Alfie Evans has died

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheNeutral
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There were also doctors willing to treat him. When expert opinions differ, it is up to the parents to discern what to do.
 
The point is that in the USA judges are often described as being liberal or conservative, of having been appointed by a Republican or Democratic administration, or being an appointee of a particular president. In Britain judges are appointed by the Queen, who is non-political, acting on advice from an independent commission. Our judges are not considered to pursue any kind of agenda in their jurisprudence. One never hears, “Lord X is the only liberal on the court”, or, “Lady Y is known to be conservative”, or, “Lord Z is a Cameron appointee”.
 
Socialists? England is perfectly free, thank you. Are we really going to get into debating the historiography of the Second World War?
 
Londoner said:
The point is that in the USA judges are often described as being liberal or conservative, of having been appointed by a Republican or Democratic administration, or being an appointee of a particular president. In Britain judges are appointed by the Queen, who is non-political, acting on advice from an independent commission. Our judges are not considered to pursue any kind of agenda in their jurisprudence. One never hears, “Lord X is the only liberal on the court”, or, “Lady Y is known to be conservative”, or, “Lord Z is a Cameron appointee”.
Click to expand...
Bias is inherent in every one of us. All a person needs to do is spend a short time reading decisions by any Judge to know where he is going to come down on almost anything. The only difference here between English and American jurisprudence is America we admit it.

Of course, we did take the best of English Common Law and leave the rest when we formed our legal system. 😉
 
Thom18 said:
40.png
paperwight:
It was because the danger from flying (seizures from being moved, different air pressure, general stress and bright lights triggering seizures) far outweighed any benefit, as the hospitals concerned were only going to do the same things as Alder Hey were doing already i.e. keeping him comfortable. It would have been inflicting stress and possibly pain for no reason

There was no cure, so no actual treatment possible.
Click to expand...
Certain death vs. even the slimmest chance of recovery at a Vatican hospital.

Regardless, it’s reprehensible that a court decided that parents couldn’t seek out additional treatment. It’s one thing for one hospital to refuse to provide further treatment- it’s another to tell a family that, “No, you aren’t allowed to take him somewhere that’s willing to treat him”.
Click to expand...
I really don’t know why the facts aren’t getting through to people. .

Let me spell it out again.

He wasn’t going to get better. Most of his brain had been destroyed. Brains don’t re-grow. There was no treatment, only care.

There was not even the slimmest chance of a recovery.

Is that clearer now?
 
Last edited:
No one, they are people. Parents have responsibilities towards them.
 
Every one of us who prays for an end to abortion agrees that children are persons, not property.
 
We shouldn’t be sad on account of his death, because he was baptized and didn’t reach the age of reason, so we can be assured of his salvation. He doesn’t even need our prayers.
 
Do you think the government should have the right to tell you to abort your child because he will be autistic, developmentally disabled or have a medical condition such as a heart condition that will require 5 times more medical care than the average person over the course of 70 years?
 
I believe the government has a duty to protect the unborn from parents who wish to abort.

Your example is a non sequitur.
 
No, my example is the start of the slippery slope that you are on when you give the government the right to terminate medical care. You have bureaucrats making dollar and cents decisions on human lives that should be left to the purview of the patient and his or her family.

There are reasons why people in England with money come to the US for their health care. They like to cut out the middle man that tells them that they have to wait 9 months for their heart bypass surgery.
 
Londoner said:
The Pope never disagreed with anything the English and Welsh bishops said.
Click to expand...
Pope:
Moved by the prayers and immense solidarity shown little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted.
Click to expand...
 
ConfusedLucy said:
Don’t insurance companies do the same thing?
Click to expand...
Yes, they do.

For the nth time - anyone who thinks HM’s Court should not have stepped in needs to be sure they back parental rights in this country (the US) to deny medical care to a sick child (it happens, and in some states, it is 100% legal to do so - Idaho is one) based on religious preference, and be sure they vote to keep the court out of the decision making.

It is EXACTLY the same thing - it is the court making decisions in place of parents. And after all, parents are always correct, right?
 
Last edited:
In line with teaching if thats what the parents wanted! The bond between parents and children imitates that of the Holy Trinity. A parent(unless abusive) has the right to pursue care avenues for their child. A government or a stranger can never replace that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top