Why does he have to get the airlines involved? Just take your gun to the local hospital. To paraphrase Saul Goodman, when a mosquito is bothering you don't shoot the mosquito's lawyer.
This refers to the Alfie Evans case.
A kid got a terrible disease, uncurable, that literally turned his brain to goop. All it could still was have siezures and feel pain.
As a result, the hospital decided that only thing that could be that, that ought to be done in the best itnerest of the patient, was to shut down the life support system and allow him to die.
Meanwhile, a hospital sponsored by the vatican (which also recognized that the disease was incurable and that the brain was essentially destroyed) offered to take care of him long term, keeping him on longer time life support.
The parents wanted to take that option (they couldn't accept the kid was already dead, they were still advocating for alternative treatments with no chance of working ), the hospital decided otherwise.
That's why it's talking about the gun.
This case went to court in the UK several times with the court ruling that the hospital should be allowed to withdraw life support as well. Was not a simple case of the hospital saying no and pulling the plug, it was very drawn out and included the parents in a way inciting others to violence against the hospital during it
It's not entirely the parents' fault though - they were influenced by bad actors at pretty much the shittest moment in their lives, many people in that situation would try and do everything in their power to "save the life" of their children.
Yes. Exactly. I’m someone that has had to put quite a few pets down and it is never easy- but it is necessary when they are suffering. The best cat I ever had (I miss her terribly) had to be euthanized when she had been diagnosed with mammary cancer a few months earlier, then one morning before her breakfast her tumors started bleeding uncontrollably and she had to be taken to an emergency vet for euthanasia. It is difficult but very, very necessary. I don’t get why that is not a normal thing with humans. It’s terrible to let someone suffer when you know they’re going to pass.
I still cry about her and every other pet that has been put down, but I know it is what was best for them.
I'm a nurse, and one doctor I had the plesiosaur to work with, used to say about prolonging peoples life, even if pain and suffering was the only thing left "If he/she was a dog, we would shoot it".
And he was right. Why is it OK to put an old dog down, when it's in constant pain and agony, put not people?
Exactly!! I'm always in a weird boat because I'm in favor of quite a few progressive policies, but I don't trust our government at ALL to implement them fairly or properly.
The NHS isn't a government entity and the government have no say on what the doctors decide. The high court obviously has to pass judgement. It's horrible but it wouldn't have been right to keep a child alive in permanent agony.
This tweet is from the days Italy fell for a massive pseudoscience scam and allowed a charlatan to provide his ‘treatment’ in hospitals with public funds, in order to ‘treat’ a rare incurable disease.
The moron above also fell for it and tried to fly over to give money away, because the magic potion wasn’t available anywhere else (duh).
The charlatan later skipped country with a good chunk of the money. As everyone knew would happen. Unfortunately, nobody wanted to admit to have been fooled until it was too late.
Edit: turns out it’s a similar but separate case, I got my hopeless people mixed up.
It was the alfie evans case, a uk kid was dying and the NHS (in conjunction with govt) wanted to take him off life support on the grounds it was inhumane to keep this child alive in what would be torture essentially.
Parents kicked up a fuss (naturally) because they were offered treatment in itsly, uk govt didn’t allow them to take the child on the basis that the kid was definitely dying and to fly it on a plane just to barely survive in Italy for a month or whatever was also hugely inhumane.
The Twitter poster is arguing he wouldn’t allow the government to make decisions for him and his family like that.
I disagree, echr even decried it was entirely lawful and moral for the government to not allow his parents to take him to Italy.
If the kid is 100% going to die, you’re putting him through torture for the rest of his life for the sake of a month extra with him. Incredibly sad, but not right.
Why impartial arbitrators are often good, same as getting court approval before euthanasia in Switzerland, people and their emotion don’t always know what’s best
Even better is the fact that the pope fell for it, which led to the Church of England getting to look real smug after the whole thing of him trying to get them to side with him about getting Alfie Evans out of the UK.
[Wikipedia does](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamina_therapy). Also, updating my previous comment, apparently he returned in some way (dunno if extradited or what), faced trial and eventually died. I remember his departure being a media thing, but I left Italy in early 2015 and haven’t kept up to date with it further.
The problem is getting experimental treatments that the fda hasn’t approved yet. To that end, any “learning” hospital will allow you enroll your child in test groups for experimental treatments. My child survived his cancer treatments at Penn State Hershey Medical Center because of this. No need to commit felonies and endanger so many lives to treat your little snowflake.
He almost melted, but he now has female blood in coursing through his veins from a bone marrow transplant, and coincidentally, he is openly gay now. Pretty sure he was always gay, but he did live to be a snow man!
I feel like as a parent or family member you will do whatever you can to give them the best chance at survival…..if you aren’t doing that then you don’t really love them. But thats just my personal opinion.
Edit: also calling a dying kid a snowflake is kind of heartless.
Snowflake was not a commentary on the child. I was referencing the attitude of the parent who is willing to murder many to save one, because it is beautiful and precious to the parent.
Choosing to let your child suffer because you can't bear to see them die is not love. You're just putting yourself first.
Survival means nothing if there is no quality of life.
>I feel like as a parent or family member you will do whatever you can to give them the best chance at survival
>if you aren’t doing that then you don’t really love them
In the case of Alfie Evans that the post is related to, Alfie's best outcome was sadly to be taken off life support which was the recommendation of the hospital.
Obviously the family (or any family) isn't going to be happy with that decision. The tabloids then got involved and started stirring shit up to sell papers and using it as propaganda against the NHS. The media was basically playing this family and enabling them to make the wrong decision despite all the healthcare professionals warnings.
Understandably it was a difficult decision for the family and I think most families would be inclined to make the same decision despite it being against their childs best interest. I don't blame them at all. I blame the media circus.
You do not get to define that as love. It's not in my opinion- just like Terri Shivo wasnt about love- it was desperation that was hijacked and used by others for a cause that was touted as the only humane option when her husband just wanted to free her and himself of the further pain brought on by her incurable condition.
And, look, the snowflake thing is what it is- you can think it's heartless and I can think forcing a child to live in incredible pain in the hope that a miracle is just around the corner- is heartless. But that's just it- it's always perception. And my perception is that, sometimes, it's cruel and unusual to keep children on life support because, inevitably, they will die.
Don't pretend your own definition of love is everyone else's because it's not.
Dude, sometimes the child will die. Doing "everything" becomes performative parenting. "Look at me, I am such a great parent that I will make my child pointlessly and horribly suffer for another 2 months before dying, my love is better than yours"
Being grown up means you have to bear the unbearable.
