By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Are swamping Merseyside Police's social media with rants about how they and the NHS murder children (Alfie Evans) at the behest of our socialist government.
If you really want to see the cesspit of humanity take a look.
It shouldn't wind me up but a load of bible waving, gun toting redknecks spouting their bile at our doctors, nurses and police officers has really put me off my breakfast.
You have to remember the US has more than it's fair share of 'special' people. Have unfriended one such person today after his third post about this subject. Really is a nice guy, known him for years but enough is enough. Could put up with his almost daily posts proving the world is flat. He isn't stupid in the normal meaning but stubbornly believes the first thing he is told on any subject despite evidence to the contrary.
I think you give Farage a tad too much credit. He neither has that kind of influence and, secondly, there are many in the US who think that way without any helps or assistance.
Ade Akinbiyi couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...
I think you give Farage a tad too much credit. He neither has that kind of influence and, secondly, there are many in the US who think that way without any helps or assistance.
In this case, I rather think I have some semblance of basis for assertion, he was VERY vocal in his stupidity on Twitter about this last week and, unfortunately, he has got the ear of some right wing nut job influencers in America and so the echo chamber spouted it's bile
When I was over in New England there was a radio station I found absolutely fascinating. One of the 'stars' on it was Howie Carr. It was an unbleievable listen - pure propaganda streets ahead of anything our press can churn out.
When the NHS cancelled all no-urgent ops back in Jan/Feb, it was exactly the same. They milked that and blamed socialist idiocy for having a system that made health care available to all. Completely ignoring the fact it's happening on the Tories watch.
They'll have been doing it again no doubt, which is a large reason why you'll have these ignorant comments about Alfie.
In this case, I rather think I have some semblance of basis for assertion, he was VERY vocal in his stupidity on Twitter about this last week and, unfortunately, he has got the ear of some right wing nut job influencers in America and so the echo chamber spouted it's bile
He's had the Express quoting him as saying that allowing a terminal ill child to die naturally rather than an indignity and discomfort is 'state sponsored euthanasia' and been using his LBC show to shut the same nonsense too.
The men is an unredeemable t0sser.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
You have to remember the US has more than it's fair share of 'special' people. Have unfriended one such person today after his third post about this subject. Really is a nice guy, known him for years but enough is enough. Could put up with his almost daily posts proving the world is flat. He isn't stupid in the normal meaning but stubbornly believes the first thing he is told on any subject despite evidence to the contrary.
Yes he did vote for the Donald.
A larger population means that, altho there may only be the same proportion of loons as the UK, the outright numbers will be far higher. Thus much noisier, because non-loons don't tend to shout normal stuff as loudly (or it doesn't grab the attention so).
The should concentrate their efforts a bit closer to home. In many states if you refuse to have your Child treated in a certain way ( ie. Chemotherapy ) the police will turn up and abduct your child and the treatment will be enforced against the parents will.
The should concentrate their efforts a bit closer to home. In many states if you refuse to have your Child treated in a certain way ( ie. Chemotherapy ) the police will turn up and abduct your child and the treatment will be enforced against the parents will.
The land of the free it is most definitely not.
If the doctors have decided that is the best way to treat the child and possibly the only way to give them a chance (woo doesn't work) then why should the parents be allowed to refuse the treatment?
The child is a human being and deserves the chance to live, that shouldn't be the choice of the parents as if the child was property.
Do you have an example of where this has happened so we can see the specifics of a case?
The should concentrate their efforts a bit closer to home. In many states if you refuse to have your Child treated in a certain way ( ie. Chemotherapy ) the police will turn up and abduct your child and the treatment will be enforced against the parents will.
The land of the free it is most definitely not.
With regards to treatment of children(and adults who are unable to offer consent to treatment), the role of the law in this country(and quite likely in the US as well) is to look after the best interests of the individual in cases where there is a disagreement between clinicians and families. Evidence will be heard from all interested parties and a judgement made on the basis of that evidence.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
If the doctors have decided that is the best way to treat the child and possibly the only way to give them a chance (woo doesn't work) then why should the parents be allowed to refuse the treatment?
