[INT. NEWS] Alfie Evans dead

[LeisureSuit912]

he's dead

hope you're all happy that a baby is dead

The child was already brain dead. Keeping him alive for any longer was prolonging his suffering. It was in the interest of the CHILD for the hospital to take him off life support. It was in the interest of the PARENTS to keep him "alive" in a vegetative state indefinitely.

The bigger Freudian implications of this whole controversy is that anyone scolding the NHS, "socialized medicine" or whatever are more concerned with the parents right to do whatever they wanted with Alfie viewed than the actual wellbeing of the child. They view Alfie as property of the parents, not another human life who continued to suffer.

Your moral grandstanding is pathetic.

[Ad Bot]

[SWAT One]

Oh the child was already pronounced braindead. How long had this been true?

[Bisjac]

Even though this is the BLF, I doubt anyone here is that sociopathic.

*sneezes

[Conan]

Oh the child was already pronounced braindead. How long had this been true?

since the beginning of this whole stuffstorm, iirc.

[Bisjac]

anyone scolding the NHS, "socialized medicine" or whatever are more concerned with the parents right to do whatever they wanted with Alfie viewed than the actual wellbeing of the child. They view Alfie as property of the parents, not another human life who continued to suffer.

but the kids life WAS property that someone decided over. it just wasnt the parents. thats the actual issue here. the state has that power over us, that you seem to not mind, but have an issue with us having that same power over ourselves.

communists like you are dangerous

[Figure]

babies are born everyday

babies die everyday

???

[SWAT One]

since the beginning of this whole stuffstorm, iirc.

Oh yeah then that makes this a very different matter.

[Black and White]

The child was already brain dead. -snip- who continued to suffer.

I've never thought about it but if someone is actually "braindead" can they experience suffering?

Maybe it's not but I thought it was basically a state where the body was living but the mind was gone

[SWAT One]

The parent's suffering, sure. The child's suffering? Nearly impossible to say.

I'd say that the doctors should have worked with the family to discuss the options of transfers or private pay and end of story. If they refused after that, then the parents would have been the ones who chose.

[SeventhSandwich]

[Corderlain]

Lotta people with no kids offering opinions on things they haven't yet had relevant life experience for. If someone had tried to take a child of mine off life support before I or my SO decided it there would be blood.

[SeventhSandwich]

Lotta people with no kids offering opinions on things they haven't yet had relevant life experience for. If someone had tried to take a child of mine off life support before I or my SO decided it there would be blood.

reminder that you live in a country where the government would gladly let your kid develop a brain-destroying illness due to lack of ability to pay

we can argue over the philosophical ramifications of whether the NHS should be able to remove life support from someone, but the fact is that this kind of outcome is significantly more likely in a country like the US if you are poor or uninsured.

[beachbum111111]

The child was already brain dead. Keeping him alive for any longer was prolonging his suffering. It was in the interest of the CHILD for the hospital to take him off life support. It was in the interest of the PARENTS to keep him "alive" in a vegetative state indefinitely.

He wasn't suffering if he's braindead. He's already dead. His body is just a husk. You can remove a part of a dead persons skin and grow it out in a vat, is that dead person the skin is from "suffering"? No he's not because he's loving dead.

[Deus Ex]

Lol, there you go again, comparing Middle Easterners to human beings

[SeventhSandwich]

Lol, there you go again, comparing Middle Easterners to human beings

this is an incredibly ironic statement