Search results

When are you going to stop spouting rubbish?

You think it's funny?! Wow, just...wow

Bambini Gesu scarcely has a great reputation either.

It's the same principle at work and, contrary to what you assert, the care being offered elsewhere was not 'better'; this was found as a matter of fact and was the unanimous medical opinion of all the medical experts giving evidence including those for Tom Evans - read the judgments again.

How then would you deal with the JWs refusing a transfusion for or African Pentecostals wanting to perform a violent exorcism on their children?

And if parents want to withhold a life-saving blood transfusion from their child, should they be allowed? If parents on religious grounds want to perform an exorcism resulting in a child's death, should they be allowed? Witchcraft beliefs and exorcisms are killing children in the UK The NHS...

You haven't answered my evidential question. I don't expect the treatment on offer was inferior to that of Alder Hey; the issue was whether it was "better enough " to justify the trauma of moving him. The evidence adduced was that it was not.

How do you know the care provided outside was 'good'? On what evidential basis are you making that assertion? Show me, adducing evidence, how its alleged benefits outweighed the prejudicial effects of trying to move the boy. Yes the NHS is broke but that's because its been deliberately and...

I don't agree with some of the anti-religious rhetoric and comment of this article but it is otherwise excellent on both the facts of the case and the legal analysis and gives the lie to some of the wilder assertions that have been made here: The Tragic Case of Alfie Evans - Quillette

No one said "no say" except you (inaccurately). But they don't necessarily get the final say. Nor should they - that's common sense surely: I can't believe this is even up for debate! What if the parents are JWs whose child needs a life saving blood transfusion but refuse on religious grounds...

In Britain they did. Unfortunately for them the doctors agreed with the hospital

No I don't have the right to determine someone else's medical treatment. But neither do you have the right to force medical treatment on someone who can't consent to it. In any event that's a straw man since I wasn't denying him that right, but questioning the benefit of it as asserted by others

I thought personal attacks weren't allowed here.

The parents commissioned at least two independent medical reports into his condition ie: had him examined by two independent medical consultants who both agreed that there was no hope of recovery. So it's a myth that there were "no second opinions".

Merely repeating a bare assertion doesn't add any substance to it

Neither is it yours then

You're twisting your own words now and moving your own goalposts from "got away with it" to "didn't face any consequences". That's enough for me to disregard whatever point you thought you had.

Trouble is, that's kind of a trick question isn't it? You see, if I was to give an example of say, Darren Wilson, you could say, "Aha! But Michael Brown was clearly reaching for the cop's gun and therefore can't have been innocent." Likewise if I cite the case of Jeronimo Yanez, because he was...

Not silly at all: what good would it have done? All that Italians were offering was palliative care, which Alder Hey ended up giving anyway. There was no offer of effective treatment, of a cure.

And apparently ad hominems is all you have