Britain to cut off life support of infant Alfie Evans soon

[Thermodolia]

You’re not going to get one because it doesn’t exist

Obviously not the newspaper article, because I can't be bothered to dig through the Echo.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbjGBcqX4AAI0vt.jpg
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=uk
https://twitter.com/caseydegeir/status/ ... 7885413376
https://twitter.com/shgkes/status/988483425848918016
https://twitter.com/UCantDoxMe/status/9 ... 6627267585

I need actual evidence. Not twitter conjecture and Facebook screenshots that are missing more pixels than a meth addict has teeth

[The Serbian Empire]

Who gives a fuck?

I swear, British press is inundated with meaningless news stories.

It's like a universal rule that "The Sun" is a horrid source for news regardless of city or country.

[Ifreann]

The NHS is providing adequate care.

Well, I mean, if they're letting him die I'm not sure if that qualifies as "adequate".

Right now they're currently providing him with no care except a bed to die in.

He's going to die no matter what they do. They're going to keep him comfortable as he dies instead of keeping him alive and in pain for as long as possible, like the Pope wants.

[Thermodolia]

They "reluctantly gave in to continued requests and provided some hydration and oxygen support" once he didn't die like he was supposed to.

Wow, they gave him a little bit of water?

Fuck, man. No other hospital does that.

What that newspaper fails to note is that Alfie can’t actually eat or drink, or hear, or see, or think. 99% of his brain is fucking liquid. And what’s left is soon on it’s way to becoming the same. He’s been dead for months, the last brain scan done in February showed that pretty much all of his brain was liquid mush.

[Auralia]

They're going to keep him comfortable as he dies instead of keeping him alive and in pain for as long as possible, like the Pope wants.

You know very well that the Vatican hospital does not want to keep the child "in pain for as long as possible". They are not going to unnecessarily prolong the child's life. They simply don't want the child to be killed by the NHS.

The underlying moral question here is whether it is permissible to kill someone who is suffering by failing to provide them with their basic needs (food, water, oxygen). You and the NHS seem to agree -- the parents and the Vatican hospital do not.

[Underdark Cave]

They're going to keep him comfortable as he dies instead of keeping him alive and in pain for as long as possible, like the Pope wants.

You know very well that the Vatican hospital does not want to keep the child "in pain for as long as possible". They are not going to unnecessarily prolong the child's life. They simply don't want the child to be killed by the NHS.

The underlying moral question here is whether it is permissible to kill someone who is suffering by failing to provide them with their basic needs (food, water, oxygen). You and the NHS seem to agree -- the parents and the Vatican hospital do not.

If euthanasia was legal, this wouldn't be a problem.

[The South Falls]

Well, I mean, if they're letting him die I'm not sure if that qualifies as "adequate".

Right now they're currently providing him with no care except a bed to die in.

He's going to die no matter what they do. They're going to keep him comfortable as he dies instead of keeping him alive and in pain for as long as possible like the Pope wants.

I honestly think that it's selfish to want to keep the child in pain. Alfie is still dead, as far as I consider it. He can't do anything, just lie there in a vegetative state. There's a tiny off chance that the transmitter may work, but he's pretty much dead, and he'll suffer further. For what? He'll probably die anyway.

[Auralia]

You know very well that the Vatican hospital does not want to keep the child "in pain for as long as possible". They are not going to unnecessarily prolong the child's life. They simply don't want the child to be killed by the NHS.

The underlying moral question here is whether it is permissible to kill someone who is suffering by failing to provide them with their basic needs (food, water, oxygen). You and the NHS seem to agree -- the parents and the Vatican hospital do not.

If euthanasia was legal, this wouldn't be a problem.

Even if euthanasia were legal -- which it shouldn't be -- it's clear the parents don't want the child to be killed. You would be proposing that the state should have the right to kill children -- without parental consent, to boot -- simply because the state thinks the child would be better off dead. That's horrifying.

Frankly, the state is presently engaged in euthanasia; it's simply passive rather than active.

[Underdark Cave]

If euthanasia was legal, this wouldn't be a problem.

Even if euthanasia were legal -- which it shouldn't be -- it's clear the parents don't want the child to be killed. You would be proposing that the state should have the right to kill children -- without parental consent, to boot -- simply because the state thinks the child would be better off dead. That's horrifying.

Frankly, the state is presently engaged in euthanasia; it's simply passive rather than active.

Euthanasia definitely should be legal.
And no, state shouldn't have a say in it. Doctors should.

And by the way, this kid is definitely better off dead. As a matter of fact, he can't understand what life or death is because he doesn't have a brain anymore.

[Dumb Ideologies]

If euthanasia was legal, this wouldn't be a problem.

Even if euthanasia were legal -- which it shouldn't be -- it's clear the parents don't want the child to be killed. You would be proposing that the state should have the right to kill children -- without parental consent, to boot -- simply because the state thinks the child would be better off dead. That's horrifying.

It's not horrifying. On the contrary, it's both humane and exceptionally good value for money.

[turns to camera, advertising jingle plays, teeth sparkle]

Euthanize a suffering child today.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

If euthanasia was legal, this wouldn't be a problem.

Even if euthanasia were legal -- which it shouldn't be -- it's clear the parents don't want the child to be killed. You would be proposing that the state should have the right to kill children -- without parental consent, to boot -- simply because the state thinks the child would be better off dead. That's horrifying.

Frankly, the state is presently engaged in euthanasia; it's simply passive rather than active.

If a patient's heart stops beating and, after half an hour or so, the doctors stop attempting to revive them, have they "killed" that patient?

[The South Falls]

If euthanasia was legal, this wouldn't be a problem.

