Mr Bridger
Sound of the suburbs
Whilst I kind of agree with your sentiments, perhaps could of used this phrase in any of the other threads above Liverpool this week rather than one of such a sensitive subject
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] "Protestors" at Alder Hey
- Thread starter essbee1
- Start date
Whilst I kind of agree with your sentiments, perhaps could of used this phrase in any of the other threads above Liverpool this week rather than one of such a sensitive subject
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Thoughts are with the child and hoping he is pain free and although its hard to imagine how, that he gets some enjoyment out of the rest of his life...its all very tragic
Bevendean Hillbilly
New member
This is a fantastic example of religion behaving badly.
I wonder if the Pope has wondered why Alfie was afflicted with this dreadful brain destroying illness in the first place.
If God was planning to intervene you would have thought he would have done it before his brain was reduced to porridge...or even not have dealt Alfie's cards at all.
Religious people will say "we can't know the mind of God" but on this occasion the pain, anger, outrage, grief and distress caused would make God a psychopath.
I wonder if the Pope has wondered why Alfie was afflicted with this dreadful brain destroying illness in the first place.
If God was planning to intervene you would have thought he would have done it before his brain was reduced to porridge...or even not have dealt Alfie's cards at all.
Religious people will say "we can't know the mind of God" but on this occasion the pain, anger, outrage, grief and distress caused would make God a psychopath.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
There is no God but man.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,312
and this is precisely why i know God does not exist, because God is supposed to be benevolent, therefore malevolence outside free will refutes that possibility. Lost on the believers of course.
Imagine spending 5 years training for a medical degree at considerable personal expense, spending several more years undergoing further professional qualifications, opting to sacrifice short term financial gain in the private sector to work for the NHS and training as a specialist in paediatric care to help sick children to then have to go to work in the morning with some moron who probably can't even count to 20 without taking their shoes and socks off screaming "FOCKIN' MURDERER" in your face.
Bevendean Hillbilly
New member
I'm happy that this thread has finally got to the point here.
On the first hand we have medical science. The law, and humanists.
On the other we have religion, politicians, dogma and conspiracists.
All I ask of the second group is that we are allowed to rely on evidence, technology and kindness rather than faith, prayer and superstition.
God has already removed himself from the debate by destroying this child's brain and then stepping back to watch the fallout...if we assume his existence then he's as guilty as sin.
On the first hand we have medical science. The law, and humanists.
On the other we have religion, politicians, dogma and conspiracists.
All I ask of the second group is that we are allowed to rely on evidence, technology and kindness rather than faith, prayer and superstition.
God has already removed himself from the debate by destroying this child's brain and then stepping back to watch the fallout...if we assume his existence then he's as guilty as sin.
Bevendean Hillbilly
New member
"....if I say God is alive I know that people wanna know why babies die,why crops don't grow why, people cry, planes crash, trains smash situations mashed.
But, dammit, when God created the planet, and all of its wealth, deep down inside he left a piece of himself.
The Lord is in HERE, his voice is small...but it talks to us all...so decide from today how it's gonna be...I shalt have no other God but ME"
Last edited:
Bevendean Hillbilly
New member
I would live to see the debate between a paediatric doctor and the pope on this one.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Twitter has been a nightmare with Americans blaming the NHS calling our government murderers. Using this as justification for their private health care!
Murdering Socialism is one label I saw.
The Secret Barrister has been patiently trying to explain the difference between the judiciary and the government. It falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
I agree with you on the general point of religion v science - but I think this case has been hijacked by the religious argument in the same way this thread has become. But thats not what this case is about, its about two desperate parents clinging to hope that doctors can save their child's life, and being denied the chance of this by the courts. I think they should allow the child to be moved, because I can't believe there is any evidence to say that the child will get worse palliative care in Italy than in Britain, and thus it should be the parents right to care for their dying child in the place of their choosing
Ignorance has always been there amongst society's simpletons, not just "these days".
