Does the government have the right to decide if a child lives or dies?

If a childs life is going to be defined by a suffering it cannot learn from, it is better simply to die.

Don't hold this on me

But I've had people tell me that the reasoning behind it was that this kid is pretty much guaranteed to die and his parents are keeping him alive out of their own selfish desire, basically prolonging the kid's suffering.

That's basically it. His condition is incurable. Whatever they can do in Italy won't fix or help him, it just means his inevitable death will happen there, after being dragged out for several more months/years. He's already a vegetable who can't see, hear, taste or feel touch and he's only going to deteriorate further.

Make me asshole

What in the absolute fuck? What is wrong with the world

If they wanted to dump $1,000,000 into a volcano you would have no problems with it. If they want to dump their money into this, who are you to dictate what they can and cannot spend their own money on?

maybe because he isn't a sadist that wants to think about a kid suffering because the parents are selfish and believe in some old jewish fairytail

The volcano isn't going to needlessly and horribly suffer because someone threw money at it.

>their own money

You honestly think his parents are spending any of their own money on this?

Because British law recognises that the child is not the property of his parents, that a child has rights independent of the parent's wishes, and it is the ethical duty of the doctors and the state to protect the welfare of a child when their parents are acting against the child's best interests? The parents aren't going to take him home to withdraw care and let him die with them, they're going to try and take him to Italy where they will keep ventilating a potato with 80% of his brain gone and who goes into seizures at the slightest touch and has a very reasonable risk of not surviving the journey. They're free to spend their money on something that doesn't unnecessarily prolong the pain their child is in.

The dad is also an absolute cunt spreading lies about the doctors executing his son by lethal injection and releasing the names of the healthcare team members, and it doesn't surprise me that their legal case is being funded by American Evangelical Christian extremist whackjobs.

That post conveniently ignores he's a vegetable unable to feel ANYTHING, half his brain is water and he's never going to recover and will just get worse no matter which hospital he goes to, him breathing is a borderline miracle and in a few weeks he won't be able to do that by himself anyway. The doctors who are already looking after him also have a responsibility to not let the parents drag him around the world for no reason.

>and has a very reasonable risk of not surviving the journey.
You can't take the kid on the journey because there's a chance he couId die so keep him here so we can kiII him
wat
>doctors executing his son by lethal injection
That'd honestIy be more humane

>can't feel ANYTHING
>is suffering
so which is which

It's insane that American Biblethumpers are trying to make this about statism and a tyrannical government literally killing children, when it's about a purely medical and ethical decision to protect the welfare of a child from the delusional turbocunts he has for parents who intend to drag out his suffering for no benefit to the child. Multiple courts from the British courts to the European Human Rights court all ruled in the doctors' favor except that crazy "pro-lifers" managed to bully the Pope and the Italian government into supporting them because of their crusade against anything that smacks of public healthcare.

Doctors' expert opinion is there's a good chance the kid may still feel pain. Pain is one of the most basic and primitive sensations anybody can feel, that's why response to pain is only one step above total unresponsiveness on the GCS.

response to pain is one of the lowest level brain functions, one would have to be completely and utterly brain dead to not feel any pain ever. his healthcare team concluded that the appreciable risk that he's in pain reinforces that continuing mechanical ventilation is inhumane.

That's why the film Johnny Got His Gun is a lighthearted comedy right?

It's just the state of Evangelicals today. They really are fucking insane and Some of the most backward ass people I've ever witnessed. They'll claim that they don't think they're above anyone while extolling themselves about how righteous they are.

Fuck, I had an evangelical friend who went on a mission trip to fucking Poland of all places. One of the most religiously Catholic and Christian places in the world for fucks sake. Apparently Catholics are no better than Muslims.

Attached: 1416368717248.gif (400x224, 3.67M)

Keep in mind once they get to that level of batshit crazy, they stop believing that anyone else other than their own very specific branch of Christianity is the real thing.

