Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO, the parents should have been allowed to take their child to Italy.
What were the drs. in Italy planning to do that could not be done where the child was? Why didn't the Italian drs come to the child?
They weren't planning on doing anything. They were going to continuing to keep the child on life support where he would continue to have seizures and suffer a slow death. There was nothing that could be done to save him. He was terminal, and was going to die. It was just a matter of dying in England, dying on a plane, or dying in Italy.
The right choice was made. The parents should not have been able to take him to Italy and prolong his suffering. That is just cruel. No one should do that to their own child.
They had a visa, transport and a hospital willing to take him.
The govt put police in riot gear OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL ROOM so the parents could not take the child.
That's murder. And what will the autopsy say? That the child died of starvation/dehydration because the hospital WITHHELD nutrition/water.
When the parents were ready to remove the child and simply transfer him to another.
The child died because he had no functioning brain. The only thing keeping his heart going was artificial ventilation. As the Jahi McMath case here in the US shows us, the heart can function for a long time if air is artificially provided and food is pumped into the stomach, even with a brain that does not function.
Doing so is abuse of the child.
Alfie died from his disease after futile artificial support was withdrawn. That is not murder.
Taking him out of the country would not have benefited him because the Italian doctors had nothing to offer in the way of treatment. He would have just died on Italian soil rather than UK soil.
Parents rights can only go so far. When parents choices are cruel to their children, that is when we expect someone to step in and stand up for the child's rights. The parents were understandably distraught, but they were hoping that prolonging his life and suffering would somehow result in a miracle. They were selfish in their grief. He was going to die. And he was only going to suffer until that time. The child's suffering should not have been prolonged. There is a time to let go and let the suffering end...and the parents were unable to see that. I don't blame them, I don't know what I'd do in that horrible position...but I'm glad the child had someone to stand up for him.
I think this was a great decision, parents shouldn't have control over these matters, like Melissa Harris Perry said "Your children are not your own they belong to the state" I only wish that after the child passed Theresa May came in and beat the living sh** out of the parents to put them back in their place for getting so uppity.
This government and this British government kill kids all the time. Nobody cares if they are off in some country we decide needs another leader.
My state decides to terminate parental rights all the time. Relatives want the kids but if they cannot afford to keep them, there is no aid from the state. State institutions where they can be raped and beaten are better then an aunt or grandma. This has been going on for years.
Why are people getting so worked up over one kid who was doomed from birth?
We Americans are not free to choose to abuse our children.
Of course, not but this is not a child abusive situation in the typical sense.
Parents should not be giving their child mouth to mouth resuscitation because the hospital/government decided to pull the pug without the parents permission.
I just couldn't fathom a country as wonderful as the UK doing this
I can see both sides of the spectrum (we do want to protect children from mentally unstable and abusive parents - but this wasn't the case).
Its just my personal opinion that the parents should have the ultimate decision/right in when to "let go/say goodbye" to their child, not government.
Yep, when removing the respirator didn't kill him, they withheld hydration and nutrition. They are murderers.
Oh FFS. He died from his irreparable terminal illness. That's what killed him. He was not going to recover, ever. Regardless of who made the decision to stop the artificial sustainment of this poor poor child's miserable and agonized existence.
Of course, not but this is not a child abusive situation in the typical sense.
Parents should not be giving their child mouth to mouth resuscitation because the hospital/government decided to pull the pug without the parents permission.
I just couldn't fathom a country as wonderful as the UK doing this
I can see both sides of the spectrum (we do want to protect children from irrational and mentally unstable parents - but this wasn't the case).
Its just my personal opinion that the parents should have the ultimate decision/right in when to "let go/say goodbye" to their child, not government.
If it weren't for the government, he wouldn't have lived for as long as he did. They did everything they could. What about that don't people get?
What if the parents never agreed to take him off life support? How long would you say it was reasonable for the kid to suffer? Until he was 18, 21, 40?
I'm very very sorry the parents are hurting but the boy was hurting too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