The child is a human being and deserves the chance to live, that shouldn't be the choice of the parents as if the child was property.
Do you have an example of where this has happened so we can see the specifics of a case?
SB
I don't have an example that I can link to hand no, but I have seen examples of this from the US in the past, so I know it does happen.
‘The child is a human being and deserves the chance to live, that shouldn't be the choice of the parents as if the child was property’.
I find this a very odd statement. Firstly because you speak as though the parents would want the opposite, how many parents do you know that don’t want the best for their Child and wouldn’t want them to live? Second because you speak of the parents treating their child as ’property’ in the negative and yet seemingly are ok with the notion that the child is the property of the state and it is OK for them to act as medical police?
Yes we do have to look at the specifics of a case to fully assess it but in general I think the choice of treatment within reason should be down to the parents. Doctors do not always get everything right, you only have to look at the case of Ashya King for evidence of this. His parents went for an alternative treatment to Chemo and 3 years on he is now cancer free, would you have had the Police take custody of this child and force Chemo on him against the parents wishes?
If we allow the State to dictate medical choices for our families then we are heading to very dangerous territory in my opinion.
Also I am not sure what you mean by 'woo' by the way, perhaps you could clarify?
With regards to treatment of children(and adults who are unable to offer consent to treatment), the role of the law in this country(and quite likely in the US as well) is to look after the best interests of the individual in cases where there is a disagreement between clinicians and families. Evidence will be heard from all interested parties and a judgement made on the basis of that evidence.
I understand that, doesn't mean they always get it right though.
I don't have an example that I can link to hand no, but I have seen examples of this from the US in the past, so I know it does happen.
‘The child is a human being and deserves the chance to live, that shouldn't be the choice of the parents as if the child was property’.
I find this a very odd statement. Firstly because you speak as though the parents would want the opposite, how many parents do you know that don’t want the best for their Child and wouldn’t want them to live? Second because you speak of the parents treating their child as ’property’ in the negative and yet seemingly are ok with the notion that the child is the property of the state and it is OK for them to act as medical police?
Yes we do have to look at the specifics of a case to fully assess it but in general I think the choice of treatment within reason should be down to the parents. Doctors do not always get everything right, you only have to look at the case of Ashya King for evidence of this. His parents went for an alternative treatment to Chemo and 3 years on he is now cancer free, would you have had the Police take custody of this child and force Chemo on him against the parents wishes?
If we allow the State to dictate medical choices for our families then we are heading to very dangerous territory in my opinion.
Also I am not sure what you mean by 'woo' by the way, perhaps you could clarify?
Your single biggest (flawed) statement is that parents always have the child's best interests at heart.
That's not always the case, sometimes conscious, sometimes not consciously.
How do you feel about antivaxxers and Jehovah's Witnesses takes on medicine? Should they be allowed to choose what happens to their child?
I don't have an example that I can link to hand no, but I have seen examples of this from the US in the past, so I know it does happen.
‘The child is a human being and deserves the chance to live, that shouldn't be the choice of the parents as if the child was property’.
I find this a very odd statement. Firstly because you speak as though the parents would want the opposite, how many parents do you know that don’t want the best for their Child and wouldn’t want them to live? Second because you speak of the parents treating their child as ’property’ in the negative and yet seemingly are ok with the notion that the child is the property of the state and it is OK for them to act as medical police?
Yes we do have to look at the specifics of a case to fully assess it but in general I think the choice of treatment within reason should be down to the parents. Doctors do not always get everything right, you only have to look at the case of Ashya King for evidence of this. His parents went for an alternative treatment to Chemo and 3 years on he is now cancer free, would you have had the Police take custody of this child and force Chemo on him against the parents wishes?