Any sympathy I had for the parents was greatly diminished by their attempts rile up the crowd with their lies and slander (posting photos of another sick child as their own, claiming Alfie is being murdered by a lethal injection) and rhetoric about wanting to stab the doctors, while their army outside are doxxing medical staff on Facebook and conspiring to storm the building and pull fire alarms.

Don't forget blocking ambulances as well.

>They storm the building
>yank the kid from equipment
>Try some makeshift shit to get him places
>He fucking dies

Attached: 428493_399701390073610_659136071_n.jpg (960x540, 53K)

Yes

>That'd honestly be more humane
Assisted dying is illegal in the UK, they can only withdraw treatment.

I do wonder what their plan was if they ok got inside and into the ward/room he is in. Like they're going to burst in and he'll be magically cured? Or they're going to grab him and take him to the airport and put him on a plane to Italy themselves, with no paperwork and no-one asking any questions?

>pull fire alarms
>after a series of hospital fires (accident at Christies, arson at Royal Stoke)
>requiring a full evacuation of the building
>of a building full other sick and dying kids

Got a source for them doing all that (doxing staff, talking about stabbing doctors etc)? I was mildly annoyed to begin with, now I'm ready to drive over there and deploy the year gas and rubber bullets myself.

metro.co.uk/2018/04/23/alfie-evans-family-fight-police-inside-hospital-life-support-turned-off-7490525/amp/

>The ‘Save Alfie Evans’ Facebook page then posted a status asking people to ‘press the hospital fire alarm’.

The comment about wanting to stab a doctor was from a live stream by the dad which I can't find at the moment.

You can visit the "Alfie's Army" Facebook page though for some displays of absolutely massive delusions claiming that his seizures are conscious responses to touch or that the neurologist is a pathological liar.

He still shouldn't be euthanized. He should be kept alive until he expires of his own accord.

He's not being euthanized, that's illegal in the UK. He's being removed from mechanical ventilation to allow him to breathe on his own, at a level insufficient to sustain his life indefinitely.

That's litterally what is happening.

It's de facto euthanization, don't quibble. He should be kept on the respirator.

So then he's not expiring of his own accord.

Assuming this Italian treatment will even work where are his parents going to take him afterwards?

Back to the UK. Who is going to pay for this kids medical treatments and upkeep for the next 60-80 years? It sure as shit isn't going to be his parents or the Italian Government. It's a dick move for the parents but it'll cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep his kid alive when he isn't going to put anything back in to the already struggling system.

They should cut their losses and try again.

That's a very utilitarian way of looking at things.

I hate to be one to look for God's plan and lesson, but this feels like God cowing someone proud in their faith. I mean that kid is basically fucking dead, the only thing is that those parents need to accept it.

They're Catholic and are following the teachings of the Church. The prideful ones in this instance are the government workers.

Normies need to stay away from medical ethics desu

Why can't they just go to Italy? I mean shouldn't they try one last time and if that treatment isn't good then let Alfie sleeps for good. I mean if there is a slighty chances, then I think you should try that. And if that doesn't work then you have tried everything. I think it's wrong of the british state to not let them go to Italy. Just let them try and that should calm their souls when they now they tried absolutely everthing.

So are Catholics not allowed DNARs either?

>The prideful ones are those just doing their jobs
>The guys showboating and running protests shouting slogans late into the night, storming the hospital entrance, blocking ambulances, and appearing on every TV and news outlet they can find, are just following their faith

Are they even Catholic?

Because their childs a veggie who can only feel pain. They're prolonging the suffering of the child via their own arrogance.

They say he can't feel anything, so why would he be in suffering then?

If they have arrange everything by themself and the cost is in their hands. Why don't let them go for god sake? If he dies then the parents have done everything. That is the matter here, not arrogance, they see a chance and would like to try that even if the odds are against them.

