+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Total Members: 88
Latest: cassini
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 112852
Total Topics: 4375
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Alfie Evans case  (Read 198 times)


  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6704
Re: Alfie Evans case
« on: April 25, 2018, 04:46:21 pm »
This has nothing to do with universal healthcare Dylan...even says what it does have to deal with in the article.

The National Health Care service is based on universal health care principles.  The GOVERNMENT is determining that this child cannot seek treatment elsewhere.  Universal health care in this country would be a government entity.  My point stands.

No it doesn't man. It really doesn't. We see these types of cases here too. Albeit in different ways, it has to do with the child's rights vs parents rights. Look at my previous post.

Yes it does man.  It really does.  It's government overreach imo.  To say "this child will die with us and cannot be taken elsewhere to be cared for" is government overreach.

That literally has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare. It's the COURTS not the type of healthcare the child is receiving. The courts in Britain argue that when a child is too young, such as in this case, the government has the rights to do what they what with the child not the parents. This is a JUDICIAL matter, not a universal healthcare one.

Dude, you are missing my point...once the GOVERNMENT gains control of health care in its entirety, THIS is the kind of shit that happens.  Universal Health Care is GOVERNMENT controlled.  I do not want the entire health care industry controlled by the GOVERNMENT.

Does that spell it out for you enough?

Yeah but there is literally no correlation found here between those two things. You're arguing that this case supports your viewpoint when in reality you're reaching pretty hard here. These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare. I'm not arguing your logic at all, I'm arguing that this case doesn't make sense for your argument.

Name a case here where our government ruled that a child was forbidden to be taken elsewhere to seek treatment when they are still able to be living off life support.

That wasn't my point Dylan. My point is that it's the judicial system that is brought up in the case of Alfie Evans. It's different here obviously because we don't have the same laws. But we do have laws that protect a child from what the parents want for them in terms of health. There was a case in which a child's parents wanted them off medication for a disease because it was against their religion. The doctors gave treatment to the child regardless and the court ruled against the parents in this case because the child was too young to have a say in it. It's the same concept in this case, but the only difference is that this is Britain and they have different laws.

Just because they have universal healthcare and different laws then we do doesn't mean the two correlate.

You literally said "These cases happen here too in the US where we DON'T have universal healthcare."

I'm asking you for one example where the child was able to live without the life support on him and where the government said that child could not seek treatment elsewhere. 

You said these cases (PLURAL) happen here.  I'm asking for one single example.

You've missed the point entirely. I pointed out a similar case above, but regardless you missed my point.

This is British law you're talking about here and it's different than U.S. law. That's my point. Universal healthcare doesn't suddenly change that.

Where did you point out a similar case?

You're being facetious for no reason right now. The similarities lie in what the parents want for the child in terms of their health and what the doctors want. The similarities is that the child is too young to have a conscious say in what they want for their life. So the courts step in when there is a dispute between the doctors and said parents. The difference is that in Britain the courts argue in favor of the child almost 100% of the time which means that they go with what the doctors feel is best for the child. In the United States it's different and we have different laws in place. We don't have laws that go against what the parents want if it's reasonable enough and doesn't constitute putting the child's life in danger. So here the parents can move the child wherever they want, but in Britain it's much more strict.

That has nothing to do with the fact it's universal healthcare.


+- Hot Threads

Awards Season by Kale Pasta
Today at 04:09:10 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Tut
January 21, 2019, 03:03:18 am

January 20, 2019, 01:56:36 am

The Trump Presidency Thread by Tut
January 09, 2019, 06:07:53 am

Oasis' 2018 in review by Robert Neville
December 31, 2018, 11:35:15 am

The Video Games MegaThread by Charles Longboat Jr.
December 07, 2018, 01:06:29 am

The 2018 US Midterms and Goober-natorial Elections Thread by Robert Neville
November 27, 2018, 04:19:15 pm

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Robert Neville
November 27, 2018, 03:59:28 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
November 26, 2018, 11:58:34 pm

2018 Standings by Crohn's Boy
October 07, 2018, 11:13:25 am

Khabib vs. Conor fight by Robert Neville
October 07, 2018, 07:15:48 am

Another reason why SEC is so embarrassing... by The One Who Lurks
October 06, 2018, 07:21:54 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
September 26, 2018, 11:40:42 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am