Even if euthanasia were legal -- which it shouldn't be -- it's clear the parents don't want the child to be killed. You would be proposing that the state should have the right to kill children -- without parental consent, to boot -- simply because the state thinks the child would be better off dead. That's horrifying.

Frankly, the state is presently engaged in euthanasia; it's simply passive rather than active.

We know the child feels some pain, and so then it would be inhumane to keep in him pain, rather than kill him. He's pretty much dead already, in a vegetative state.

[Auralia]

[turns to camera, advertising jingle plays, teeth sparkle]

Euthanize a suffering child today.

Well, it isn't as though mass murder through involuntary euthanasia hasn't been tried before, or even currently happening. Perhaps you can borrow some advertising materials from them.

[Underdark Cave]

It's not horrifying. On the contrary, it's both humane and exceptionally good value for money.

[turns to camera, advertising jingle plays, teeth sparkle]

Euthanize a suffering child today.

And yes, there is also the plus that you're freeing up medical equipment to assist someone else, instead of a vegetable that will never get better.

[Dumb Ideologies]

[turns to camera, advertising jingle plays, teeth sparkle]

Euthanize a suffering child today.

Well, it isn't as though mass murder through involuntary euthanasia hasn't been tried before, or even currently happening. Perhaps you can borrow some advertising materials from them.

Congratulations for falling straight into the very obvious Godwin bait

Where would you like your chicken dinner delivered?

[Auralia]

If a patient's heart stops beating and, after half an hour or so, the doctors stop attempting to revive them, have they "killed" that patient?

No. There is a moral distinction between dying of an incurable illness, and dying of starvation or dehydration. Physicians should not unnecessarily prolong life, but they have to provide for a person's basic needs for as long as they are alive.

[Caracasus]

The poor child is dead. Anything that could be called a person or a life is gone and there is nothing left but biological processes that can't continue without ongoing medical intervention. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that can be done for him at all now - the best option is to end his suffering as humanely as the law allows.

The ones in the wrong here aren't the doctors or the government for acting in the best interests of the patient, nor are they the parents who are going through something that no-one should have to go through. It's the people who seem to insist on holding out some sort of false hope that there might be something that can be done - in spite of everything to the contrary. It's also the ones turning this into something to be paraded around the world in front of every damn camera and newspaper because it's going to sell copy or add weight to their argument.

I would hate for this to happen to me, and I can't be sure that in my grief I wouldn't cling to some sort of hope - even if that hope was impossible - that things might be OK after all. In this instance, exploiting that hope for personal gain is abhorrent.

[Auralia]

The poor child is dead.

This is clearly false. The child is alive.

This does not mean that the child can be cured, given the state of modern medical science. But it does mean that the child must be treated not as a corpse but as a human person, with basic needs such as food and water that must continue to be met. It is deeply disconcerting that while the child's parents, the Vatican hospital, and the Italian government seem to recognize this, the UK courts do not.

[Caracasus]

The poor child is dead.

This is clearly false. The child is alive.

This does not mean that the child can be cured, given the state of modern medical science. But it does mean that the child must be treated not as a corpse but as a human person, with basic needs such as food and water that must continue to be met.

Why? When someone is at the point where there is zero chance of recovery and in a total vegetative state - what are you actually doing here?

[Thermodolia]

They're going to keep him comfortable as he dies instead of keeping him alive and in pain for as long as possible, like the Pope wants.

You know very well that the Vatican hospital does not want to keep the child "in pain for as long as possible". They are not going to unnecessarily prolong the child's life. They simply don't want the child to be killed by the NHS.

The underlying moral question here is whether it is permissible to kill someone who is suffering by failing to provide them with their basic needs (food, water, oxygen). You and the NHS seem to agree -- the parents and the Vatican hospital do not.

He can’t fucking eat or drink!! What part of that do you not understand? He is being kept alive by machines pumping fluids into him because he can’t digest food.

[Thermodolia]

[turns to camera, advertising jingle plays, teeth sparkle]

Euthanize a suffering child today.

Well, it isn't as though mass murder through involuntary euthanasia hasn't been tried before, or even currently happening. Perhaps you can borrow some advertising materials from them.

Wow comparing the NHS to the Nazis, that’s low

[Thermodolia]

The poor child is dead.

This is clearly false. The child is alive.

This does not mean that the child can be cured, given the state of modern medical science. But it does mean that the child must be treated not as a corpse but as a human person, with basic needs such as food and water that must continue to be met. It is deeply disconcerting that while the child's parents, the Vatican hospital, and the Italian government seem to recognize this, the UK courts do not.

He died months ago. All you are doing is extending the suffering of the parents and all involved

[Vassenor]

[turns to camera, advertising jingle plays, teeth sparkle]

Euthanize a suffering child today.

Well, it isn't as though mass murder through involuntary euthanasia hasn't been tried before, or even currently happening. Perhaps you can borrow some advertising materials from them.

Godwin's law violation. Everybody take a shot.

[Auralia]

Why? When someone is at the point where there is zero chance of recovery and in a total vegetative state - what are you actually doing here?

Because respect for human life and human dignity requires it. We do not have the right to kill innocent people, even to avoid suffering or if we think they might prefer to be dead.

He can’t fucking eat or drink!! What part of that do you not understand?

It's evident that Alfie can eat and drink insofar as he can continue to metabolize food and water. So long as he can continue to do that, food and water should not be denied to him.

Godwin's law violation. Everybody take a shot.

How is one supposed to respond to a comment like "Euthanize a suffering child today"?

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's evident that Alfie can eat and drink insofar as he can continue to metabolize food and water. So long as he can continue to do that, food and water should not be denied to him.

There isn't a "him". Mushy liquidised brain fragments don't have a sense of self.