He feels pain though. He goes into seizures from being fucking touched apprently. He is actively suffering pain by the day. As other have pointed out, Pain is literally the last thing you can feel before being totally despondent. The Parents think they have a chance because they can't see past the fact that God dealt their son a death sentence. Every day that the child lives is suffering for him and they let it go on out of their own arrogance.

The Italians aren't even offering a treatment, they're just offering to keep ventilating him.

>Scouse chavs who can barely string a sentence together
>The cost is in their hands

BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

>If they have arrange everything by themself and the cost is in their hands. Why don't let them go for god sake?

It's their son and they should do whatever they want and even choose were he should get his treatment. It's utterly wrong for a state to prevent them to go. So wrong on so many levels.

I don't believe that they would pay everything by themself. Idiot.

But if they have people that back-them up why the heck not let go?

Parents do not have an absolute right over the treatment of their children in medical ethics. The child is a human individual, and the decision has to made taking into account the best interests of the child, and any potential viewpoint the child may hold. Not the parent's perception of what is best for the child, as it may be ill-informed, compromised by emotion, or dictated by religious beliefs that the child does not have the capacity to understand.

If he can't feel why are you so worried about him feeling suffering?

people born disabled shouldn't be let to live for their own good, the T4 programme was justified, euthanasia is valid in these cases i dont care what christcucks say

>on their own dime

No. False. They wanted him breathing on their own dime. He'd return as a vegtable in a slightly more stable state and then they'd force the state to keep it alive for a year or three before it died.

>protect the welfare of a child
By literally killing them? God no wonder continental philosophers kicked you bongs out of their discussions.

Well, they have an optional treatment in another country. They even have secured the finances, had a special plane to take him to Italy and still the British state refuses them to go.

The kid belongs to the family, not the state. They're the ones how should choose what to do in this matter. The doctors are just giving them advice on what to do and then they're the one how decides.

As long they paid for everything, via donations or whatever, arrange the travel and have everything in order. Then I think it's up to the family. The British state have done everything they can do and have give them their advice. Now it's up to the family.

>The kid belongs to the family, not the state. They're the ones how should choose what to do in this matter.
This is where the British appeals court, the high court, the Supreme Court, and even the European Human Rights court all disagree. The child is not the property of his parents, he is a person with his own welfare and rights.

Therefore in the absence of his ability to express his own wishes the doctors have a duty to act in the patient's best interests in accordance with his rights, which includes contravening the family when it is their medical judgment that the family is not acting in the best interests of the patient.

>Families have the right to torture their children by keeping them in a semi alive state by virtue of being families

Wow user. What's next, "doctors say not to rape or beat your kid, but ultimately the family decides."

If the kid survived Italy and came back as a potatoe the family would have wanted benefits to pay for it, so the finances of just the trip are irrelevant.

The child isn't even going to "survive Italy", because the Italians have no treatment either, they are only offering life support. If the kid goes to Italy he will continue to be on life support in pain for a few more months until he expires from his brain having completely turned to water.

Because being locked inside your own skull with no ability to experience or interact with the outside world is the worst torment I can imagine.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, one of the few things he can feel is pain. The only thing he will ever be capable of experiencing is pain, fits and spasms when someone touches him. Is that what you want for him?

I didn't say the kid is property of his parents, just that he belongs to the family. Which he does.

>Therefore in the absence of his ability to express his own wishes the doctors

Therefore the closet relatives should decide what to do, in this case the parents. The doctors should only give advice and then it up to the family.

The british state will not pay a dime for the travel or anything else. I don't get why the state still refuse when he will be in someone else care.

Do you feel the same way about FGM? It's their kid and their money. They can do what they Like to them, right?

>He said Alfie's brain had been eroded and that it had been "damaged entirely and so too had the capacity of sight, hearing, taste and sense of touch".
>sense of touch

Pain sensation is a more primitive neurological function than simple touch, is it more likely that world-class neurologists know this and have good reason to believe the child is in pain or that they are lying as part of a mass conspiracy to murder a child and missed this in their cover story?.

muh single payer

What is FGM?