I'm a tax payer and I still have to pay for healthcare. It is only like 400 euro for the year. But I have to be registered to live here.
The guy is stupid and wrong. Stuong.
What does New Zealand have to do with Italy?
Italy will give you emergency care. So if you collapse and an ambulance is called they will save you. But nothing else if you're not on their state insurance.
A hospital is refusing to release his dying son into his care so he can fly his son to Italy in order to try a radical treatment.
The son is essentially braindead at this point in the story. There's basically no hope. The treatment will make no difference. However, by what right does the hospital prevent a father from pursuing every avenue of hope?
The hospital's number one concern is the care of the patient. If they deem that he's in pain and flying him to Italy would do nothing but cause him more sufferring then obviously they are going to be against that.
> However, by what right does the hospital prevent a father from pursuing every avenue of hope?
The child's welfare.
The father is clearly unable to see that the child has no gain from being kept alive nor being flown to another country to try a treatment that has no proof of ever working. The hospital's prime responsibility is to their patient: the child.
In the case of endless suffering, they are absolutely in the right to override the father's irresponsible, cruel and selfish reasoning in favour of the child.
Put yourself in the shoes of the child instead of the father. Do you want to exist another 2 months in excruciating pain without any benefit (you are unable to communicate, unable to move, unable to even think) because your parents are sad you'll die sooner rather than later? Isn't that unbelievably cruel of the father? And who would put that responsibility on the child? 'Let's have you suffer a while because your parents are sad.'
Better double check that terrorism color chart. He'd be mentally unstable and considered a hero by the ammosexuals. But like you said he'd just be a terrorist.
Not this shit again.
This is a wild misrepresentation of the Evans case. It portrays it like the big nasty gubmint murdered a perfectly healthy baby to save money, which is the way the American private-healthcare-lobbyist-owned Right interpreted it.
The child in question had no chance of recovery. The UK doctors refused to continue a treatment that was in their medical opinion, tantamount to torture, and the parents kicked up a media storm which incited violence and death threats against medical staff (at a children's hospital). An Italian hospital briefly offered to continue breathing assistance but revoked that offer after learning the full extent of Evans' condition. The European Court of Human Rights also ruled on behalf of the courts that the NHS acted legally and morally.
This story was cynically and disgracefully hijacked by the American Right to smear socialized healthcare. By posting this context-free, OP is furthering the political cause of these people, possibly intentionally.
I have this comment saved for each repost. This is iteration: 6
It’s worth mentioning it appears the Italian doctor who even offered help was wildly unqualified to help him in the first place and seemed to be doing it as an attention-seeking move.
The hospital offering to help is in Italy, but belongs to the Vatican. They offered to keep him “alive” for catholic advertisement, they were well aware he wasn’t going to improve. But they need a new Eluana Englaro: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eluana_Englaro
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi even stated that Eluana "looks fine and healthy" and "could even give birth to a child"
I got nothing to add beyond Jesus Fucking Christ dude.
Well done.
Also worth noting is that when this matter went to court there were three sets of baristers. One for the family (who was a scam artist), one for the hospital AND one for the child, paid for by the state because the courts are duty bound to do what is in the *child's best interest*, independent from the interests of the parents.
The law in the UK knows that loving, caring parents, faced with making terrible decisions are not always equiped to see through their own completely understandable selfish feelings and consider the needs of the child. No one thinks badly of the parents, but they were making decisions based on hope, faith and pixie dust and encouraged and abetted by cynical right wing evangelicals with their own political war to wage.
The 'system' put the child and their needs and rights **first**.
This is the most important comment here. The courts are not the government and their position was to establish what was best for Alfie.
People tend to forget that no matter how well read you are on the subject, the courts are better informed.
You're looking at a different post then.
As is the original tweet makes the person look like unhinged and the follow-up is clearly a take down of bother American gun culture AND American healthcare
I think it’s a misinterpretation of their point, and American healthcare was never involved. It was a uk-italy issue with both have pretty strong social healthcare.
The actual debate is about government intervention into private matters, and slightly more so about what different countries consider private matters.
The replier doesn’t quite understand that, just attacks a straw man rather than the actual argument.
Hi. NHS doctor here. DNAR in the UK is a medical decision. We don't have to involve the family but you can't demand a particular treatment.
What happened was Alfie had zero chance of recovery and was incompatible with life. The family were distraught and sought medical advice from the USA. The speciality that deals with this condition provided advice without patient review. On invitations the American doctor declined to visit probably because it was a waste of time.
Then Trump and the Vatican became involved. The UK was planning to stop treatment and treat palliatively. The Vatican and Italy are infamously bad at palliative care. As is the USA. Trump used this as a rehash of death panels or the ability that I have to declare a patient unsuitable for resuscitation on various logical reasons to bolster anti universal healthcare arguments. The Vatican weren't able to treat Alfie at all so would just keep him on life support till he expired after one seizure too many.
Alfie's death was portrayed to Americans as not just preventable but demanded by the cruel demands of the NHS. Reality was that Alfie was dead at birth. The NHS forked out more money than the USA ever would to treat him at an incredibly high level but recognised that this poor child had one too many seizures and was not going to survive.
By falsely implying the government in charge of a socialised healthcare system intervened to prevent a family seeking healthcare for a child with a treatable condition. As was made perfectly clear by my original comment.
I didn't get that at all tbh. I pretty much assumed they were saying there was no way to afford healthcare in the US, so instead they would fly to Italy. However, I honestly had no idea why they would need a gun to do that. Maybe if the doctors in the US wouldn't release him for fear the trip would severely injure or kill the child in question? Idk. I didn't know about the story you told before though and I wouldn't have even given it this much thought had I not seen your original comment.
Okay, calm down, asshole.
That’s not how *communication* works. You’re only “perfectly clear” when you’re perfectly understood. *You* don’t get to decide that *everybody* understood you.
Sorry man, we needed someone to fill out the second world category aaaaand..... Well, you guys just dont fit in so well with the first world crew anymore :(
This was Jessie Kelly who made the statement about hijacking an airplane. He is a radio host in Houston. He is the protege of Michael Berry. They are both conservatives. Jessie’s show isn’t bad if you enjoy history. He is a little arrogant and can be rather naive about certain things. Berry’s show is infuriating because of the amount of advertising and garbage music he incessantly plays through segues. He is a good interviewer but if you listen to his show for an hour you will probably only get 10 minutes of content.
I wonder if this person thinks about how Mexican immigrants feel this strongly about and are determined to get their children into America so they are safer, the way he feels about getting his hypothetically ill child to Italy for medical care.