If we allow the State to dictate medical choices for our families then we are heading to very dangerous territory in my opinion.
Also I am not sure what you mean by 'woo' by the way, perhaps you could clarify?
"I find this a very odd statement. Firstly because you speak as though the parents would want the opposite, how many parents do you know that don’t want the best for their Child and wouldn’t want them to live?"
"Also I am not sure what you mean by 'woo' by the way, perhaps you could clarify?"
I think I misunderstood your post. I took the first part to mean parents who decided to use "alternative" medicine to treat the cancer, something like homeopathy hence the use of woo. In such cases I don't think that the state should stand by and accept the parents wishes.
You've raised a good case with Ashya King, however in general when alternative methods are used the end result is not good (I understand of course that the case you have subsequently highlighted still involved a known medical treatment so is different):
"If we allow the State to dictate medical choices for our families then we are heading to very dangerous territory in my opinion."
What if the family choice is clearly wrong? For instance using acupuncture to cure cancer? (there was a case where an actress did this in China and died).
"I find this a very odd statement. Firstly because you speak as though the parents would want the opposite, how many parents do you know that don’t want the best for their Child and wouldn’t want them to live?"
"Also I am not sure what you mean by 'woo' by the way, perhaps you could clarify?"
I think I misunderstood your post. I took the first part to mean parents who decided to use "alternative" medicine to treat the cancer, something like homeopathy hence the use of woo. In such cases I don't think that the state should stand by and accept the parents wishes.
You've raised a good case with Ashya King, however in general when alternative methods are used the end result is not good (I understand of course that the case you have subsequently highlighted still involved a known medical treatment so is different):
"If we allow the State to dictate medical choices for our families then we are heading to very dangerous territory in my opinion."
What if the family choice is clearly wrong? For instance using acupuncture to cure cancer? (there was a case where an actress did this in China and died).
SB
[Post edited 30 Apr 2018 15:44]
I agree, there is always the danger that there will be a stupid person that makes a very bad and potentially life threatening choice for their child. It's a balancing act isn't it and I guess you can only review each case on its merit.
To clarify though, I am talking about alternative treatments that are recognised and have some sort of proven record of success. I certainly wouldn't advocate letting people try homeopathy or acupuncture as cancer treatments for Children and would like to think any sensible parent wouldn't either, although I accept the authorities have to guard against the possibility that some would.
The case I recall from the US involved parents that were very loving and also both professional and intelligent people who just happened to have a different opinion than the Oncologist regarding the right treatment for their child. If I recall they wanted to take the Child to a specialist that had a very high success rate in Childhood cancer cases, they removed the Child from the first hospital but within a few hours the Police turned up at their Door and forcibly removed the Child and returned him to Hospital A where the treatment ( Chemo ) took place without the Parents consent. It is this type of case that I am strongly against.
Your single biggest (flawed) statement is that parents always have the child's best interests at heart.
That's not always the case, sometimes conscious, sometimes not consciously.
How do you feel about antivaxxers and Jehovah's Witnesses takes on medicine? Should they be allowed to choose what happens to their child?
I don't think I actually said all Parents always have the child's best interest at heart, but I would like to think the vast majority do. That doesn't mean they always make the right decision of course but up to a certain point it should be theirs to make.
with regards to vaccines, I believe that Parents should absolutely have the right to decide, and that is because all vaccines have the potential to harm and injure a child.
Vaccine Injuries do happen ( fact ) so therefore you have to have informed consent and a Parent has to be able to weigh up the pro's and cons and make a decision.
There is a debate to be had regarding vaccines and I don't really like the term 'anti-vaxxers' or 'pro-vaxxers' to be honest as it just takes away from the debate.
What about the people who don't see themselves as in either camp and just want to look at each vaccine individually and weigh up the risk of an adverse reaction against the potential protection offered?
I don't really know enough about Jehovah's views on medicine to form an opinion.