California wrote:How they are supposed to be are vastly different. The courts are supposed to be an impartial, separate branch, from the rest of the state
So I take it you do not trust that British (and/or American?) courts can be an impartial, seperate branch from the rest of the state? That the courts will always rule (or have their own self-interest in ruling) in favor of the state's interests?
(Again, for reference, an overview of how the law in Britain works in these sorts of - fortunately, rare - cases: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43893709 )
Last edited by BjornP on Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
The criteria being used is not what causes least harm. There is no medical evidence that he can sense harm in any way.
The criteria has always been what is best for Alfie.
The ruling was based on Alfie's lack of any possible quality of life.
California wrote:
A crime is one person violating the rights of another person. The state's service provision when it comes to law enforcement is acting as an impartial 3rd party between two or more individuals with a grievance against each other
In this case a public hospital representing the NHS and two parents were in conflict. The courts decided the hospital is in the right. Are private citizens not allowed to take state actors to court in the US? Is the American legal system also "The State", or is it an impartial 3rd actor in cases between private citizen and state actors?
I think we’d be a lot happier if that decision was at the very least made by a jury, rather than a judge.
Not in the American system. Our Constitutional rights are not subject to a jury decision. In the U.S., this would (should) be a matter of whether the individual's rights are being violated. Children are citizens with Constitutional rights, albeit limited.
California wrote:How they are supposed to be are vastly different. The courts are supposed to be an impartial, separate branch, from the rest of the state
So I take it you do not trust that British (and/or American?) courts can be an impartial, seperate branch from the rest of the state? That the courts will always rule (or have their own self-interest in ruling) in favor of the state's interests?
(Again, for reference, an overview of how the law in Britain works in these sorts of - fortunately, rare - cases: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43893709 )
Depends on the judge, but no, I do not trust the courts whatsoever
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session
The criteria being used is not what causes least harm. There is no medical evidence that he can sense harm in any way.
The criteria has always been what is best for Alfie.
The ruling was based on Alfie's lack of any possible quality of life.
If the ruling is based on him not sensing harm in any way, it gets problematic. Because if he can't sense harm, there's no reason he shouldn't be kept alive. If that's the case, it's also impossible to determine what's "best" for him.
The moral question should be; "why let him die", rather than "why let him live".
Maybe suspect is not the correct choice of words..
I am rather confident this was all about organ harvesting.
Alder Hey, the hospital at the center of the controversy surrounding little Alfie Evans, the UK toddler who was removed from life support against his parents’ will and whose parents say he has suffered inhumane treatment at the hands of the hospital, was caught in a controversy just over a decade ago when it sold organs from living children to Aventis Pasteur, a vaccination research firm, and also stockpiled the organs of deceased infants for years without parental knowledge or consent.
And.. it's more horrifying than most of you imagined. From 2016:
NHS to harvest babies' organs: 'Ghoulish' proposal gives mothers pregnant with a damaged foetus an agonising choice - abort the dying child or give birth so body parts can be used for transplants
* Mothers of children with fatal defects will have the option to give birth
* Once the infant has been declared stillborn, doctors will remove its organs
* They will then be used to save the lives of other children who are currently being placed on 7,000-strong waiting list
* The practice could raise ethical questions while alleviating organ shortage
* For more of the latest on the NHS proposal visit http://www.dailymail.co.uk/nhs
Let that sink in while you wonder why it was so important that the people at this particular hospital be granted the right to execute a baby within their facility rather than allow him to go to a different care facility in Italy.