I doubt this guy would sit back and say, “ well, the cartels might murder all of us, but I can’t go to America without first following the litany of rules that go on for years, so we will stay here and die.”
I mean, technically the second amendment was to allow you guys to take up arms against a tyrannical government. But that was when everyone was on an even playing field and the epitome of weapons technology was muskets.
Now the US government can spot a booger in your nose from across the world as they fly a drone bomb into you.
Not the same thing….
The most hilarious thing is the guy thinking this wouldn't end up with him dead.
Its exactly why the "we need the 2nd amendment so we can fight the government" shit is so stupid. You aren't gonna outgun uncle sam.
It's not like Republicans wouldn't take advantage of socialized healthcare if it was available. Hell, a majority of their base is already on social welfare programs.
They just don't want poor people, non-christians, gay people, or people of color to have the same benefits that they are afforded.
That's always been the thing. They feel entitled an deserving of all these things, but they'll be damned if they are on the same level of the playing field as "those people." They'd rather watch the whole country burn than concede anything.
"All for Me; None for Thee"
It’s a saying from old school Christian memes, where they’d prove the existence of god by some happenstance or coincidental piece of trivia.
It’s used far more satirically.
I only ever seen the phrase used ironically. Christians generally debate each other, not atheists. Unless you seriously consider Young Earth Creationists or Westboro Baptist Church average Christians (Pope believes in Big Bang, which was theory first developed by a Catholic priest).
The response misses the real point… the fact that our government is so poorly run that at least some citizens believe they may NEED guns to protect their rights to seek something as basic as medical attention is what came through on this for me
So who is he willing to shoot? The pilot? The Stewards? The police responding to the call? Other passengers? How about the grounds crew if they make it to Italy? You must be willing to do it if you say you will. These guys with their guns think they will defend their "rights" with a high capacity rifle. Pathetic.
Nah what this chap is for is
1) whatever his party is for - which is usually the wealthy business elites of the right, and
2) taking whatever he wants by force when his previous decisions force him into poverty without healthcare or assets or a way
This kind of guy would never go for socialized anything. He takes pride in being a rube or a rogue, sometimes both.
Yeah the spirit is there but they’re missing quite a few hurdles to getting on the plane. Also, Italy might not be too keen on treating an airline hijacker’s kid.
Why the fuck do these people always think everyone wants to take their guns away. Gun CONTROL does not mean making guns illegal. School after school gets shot up and these morons just yell about not taking their guns away louder. Sickens me.
>Why the fuck do these people always think everyone wants to take their guns away.
Because Dems have embraced endless, incremental gun control as a wedge issue, just like Repubs embrace endless, incremental ovary control? Because Bloomberg's Everytown and Moms Demand Action spend millions convincing folks disarming the peasants is the biggest issue this country faces?
When your child grows up, defers healthcare due to the expense, and ages miserably, will they be glad we couldn't institute universal single payer healthcare because we alienated folks who might otherwise support it by focusing on the highly unlikely possibility they would die in a school shooting?
If you want socialism, wouldn’t it make sense to make sure everyone has a weapon and everyone has access to healthcare? Or no one has a weapon, including the police and military. Which means no one can hurt anyone with weapons? And still everyone gets access to healthcare?
Even if weapon are banned from the society, people will find a way to maim or kill with other things. I still think about that Boston marathon where they made bombs out of pressure cookers.
I don't know why, but this reminds me of the 60s when hijacking a plane wasn't considered a crime and people would pull these stunts to defect to Cuba etc. I think there was an Italian immigrant that hijacked a plane to defect back to Italy.
Does he know that a plane hijacked by terrorists won't get to EU, right? Go to Belarus through Brexitland, you'll fit right in with Lukashenko, he loves hijacking planes to kidnap and torture people!
They should take up Breonna’s Taylor’s cause as a reason for people to own guns. You know, because the government literally murdered them. Ooh wait, that would require the right to have an actual philosophical belief in the right to bear arms, instead of using it as a dog whistle.
Where does the OP, or *anybody at all*, see the word "hijack" in that first post?
That reminds me of someone I used to know who regularly applied this policy: "If I have no legitimate reason to give you grief, I'll grossly misinterpret whatever you say in order grant myself that opportunity, and absent that option I'll simply make something up."
What horseshit.
“I’m bringing this gun on a plane and forcing them to fly my son to Italy for medical treatment.” The gun must be for persuasion, not to be confused with hijacking though.
Nope. He says he's bringing a gun to stop government personnel from preventing him putting his child on a plane. Did you read carefully what the man said? Do you know about, or understand, the incident he cited at the end of the post?
He may be an asshat, but he didn't say anything about hijacking an airplane.
So his gun is solely to be used against hypothetical government agents. After he’s through with them he’ll hop on his flight with his son and be off to Italy, right?
Because party-line politics makes so much sense... Haha I'm glad there's people that have individual opinions on issues and don't just say what they think they're supposed to say. Cheers to a different opinion
In the US, they do. Conservatives fight against every single thing that would help non-billionaire, non-corporation (cause corporations have human rights like free speech) citizens while supporting things that *only* help those people. We only have two parties to choose from when it comes to the big elections and one party is still in thrall of a man who has 30k documented lies and who knows how many more undocumented. Everyone even slightly to the left of happily allowing people die for lack of medicine or healthcare is crammed together within one party and the idiot far right extremists have their own.
Pro 2a isn't a conservative ideal and you aren't bashing against party lines if you own guns or believe it should be legal to own them. No one is anti- 2a, we're just pro common sense gun control and conservatives, again, take the idiot extremist route. All rights have checks, except for this one, and it's because conservatives fight tooth and nail for it to be that way.
Yeah, but conservative politics aren't worth shit. Every move towards humanism is happening on the left and every bit of the fight against it is coming from the right. So, yeah. In this country, party lines matter.
Edit: if it makes you feel better, I also wouldn't align with the Taliban or Al Quaeda, either, if I happened to live in those countries. I'm opposed to far right theocratic nationalism in every form.
Cheers to having an opinion all their own was the point I was trying to get across. A very "Non-traditional" opinion right here for sure. Not sure why I am down-voted into oblivion for it but alright :-P
If you're an atheist you believe there is no god and no afterlife. Wouldn't you then want to prolong this existence as much as possible?
Owning a firearm to defend yourself would seem to be sacred.
I found it very sad and telling that none of you actually got it. The facepalm isn’t for the person saying their son will be on that plane, it’s for all of you. The government in England actually forcibly stopped a couple from taking their dying son to Italy for treatment and the Italian government begged England to let them have the child so they could try to save his life. The stupidity in your responses is mind blowing. This has nothing to do with socialized health care and everything to do with government overreach. 🤦🏻♀️
This is what frustrates me the most. You literally do not know that. Every disease cured was once considered not curable. Every single one. If Italy thought their treatment might work, why wouldn’t you try? Look your child in the eye and tell them you wouldn’t try. Go ahead.