Think of when thousands marched behind the coffin of one of the Kray twins. When questioned why people were paying their respects to murderous torturing robbing scum like the Krays, these idiots would respond with "yeah but you could leave your front door open in them days and they only harmed their own kind anyway".
Or more recently, this sort of shite:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
Because certain bell ends were too ignorant to understand the difference between a paediatric registrar and a paedophile. I mean FFS.
The Large One
Who's Next?
I think the court - in its role as adjudicator of law - does have a role to play.
The medical profession wanted to make a case for Alfie, stating all avenues have been exhausted and no treatment or recovery is possible - and they've made it with every piece of due care and diligence. The medical professions of overseas doctors largely concurs with the UK doctors' findings. Somewhat cruelly, the parents are being hoodwinked by chancers who believe that they can offer Alfie some treatment (personally, I find that cruel), and are - understandably - looking for any reason to keep him going. He has no quality of life, and according to every professional, have no chance of recovery.
This isn't assisted suicide - or murder - as some truly idiotic people are calling it. It's effectively allowing nature to take its course. The medical profession should be allowed to - and is allowed to - make that judgement, in consultation with the family in question. It's hard, it's horrible, but it's also professional.
All the medical profession is doing is seeking legal clarity in the case; it's NOT preventing the parents from taking him away. Indeed, they are discussing allowing him to go home.
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
Why do Americans need an AR15?
Obviously, to kill any child that makes it past infancy in mass school shootings.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Its a perfectly valid point of view - but its leading to this terrible situation where the parents lives are being shattered even more, the hospital staff are being abused, judges are being forced to divide whether someone should live or not - its the Charlie Gard situation all over again. I don't think there is anything wrong with allowing the parents to seek treatment elsewhere, and from what we know it wouldn't have any substantive impact on his quality of life whilst having a positive impact on all around him. Our courts seem to be arguing that death is better than a poor quality of life - I'm not sure why that isn't seen as at least partly controversial?! Its certainly an interesting moral question. Should not the parents well-being be taken into account?
Incidentally, 'allowing nature to take its course' should never be used an argument, else we can do away with doctors and hospitals altogether!
Bevendean Hillbilly
New member
If our courts are arguing that death is preferable to a life destroyed by disease then...ffs, they're right.
The one thing, actually the ONLY. Thing we own is our life. No one else has any claim on it. It is OURS to end whenever we want.
Why suicide is still technically "self murder" rendering insurance monies etc. void is, or should be, struck. We're all going to die, it's just when that matters.
Alfie is alive and should be allowed to live as long he isn't suffering.
If his own body considers his life non viable then keeping him alive by unnatural means is perverting nature. He is not going to leap up from his cot and dance a jig. He'll never taste food, smell the hair of the girl he loves or hold his baby in his arms.
Just let the poor soul go.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,312
our courts aren't arguing anything, they are accepting the medical opinion that the quality of life is so poor that turning off life support is preferable to mechanically perpetuating his "life". and the well-being of the parents would probably be better served by them accepting, mourning and moving on with life than spending many years by the bedside of their once healthy toddler. i agree that the parents should have right to take him home, problem is they dont want to, they want to fly him off and the medical profession consider that detrimental to his well being.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,586
As a society we need to sort this sh1t out because in 25 years time when we're all living to 100 every one of us will be able to cling onto life via some sort of machine. It's difficult to see how we'll be able to pay for it all.
The Large One
Who's Next?
'The courts are arguing that death is better than better than a poor quality of life...' You're making this up as you go along now. The courts are arguing no such thing. No idea where this notion is coming from.
The medical professionals wanted legal clarity on a medical decision they took - i.e. that Alfie would never recover and he is only alive by artificial means, and that therefore they should be within their legal rights to cease medical assistance. The courts agreed.
Many times it doesn't come to this stage as the families themselves agree with the medical opinion - much as it hurts - and no longer wish to suffer themselves. In this instance, the parents are convinced he will recover - or have been convinced by chancers and hoodwinkers that he will - so who out of that lot is taking those parents' wishes into account?