language and by being so ignorant of the true situation.
Straight question…have you read all the judgements and transcripts?
no they didn’t
no they didn’t
No they weren’t
full quote and context please? who said it? when? in response to what question? what was the subject under discussion?
no it isn’t
they didn’t, they haven’t, they wouldn’t and they can’t
no they didn’t
no they didn’t
no they didn’t
no they didn’t
No denial needed from me, luckily we live in a society where these decisions are played out in the full light of justice and legal oversight. The transcripts are there, the arguments are there, the independence of the judiciary is clear, the evidence of NHS care, compassion and assistance is a matter of record. You are free to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
The propaganda operation around this case seems to have worked on the type of person it was aimed at, I see.
Nanny-state governance. You may want your child to live, but we don’t, and we get to overrule you.
Who finances churchs? Tax paying people who donate/tithe to the body of the church. The church is exempt from paying taxes to the state. So once again the cost is on the back of workers wherever/whoever they are. There is a cost to someone.
Don’t get me wrong, I have sympathy for the parents and that poor baby. I don’t know how, in my heart of hearts, to justify what happened. It’s just horrible all around.
But that is demonstrably not what happened.
The armed guards were there because of threats to the hospice from Alfie’s so-called “supporters”, who had been harassing hospice staff, patients, visitors, etc. This was for the protection of the people who worked there and for their patients, NOT to keep Alfie’s parents from removing him.
Yes, for example Alder Hey - where Alfie was being treated - is a hospital.
Also, where’s the armed guard stuff coming from?
My bad – I thought he was at a hospice. And I don’t know if they were armed, but the place was being guarded by the police. FFS, they had threats to burn the place down!
Why do people feel the need to comment when they obviously do not understand even the most basic facts that are being discussed?
Most mainland UK police officers aren’t armed. A cite regarding the presence of armed officers would be nice? Edit: not necessarily from you Guin, as you admit you don’t know, but perhaps from one of the other posters who has mentioned them.
Ain’t that the truth.
WTF?! Why the fuck would they want the kid dead? And how the hell did they “kill him”? The kid’s case was hopeless.
If you know better, please, let us tell us.