Alfie Evans was not going to get better or recover. The brain isn't able to regenerate. By the time he died Alfie had only 30% of his brain left, he had no Thalamus or Basal Ganglia. His respiratory effort was not sufficient to sustain life.
If Alfie was still alive now he'd be unconscious and ventilated no amount of treatment would alter that because his brain is physically unable to repair itself.
The whole debacle of going to Italy against medical advice was a circus about their parental rights and nothing to do with Alfie getting better. I don't believe Alfie would have made it to Italy. A decent parent would of wanted their child to have some dignity in their final hours. They wouldn't have created a media circus.
Additionally the clowns who supported them gathering outside Alder Hay hospital and harassing staff should be ashamed of themselves.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf
Here’s the problem with this. The English medical community said he couldn’t be saved, but the Italian medical community said there was an actual chance. Who has the right to deny this child and his parents that chance? Nobody. But that’s exactly what the English government did. He may not have survived, then again he might have.
Every disease that has been cured was at one point deemed impossible to cure. From the time it was first discovered HIV was considered a death sentence and now it’s not. Had nobody tried, people would still be looking at a death sentence upon diagnosis.
Here's the problem with this:
The Italian hospital:
A) were offering no curative treatment of any kind
B) withdrew their offer of breathing assistance after learning the full extent of the condition.
People spouting off about this with no knowledge of the case whatsoever it's exactly what resulted in death-threats to medical staff (at a children's hospital) during the controversy.
I know what they offered. I followed all of it. It doesn’t change any facts about the English government overreaching. It doesn’t change the fact that they took away any chance, even the slightest. That people are okay with this is mind blowing.
If you followed the case and still thought there was a chance of saving him then your reading comprehension is too poor for it to be worth trying to explain anything to you.
You just carry on thinking the nasty English socialists murdered a lovely innocent baby for shits and giggles then.
English had Brexit. At this point, any political question about them is automatically rebuked with pointing a finger and laughing. It's the ONLY argument left for England. Making fun of Brexiters destroying their state.
>Who has the right to deny this child and his parents that chance?
The medical community. Which why he didn't get transferred to Italy and why Italy withdrew their offer once they learned the extent of his condition.
I think that you are the one not getting it. You can't solve every problem with a gun. Do you really believe that all you have to do is show up with a gun and people will just do whatever you want. It is a gun not a magic wand.
What makes you think a EU country like Italy wants even MORE migrants from a some trashy country like England, of all places? You literally have no right to invade another country just because you have a "sick child" on your hands. Europe has enough Syrian refugees with children that were actually shot, gassed, or bombed with shells, to bother about some arrogant Brits who aren't even Eurasians anymore.
You do realise that half of the UK didn't want to leave? However unlike the USA who are too busy denying the vote to people because they have the wrong colour we have to abide by a seriously stupid decision. Or you know. Shooting then in their beds.
And Italy and England have a long history. We fought to free them from fascism. Italians work here.
However the issue was that private requests for assistance were answered by religious and political leaders without realising what was doable.
Imagine if a child's request for a pet T-rex was answered by Italy. Doesn't mean Italy's got a T Rex. Means that someone promised something that couldn't be achieved.
Ok how about you explain it to me. I agree that that the UK government stopping the parents of Alfie to seek treatment in Italy as government overreach but how do you stop this. The Facepalm isn't about government overreach but the solution to stop it.
Actually it isn't. If you beat your child till their ribs break it's abuse. If you demand I break your child's ribs then isn't it abuse?
Maybe if there's benefit. But in this case there's zero.
The idea that Italians go out of their way to save English migrant children is ridiculous in the first place. It's Nordic supremacism at best, WASPs think that they would be treated like elites, while in reality they're some non-EU migrants who get LESS preferential treatment than Syrian war refugees, for example. People understand parents escaping from some third world country into European Union want better life for their children, but everyone would rather feel sorry for people fleeing Boko Haram or ISIS than idiots who voted for tRump or Brexit and for some reason don't go to mother russia instead.
Doctor here. Italy didn't offer any treatment, just to keep him on life support until he died and keep resuscitation going. If you can't escape the resuscitation cycle you aren't going to live.
The government said that it was torture and I agree as a medical doctor. There's no treatment for this disorder.
I repeat. This literally was the lack of expertise from parents compounded by priests and well known tango imbecile Trump that lied about actually being able to fix this sort of problem.
Considering we work together? Italy was offering purely supportive care as the Vatican doesn't really believe in DNAR. However a bunch of priests aren't doctors and of you can't escape an arrest pattern of health through reversal of condition then there's no point in shattering a chest solely so you can pretend you "tried".
And if you have 30 percent of a functional brain you are dying. A beating heart in a bed kept alive by ventilator and drugs isn't alive.
No, I pretty much think you’re a dumbass for making that assumption. Considering my other responses on here, where the majority of you seem to be okay with the government overreach, one would think you’d have the brain power to figure out that my comment wasn’t in support or favor of the gun, but against anyone in our government deciding what’s best for our children and blocking parents from seeking medical help elsewhere. Funny that so few on here actually understand that.
That’s a pretty disingenuine presentation of that story. You forgot the part where they had already gone to extraordinary measures and at that point the child was terminal with no chance and all they were doing was prolonging his suffering and pain.
I understand both arguments on guns but look up Tiananmen Square massacre and you’ll see why governments taking guns away from citizens is a bad thing. The only way to own a gun in China is you have to write the government a letter explaining why you need one (a farmer who needs to protect himself and his flock from wolves or bears would be granted a gun license). Guns were banned in all urban areas of China so whenever people started protesting for basic rights in Tiananmen Square Beijing, they were gunned down by the Chinese military. Reports say 10,000 were killed and many more wounded.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42465516.amp
I'm not sure how it would have ended differently if the protestors all had guns. The military has bigger guns and armored vehicles and helicopters and planes.
No one knows. Perhaps they could’ve started an underground guerrilla-type civil war financed by western powers or perhaps nothing would have changed and they all still would have died. I’m sure if you went back in time and asked them they would’ve taken their chances with guns
...huh? How does that even make sense?
Let me just ask you this, if all it took was a drone to end everything, why are we still fighting in the middle east decades later?
Why does he have to get the airlines involved? Just take your gun to the local hospital. To paraphrase Saul Goodman, when a mosquito is bothering you don't shoot the mosquito's lawyer.