>They can do what they Like to them, right?

No, I never said that. It's up to the family to choose were they want their son to get his treatment or his care. That is literally everything I have said.

That what the judge said you imbecil.

bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43883865

only delusional people would let their child live in such torture

>I didn't say the kid is property of his parents, just that he belongs to the family. Which he does.
He's part of the family, that doesn't mean the family have carte blanche to torture him in their delusions.

>Therefore the closet relatives should decide what to do, in this case the parents. The doctors should only give advice and then it up to the family.
And this is what the doctors do, except where they have reason to believe the actions of the parents are going to cause harm to the patient against the patient's best interests. For example if a family was trying to get doctors to withdraw treatment from unconscious Grandma because they want her to die and get the inheritance, doctors have the duty and power to get a court order and override this.

And going off to Somalia to get your daughters clit sliced up is a family choosing the care and location they feel is best for their child.

>sense of touch and sense of pain are the same thing

And I'm saying that touch sensation and nociception are different you massive pollock.

But again, they're taking him from a hospital to another hospital in a different country, on there own expenses. Not like they bring him home and torture him for god sake.

That is totally different than this case and not even comprisable.

>mutilating your child is the same as trying to save your child's life

How so? It's an important tradition that in many cultures is a significant rite of passage that must be done before the girl can become a woman. If they family wants it done and pays their own way, why should the state stop them? The child belongs to the family afterall.

>The child belongs to the family afterall.
not in British law. children are not property

In British culture, it's an act of mutilation.

So then the British government can decide what is in the best interests of Alfie Evans?

They are already doing

But not in the cultures that practise it. If they go somewhere else to do it, why should the British state care?

Which is my entire point...

If you think mutilating your kid are same as trying to save your kid. Then you're a lost cause, are your really that retarded?

What I mean is that it's the family decision to choose the treatment, and where to treatment should be, of the their own child. Not that they can torture the kid or do whatever they what to child. That's just ridiculously.

Why would the other cultures matter to the British law? Nonsensical argument.

You have no point, unless you're a drone that believes that the British government can't be wrong

Not decide ,they should just give advices to the parents to them so they can choose the best interest of Alfie.

>What I mean is that it's the family decision to choose the treatment, and where to treatment should be, of the their own child
no, it isn't. it's not a government decision, it's a judicial decision. the child has rights independent of the parents wishes, as the child is not the property of its parents but a legal entity in its own rights

>But again, they're taking him from a hospital to another hospital in a different country, on there own expenses.
On a journey which will be torturous for him, to another hospital where they will continue to keep him alive by torturing him against best medical practice? And all this because the parents literally think the doctors are conspiring against them (read the dad's delusional Facebook posts claiming the child's seizures and primitive reflex movements are conscious responses and that he's smiling at them.

>making your child needlessly suffer is mutilation in this case
>making your child needlessly suffer is trying to save him in this other case

There is no treatment. There is no cure. He who go to Italy and die there in a few weeks instead of dying here. They're just dragging out the whole procedure.

That's the entire point. Just because some other country says it's ok, doesn't mean the British government should be on board with it.

See above.

The Government didn't make the legal rulings. The British courts and the European Human Rights court did.

>there is high risk of not surviving the journey
>let's remove life support

Attached: pqafkb6d9ba01.jpg (645x729, 49K)

This is the reality of capitalism

*he will go to Italy

>he's going to die
>let's make it as slow and arduous and drawn out and possible

The parents do not have the inalienable right to dictate what treatment their children can and cannot have. In the eyes of the law, the child is an individual and the opinions of the parents are not prevalent over the 'best interests' of the child. When the child dos not have capacity, then decisions must be made in their best interests; the opinions and wishes of the parents can be taken into account, but they are not some sort of sacred inviolable type of personage that just gets whatever they want.

Again the Government didn't decide, it was a decision made by doctors and supported by judges from the High Court to the Supreme Court to the ECHR.