Author Topic: [INT. NEWS] Alfie Evans dead  (Read 11547 times)

The child was already brain dead. Keeping him alive for any longer was prolonging his suffering.

do you even know what "brain dead" means

It was in the interest of the CHILD for the hospital to take him off life support.

ah yes only you would know that

It was in the interest of the PARENTS to keep him "alive" in a vegetative state indefinitely.

how dare the parents not want to kill their child

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.

we all know the state is the best judge of people's well-being


what if the syrian child washed up in a semi-vegetative state? :swollenthinking:

there was never going to a miracle for anyone.... #redpilled

there was never going to a miracle for anyone.... #redpilled
gotta agree sherryl thanks for posting this # redpilled

something wrong
i hold my head
alfie evans dead


he's dead

hope you're all happy that a baby is dead
actually i am happy. its sad that alfie had a terminal illness, but its good that he passed away. now the hospital will have more staff and an extra life support unit to help people who have a chance of recovering, such as car accident victims, gunshot victims, stroke victims, etc.

Patients who have the ability to be saved should be prioritized above patients who have terminal illness. If that means the latter needs to be removed from life support to free up staff and money, so be it. They have to die at some point, whoever is providing money should have the final say. If surrogates are paying for it, then they should have the final say. But if the hospital is paying for it, then that's their decision too

Your whole moral highground act is moot because the baby's death is beneficial for the greater good. Advocating that the child be kept on life support indefinitely would short staff the hospital and probably lead to more deaths in other ORs that could've easily been prevented had their been the life support unit/staff available
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 04:36:47 PM by thegoodperry »

do you even know what "brain dead" means

Brain death is not a treatable condition, after it has happened, the patient is as good as dead.

the state is the best judge of people's well-being
if the state is paying for the people's well-being in the first place, they probably are the best judge lol. I can't believe you're using a dead baby to push your libertarian views, of all places. That's just foul

hope you're all happy that a baby is dead
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


This all boils down to OP's disingenuous faux-outrage over a fringe case of something that would have never had a good outcome for the sake of making anyone who responds look bad.

This topic's whole goal was ironically some narcissistic attempt at virtue signalling. Go figure.

virtue signalling

Also known as Ike's entire posting history.

Also known as Ike's entire posting history.

You can say this but it really isn't true. I'm not insecure enough about my beliefs to seek valids. That's why I don't get angry when people disagree with me and you do.

ah yes only you would know that
only the fully trained medical professionals would know that, and considering they came to the decision, its safe to assume that it was in the child's best interest

You can say this but it really isn't true. I'm not insecure enough about my beliefs to seek valids. That's why I don't get angry when people disagree with me and you do.

He says clearly bothered enough to respond.