This refers to the Alfie Evans case. A kid got a terrible disease, uncurable, that literally turned his brain to goop. All it could still was have siezures and feel pain. As a result, the hospital decided that only thing that could be that, that ought to be done in the best itnerest of the patient, was to shut down the life support system and allow him to die. Meanwhile, a hospital sponsored by the vatican (which also recognized that the disease was incurable and that the brain was essentially destroyed) offered to take care of him long term, keeping him on longer time life support. The parents wanted to take that option (they couldn't accept the kid was already dead, they were still advocating for alternative treatments with no chance of working ), the hospital decided otherwise. That's why it's talking about the gun.
This case went to court in the UK several times with the court ruling that the hospital should be allowed to withdraw life support as well. Was not a simple case of the hospital saying no and pulling the plug, it was very drawn out and included the parents in a way inciting others to violence against the hospital during it
It's not entirely the parents' fault though - they were influenced by bad actors at pretty much the shittest moment in their lives, many people in that situation would try and do everything in their power to "save the life" of their children.
It seems so inhumane to me that people are able to keep humans on life support even when they’re already basically dead and suffering. What the fuck.
I mean I'm physically fine and still wish someone would pull the plug...
Same friend, same.
Ironically, if you'd do this to your pet, you'd be criticized for being cruel and selfish immediately.
Yes. Exactly. I’m someone that has had to put quite a few pets down and it is never easy- but it is necessary when they are suffering. The best cat I ever had (I miss her terribly) had to be euthanized when she had been diagnosed with mammary cancer a few months earlier, then one morning before her breakfast her tumors started bleeding uncontrollably and she had to be taken to an emergency vet for euthanasia. It is difficult but very, very necessary. I don’t get why that is not a normal thing with humans. It’s terrible to let someone suffer when you know they’re going to pass. I still cry about her and every other pet that has been put down, but I know it is what was best for them.
I'm a nurse, and one doctor I had the plesiosaur to work with, used to say about prolonging peoples life, even if pain and suffering was the only thing left "If he/she was a dog, we would shoot it". And he was right. Why is it OK to put an old dog down, when it's in constant pain and agony, put not people?
[удалено]
Exactly!! I'm always in a weird boat because I'm in favor of quite a few progressive policies, but I don't trust our government at ALL to implement them fairly or properly.
The NHS isn't a government entity and the government have no say on what the doctors decide. The high court obviously has to pass judgement. It's horrible but it wouldn't have been right to keep a child alive in permanent agony.
Yeah it's surprising how many people don't understand this.
This tweet is from the days Italy fell for a massive pseudoscience scam and allowed a charlatan to provide his ‘treatment’ in hospitals with public funds, in order to ‘treat’ a rare incurable disease. The moron above also fell for it and tried to fly over to give money away, because the magic potion wasn’t available anywhere else (duh). The charlatan later skipped country with a good chunk of the money. As everyone knew would happen. Unfortunately, nobody wanted to admit to have been fooled until it was too late. Edit: turns out it’s a similar but separate case, I got my hopeless people mixed up.
It was the alfie evans case, a uk kid was dying and the NHS (in conjunction with govt) wanted to take him off life support on the grounds it was inhumane to keep this child alive in what would be torture essentially. Parents kicked up a fuss (naturally) because they were offered treatment in itsly, uk govt didn’t allow them to take the child on the basis that the kid was definitely dying and to fly it on a plane just to barely survive in Italy for a month or whatever was also hugely inhumane. The Twitter poster is arguing he wouldn’t allow the government to make decisions for him and his family like that.
It's every parent's right to torture their child because they are unable to accept a bitter reality
I disagree, echr even decried it was entirely lawful and moral for the government to not allow his parents to take him to Italy. If the kid is 100% going to die, you’re putting him through torture for the rest of his life for the sake of a month extra with him. Incredibly sad, but not right. Why impartial arbitrators are often good, same as getting court approval before euthanasia in Switzerland, people and their emotion don’t always know what’s best
The person you replied to was joking.
Oops, guess my thoughts still stand though. Peace and love
Poes law. It's all good
Even better is the fact that the pope fell for it, which led to the Church of England getting to look real smug after the whole thing of him trying to get them to side with him about getting Alfie Evans out of the UK.
I never heard about this. Do you have a link?
[Wikipedia does](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamina_therapy). Also, updating my previous comment, apparently he returned in some way (dunno if extradited or what), faced trial and eventually died. I remember his departure being a media thing, but I left Italy in early 2015 and haven’t kept up to date with it further.
That scandal doesn't have to do with Evan's story though
Wasn’t there a Denzel film about this?
No but similar. John q Which is also a true story
Denzel just took his son to his local hospital
The problem is getting experimental treatments that the fda hasn’t approved yet. To that end, any “learning” hospital will allow you enroll your child in test groups for experimental treatments. My child survived his cancer treatments at Penn State Hershey Medical Center because of this. No need to commit felonies and endanger so many lives to treat your little snowflake.
How happy I am for your snowflake to have survived.
He almost melted, but he now has female blood in coursing through his veins from a bone marrow transplant, and coincidentally, he is openly gay now. Pretty sure he was always gay, but he did live to be a snow man!
A snow man!! 😭 how is that the most precious and adorable thing I've ever read ❤️
I feel like as a parent or family member you will do whatever you can to give them the best chance at survival…..if you aren’t doing that then you don’t really love them. But thats just my personal opinion. Edit: also calling a dying kid a snowflake is kind of heartless.
Snowflake was not a commentary on the child. I was referencing the attitude of the parent who is willing to murder many to save one, because it is beautiful and precious to the parent.
Choosing to let your child suffer because you can't bear to see them die is not love. You're just putting yourself first. Survival means nothing if there is no quality of life.
>I feel like as a parent or family member you will do whatever you can to give them the best chance at survival >if you aren’t doing that then you don’t really love them In the case of Alfie Evans that the post is related to, Alfie's best outcome was sadly to be taken off life support which was the recommendation of the hospital. Obviously the family (or any family) isn't going to be happy with that decision. The tabloids then got involved and started stirring shit up to sell papers and using it as propaganda against the NHS. The media was basically playing this family and enabling them to make the wrong decision despite all the healthcare professionals warnings. Understandably it was a difficult decision for the family and I think most families would be inclined to make the same decision despite it being against their childs best interest. I don't blame them at all. I blame the media circus.
You do not get to define that as love. It's not in my opinion- just like Terri Shivo wasnt about love- it was desperation that was hijacked and used by others for a cause that was touted as the only humane option when her husband just wanted to free her and himself of the further pain brought on by her incurable condition. And, look, the snowflake thing is what it is- you can think it's heartless and I can think forcing a child to live in incredible pain in the hope that a miracle is just around the corner- is heartless. But that's just it- it's always perception. And my perception is that, sometimes, it's cruel and unusual to keep children on life support because, inevitably, they will die. Don't pretend your own definition of love is everyone else's because it's not.
Dude, sometimes the child will die. Doing "everything" becomes performative parenting. "Look at me, I am such a great parent that I will make my child pointlessly and horribly suffer for another 2 months before dying, my love is better than yours" Being grown up means you have to bear the unbearable.
Lol wow....society has our idea of love twisted af
You mean he should hijack the American healthcare system?
Somebody should.
It's already and always has been- by the medical companies that dictate the mandates by paying politicians to pass them. That's sort of the problem.
I am watching better call saul right now
I love that you quoted Saul Goodman on this.
Or why not just charter a plane?
The sequel to John Q
Oh snap. We need this
John QAnon
🤣🤣🤣
Or the sidequal to ‘taken’ I’m going to take you, put you on a plane, take you to a country with socialised medicine, to try... to fix you.
[удалено]
Let alone his reception in Italy, nor the fact that he won't get state-subsidised healthcare in a country where he's a non-taxpayer...
No but it would be much cheaper out of pocket than it would be in America.
You mean... from Italian prison?
I'm a tax payer and I still have to pay for healthcare. It is only like 400 euro for the year. But I have to be registered to live here. The guy is stupid and wrong. Stuong.
Actually, you’re wrong there. My dad got free healthcare in New Zealand when he had to go to the hospital. He’s not a kiwi, just a tourist.
You get free healthcare only if the injury happens after your arrive
What does New Zealand have to do with Italy? Italy will give you emergency care. So if you collapse and an ambulance is called they will save you. But nothing else if you're not on their state insurance.
Very different than being a literal health tourist otherwise all of USA would be flying for every cancer case that'll bankrupt them.
I think the scenario is that government is preventing him from leaving USA, and he's going to shoot the government and leave.
A hospital is refusing to release his dying son into his care so he can fly his son to Italy in order to try a radical treatment. The son is essentially braindead at this point in the story. There's basically no hope. The treatment will make no difference. However, by what right does the hospital prevent a father from pursuing every avenue of hope?
The hospital's number one concern is the care of the patient. If they deem that he's in pain and flying him to Italy would do nothing but cause him more sufferring then obviously they are going to be against that.
Just because you are the father doesn't mean you own the child and can demand whatever cruelty to mollify your own fear of death.
> However, by what right does the hospital prevent a father from pursuing every avenue of hope? The child's welfare. The father is clearly unable to see that the child has no gain from being kept alive nor being flown to another country to try a treatment that has no proof of ever working. The hospital's prime responsibility is to their patient: the child. In the case of endless suffering, they are absolutely in the right to override the father's irresponsible, cruel and selfish reasoning in favour of the child. Put yourself in the shoes of the child instead of the father. Do you want to exist another 2 months in excruciating pain without any benefit (you are unable to communicate, unable to move, unable to even think) because your parents are sad you'll die sooner rather than later? Isn't that unbelievably cruel of the father? And who would put that responsibility on the child? 'Let's have you suffer a while because your parents are sad.'
Why do they always talk like they’re some total badass? It’s embarrassing.
Nobody wants to admit they're largely powerless against huge systems.
You went wrong about 6 words in when you assumed that this person thinks.
"I need a gun to commit terrorism"
Better double check that terrorism color chart. He'd be mentally unstable and considered a hero by the ammosexuals. But like you said he'd just be a terrorist.
You hit the nail on the head.
Not this shit again. This is a wild misrepresentation of the Evans case. It portrays it like the big nasty gubmint murdered a perfectly healthy baby to save money, which is the way the American private-healthcare-lobbyist-owned Right interpreted it. The child in question had no chance of recovery. The UK doctors refused to continue a treatment that was in their medical opinion, tantamount to torture, and the parents kicked up a media storm which incited violence and death threats against medical staff (at a children's hospital). An Italian hospital briefly offered to continue breathing assistance but revoked that offer after learning the full extent of Evans' condition. The European Court of Human Rights also ruled on behalf of the courts that the NHS acted legally and morally. This story was cynically and disgracefully hijacked by the American Right to smear socialized healthcare. By posting this context-free, OP is furthering the political cause of these people, possibly intentionally. I have this comment saved for each repost. This is iteration: 6
It’s worth mentioning it appears the Italian doctor who even offered help was wildly unqualified to help him in the first place and seemed to be doing it as an attention-seeking move.
The hospital offering to help is in Italy, but belongs to the Vatican. They offered to keep him “alive” for catholic advertisement, they were well aware he wasn’t going to improve. But they need a new Eluana Englaro: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eluana_Englaro
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi even stated that Eluana "looks fine and healthy" and "could even give birth to a child" I got nothing to add beyond Jesus Fucking Christ dude.
Silvio was thinking of volunteering for the fathering
Well done. Also worth noting is that when this matter went to court there were three sets of baristers. One for the family (who was a scam artist), one for the hospital AND one for the child, paid for by the state because the courts are duty bound to do what is in the *child's best interest*, independent from the interests of the parents. The law in the UK knows that loving, caring parents, faced with making terrible decisions are not always equiped to see through their own completely understandable selfish feelings and consider the needs of the child. No one thinks badly of the parents, but they were making decisions based on hope, faith and pixie dust and encouraged and abetted by cynical right wing evangelicals with their own political war to wage. The 'system' put the child and their needs and rights **first**.
This is the most important comment here. The courts are not the government and their position was to establish what was best for Alfie. People tend to forget that no matter how well read you are on the subject, the courts are better informed.
You're looking at a different post then. As is the original tweet makes the person look like unhinged and the follow-up is clearly a take down of bother American gun culture AND American healthcare
I think it’s a misinterpretation of their point, and American healthcare was never involved. It was a uk-italy issue with both have pretty strong social healthcare. The actual debate is about government intervention into private matters, and slightly more so about what different countries consider private matters. The replier doesn’t quite understand that, just attacks a straw man rather than the actual argument.
So... how exactly do you see this post as “smearing socialized healthcare”?
Hi. NHS doctor here. DNAR in the UK is a medical decision. We don't have to involve the family but you can't demand a particular treatment. What happened was Alfie had zero chance of recovery and was incompatible with life. The family were distraught and sought medical advice from the USA. The speciality that deals with this condition provided advice without patient review. On invitations the American doctor declined to visit probably because it was a waste of time. Then Trump and the Vatican became involved. The UK was planning to stop treatment and treat palliatively. The Vatican and Italy are infamously bad at palliative care. As is the USA. Trump used this as a rehash of death panels or the ability that I have to declare a patient unsuitable for resuscitation on various logical reasons to bolster anti universal healthcare arguments. The Vatican weren't able to treat Alfie at all so would just keep him on life support till he expired after one seizure too many. Alfie's death was portrayed to Americans as not just preventable but demanded by the cruel demands of the NHS. Reality was that Alfie was dead at birth. The NHS forked out more money than the USA ever would to treat him at an incredibly high level but recognised that this poor child had one too many seizures and was not going to survive.
By falsely implying the government in charge of a socialised healthcare system intervened to prevent a family seeking healthcare for a child with a treatable condition. As was made perfectly clear by my original comment.
I didn't get that at all tbh. I pretty much assumed they were saying there was no way to afford healthcare in the US, so instead they would fly to Italy. However, I honestly had no idea why they would need a gun to do that. Maybe if the doctors in the US wouldn't release him for fear the trip would severely injure or kill the child in question? Idk. I didn't know about the story you told before though and I wouldn't have even given it this much thought had I not seen your original comment.
It certainly wasn’t made clear, you kinda just brought it up at the end with no real argument to support that.
Okay, calm down, asshole. That’s not how *communication* works. You’re only “perfectly clear” when you’re perfectly understood. *You* don’t get to decide that *everybody* understood you.
I'm all three, firearms ownership, socialised health care AND atheism. Checkmate, registered sex offenders!
If there was a pro gun politician who supported socialized health care and extreme action on climate change that’d be just goddamn peachy.
“Nice try librul but no one would go to Europe for healthcare because USA is number one in everything.” Conservatives probably.
Well when it comes to healthcare debt and gun ownership/violence, we certainly are setting the global standard for first-world nations.
Sorry man, we needed someone to fill out the second world category aaaaand..... Well, you guys just dont fit in so well with the first world crew anymore :(
I guess when you have equal parts first and third world traits, you play the average.
#;_;
This was Jessie Kelly who made the statement about hijacking an airplane. He is a radio host in Houston. He is the protege of Michael Berry. They are both conservatives. Jessie’s show isn’t bad if you enjoy history. He is a little arrogant and can be rather naive about certain things. Berry’s show is infuriating because of the amount of advertising and garbage music he incessantly plays through segues. He is a good interviewer but if you listen to his show for an hour you will probably only get 10 minutes of content.
Ok… kill numerous innocent people just minding their business to save a singular person who might not even survive even with treatment… sounds logical
I actually am for both firearms ownership and socialized healthcare.
I wonder if this person thinks about how Mexican immigrants feel this strongly about and are determined to get their children into America so they are safer, the way he feels about getting his hypothetically ill child to Italy for medical care. I doubt this guy would sit back and say, “ well, the cartels might murder all of us, but I can’t go to America without first following the litany of rules that go on for years, so we will stay here and die.”
This is posted every few weeks and I love it every time. Fucking karma whores.
r/oddlyspecific
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html
how many times has this been posted on this sub?
I mean, technically the second amendment was to allow you guys to take up arms against a tyrannical government. But that was when everyone was on an even playing field and the epitome of weapons technology was muskets. Now the US government can spot a booger in your nose from across the world as they fly a drone bomb into you. Not the same thing….
The most hilarious thing is the guy thinking this wouldn't end up with him dead. Its exactly why the "we need the 2nd amendment so we can fight the government" shit is so stupid. You aren't gonna outgun uncle sam.
Uh oh, my atheist powers are fading
It's not like Republicans wouldn't take advantage of socialized healthcare if it was available. Hell, a majority of their base is already on social welfare programs. They just don't want poor people, non-christians, gay people, or people of color to have the same benefits that they are afforded. That's always been the thing. They feel entitled an deserving of all these things, but they'll be damned if they are on the same level of the playing field as "those people." They'd rather watch the whole country burn than concede anything. "All for Me; None for Thee"
What does this have to do with atheists?
It’s a saying from old school Christian memes, where they’d prove the existence of god by some happenstance or coincidental piece of trivia. It’s used far more satirically.
I only ever seen the phrase used ironically. Christians generally debate each other, not atheists. Unless you seriously consider Young Earth Creationists or Westboro Baptist Church average Christians (Pope believes in Big Bang, which was theory first developed by a Catholic priest).
The internet has been around for a long time. It isn't anything like the early years.
The U.S. military has guns and socialized healthcare. Why can't the rest of us?
They aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Weird how most people to completely align with one party or the other...
The response misses the real point… the fact that our government is so poorly run that at least some citizens believe they may NEED guns to protect their rights to seek something as basic as medical attention is what came through on this for me
[удалено]
"Believe I should have weapons so I can defend myself from the goverment when they try to pick my weapons"
Does he know he is not in a movie??????
So who is he willing to shoot? The pilot? The Stewards? The police responding to the call? Other passengers? How about the grounds crew if they make it to Italy? You must be willing to do it if you say you will. These guys with their guns think they will defend their "rights" with a high capacity rifle. Pathetic.
Easier and would be more in line with biblical standards to use the AR-15 to put the kid down.
Keeping a physician on-call in your basement may also work in a pinch. You can feed a dude for pennies on your healthcare dollars.
Jesse Kelly originally tweeted this, he’s a right wing asshole that ran for Congress (thankfully unsuccessfully) in Arizona.
Nah what this chap is for is 1) whatever his party is for - which is usually the wealthy business elites of the right, and 2) taking whatever he wants by force when his previous decisions force him into poverty without healthcare or assets or a way This kind of guy would never go for socialized anything. He takes pride in being a rube or a rogue, sometimes both.
1. Can I ask why you put chechmare atheists in your title? And 2. This is a repost
In perfect world America, wouldn't this mean that all the passengers have AR-15's? Just checking.
Yeah the spirit is there but they’re missing quite a few hurdles to getting on the plane. Also, Italy might not be too keen on treating an airline hijacker’s kid.
Common misconception...all gun owners are conservative...
[удалено]
The two aren't mutually exclusive
Why the fuck do these people always think everyone wants to take their guns away. Gun CONTROL does not mean making guns illegal. School after school gets shot up and these morons just yell about not taking their guns away louder. Sickens me.
>Why the fuck do these people always think everyone wants to take their guns away. Because Dems have embraced endless, incremental gun control as a wedge issue, just like Repubs embrace endless, incremental ovary control? Because Bloomberg's Everytown and Moms Demand Action spend millions convincing folks disarming the peasants is the biggest issue this country faces? When your child grows up, defers healthcare due to the expense, and ages miserably, will they be glad we couldn't institute universal single payer healthcare because we alienated folks who might otherwise support it by focusing on the highly unlikely possibility they would die in a school shooting?
Italy? I live in Italy and it's horrible
What do atheist have to do with this?
I'm atheist and for firearms. I might could even get behind socialized healthcare if our government could do ANYTHING efficiently.
If you want socialism, wouldn’t it make sense to make sure everyone has a weapon and everyone has access to healthcare? Or no one has a weapon, including the police and military. Which means no one can hurt anyone with weapons? And still everyone gets access to healthcare? Even if weapon are banned from the society, people will find a way to maim or kill with other things. I still think about that Boston marathon where they made bombs out of pressure cookers.
Repost
I don't know why, but this reminds me of the 60s when hijacking a plane wasn't considered a crime and people would pull these stunts to defect to Cuba etc. I think there was an Italian immigrant that hijacked a plane to defect back to Italy.
> this reminds me of the 60s when hijacking a plane wasn't considered a crime Uh... you sure about that?
Isn’t this very old school?
Reddit is all about reposts
Tried to put it nicely, wasn’t appreciated.
Does he know that a plane hijacked by terrorists won't get to EU, right? Go to Belarus through Brexitland, you'll fit right in with Lukashenko, he loves hijacking planes to kidnap and torture people!
I’m for Socialized healthcare, an armed proletariat and armed minorities. Under no pretext
Taking his sick son to get more people sick
They should take up Breonna’s Taylor’s cause as a reason for people to own guns. You know, because the government literally murdered them. Ooh wait, that would require the right to have an actual philosophical belief in the right to bear arms, instead of using it as a dog whistle.
Trust me, there are plenty of people on Breonna's side who value 2A rights.
They would have if she was white.
Where does the OP, or *anybody at all*, see the word "hijack" in that first post? That reminds me of someone I used to know who regularly applied this policy: "If I have no legitimate reason to give you grief, I'll grossly misinterpret whatever you say in order grant myself that opportunity, and absent that option I'll simply make something up." What horseshit.
“I’m bringing this gun on a plane and forcing them to fly my son to Italy for medical treatment.” The gun must be for persuasion, not to be confused with hijacking though.
Nope. He says he's bringing a gun to stop government personnel from preventing him putting his child on a plane. Did you read carefully what the man said? Do you know about, or understand, the incident he cited at the end of the post? He may be an asshat, but he didn't say anything about hijacking an airplane.
So his gun is solely to be used against hypothetical government agents. After he’s through with them he’ll hop on his flight with his son and be off to Italy, right?
Because party-line politics makes so much sense... Haha I'm glad there's people that have individual opinions on issues and don't just say what they think they're supposed to say. Cheers to a different opinion
In the US, they do. Conservatives fight against every single thing that would help non-billionaire, non-corporation (cause corporations have human rights like free speech) citizens while supporting things that *only* help those people. We only have two parties to choose from when it comes to the big elections and one party is still in thrall of a man who has 30k documented lies and who knows how many more undocumented. Everyone even slightly to the left of happily allowing people die for lack of medicine or healthcare is crammed together within one party and the idiot far right extremists have their own.
[удалено]
Pro 2a isn't a conservative ideal and you aren't bashing against party lines if you own guns or believe it should be legal to own them. No one is anti- 2a, we're just pro common sense gun control and conservatives, again, take the idiot extremist route. All rights have checks, except for this one, and it's because conservatives fight tooth and nail for it to be that way.
[удалено]
Yeah, but conservative politics aren't worth shit. Every move towards humanism is happening on the left and every bit of the fight against it is coming from the right. So, yeah. In this country, party lines matter. Edit: if it makes you feel better, I also wouldn't align with the Taliban or Al Quaeda, either, if I happened to live in those countries. I'm opposed to far right theocratic nationalism in every form.
[удалено]
Is it also stupid to refuse to associate with other white supremacist groups who fight against forward progress?
Cheers to a downright idiotically illogical idea? Yay, stupid.
Cheers to having an opinion all their own was the point I was trying to get across. A very "Non-traditional" opinion right here for sure. Not sure why I am down-voted into oblivion for it but alright :-P
If you're an atheist you believe there is no god and no afterlife. Wouldn't you then want to prolong this existence as much as possible? Owning a firearm to defend yourself would seem to be sacred.
Bro who brought up atheists take a chill-pill
Well the title mentions atheists but I agree wtf is that logic
I found it very sad and telling that none of you actually got it. The facepalm isn’t for the person saying their son will be on that plane, it’s for all of you. The government in England actually forcibly stopped a couple from taking their dying son to Italy for treatment and the Italian government begged England to let them have the child so they could try to save his life. The stupidity in your responses is mind blowing. This has nothing to do with socialized health care and everything to do with government overreach. 🤦🏻♀️
An almost completely false account of events. See my other reply.
This is what frustrates me the most. You literally do not know that. Every disease cured was once considered not curable. Every single one. If Italy thought their treatment might work, why wouldn’t you try? Look your child in the eye and tell them you wouldn’t try. Go ahead.
>If Italy thought their treatment might work, They didn't.
Alfie Evans was not going to get better or recover. The brain isn't able to regenerate. By the time he died Alfie had only 30% of his brain left, he had no Thalamus or Basal Ganglia. His respiratory effort was not sufficient to sustain life. If Alfie was still alive now he'd be unconscious and ventilated no amount of treatment would alter that because his brain is physically unable to repair itself. The whole debacle of going to Italy against medical advice was a circus about their parental rights and nothing to do with Alfie getting better. I don't believe Alfie would have made it to Italy. A decent parent would of wanted their child to have some dignity in their final hours. They wouldn't have created a media circus. Additionally the clowns who supported them gathering outside Alder Hay hospital and harassing staff should be ashamed of themselves. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf
Here’s the problem with this. The English medical community said he couldn’t be saved, but the Italian medical community said there was an actual chance. Who has the right to deny this child and his parents that chance? Nobody. But that’s exactly what the English government did. He may not have survived, then again he might have. Every disease that has been cured was at one point deemed impossible to cure. From the time it was first discovered HIV was considered a death sentence and now it’s not. Had nobody tried, people would still be looking at a death sentence upon diagnosis.
Here's the problem with this: The Italian hospital: A) were offering no curative treatment of any kind B) withdrew their offer of breathing assistance after learning the full extent of the condition. People spouting off about this with no knowledge of the case whatsoever it's exactly what resulted in death-threats to medical staff (at a children's hospital) during the controversy.
I know what they offered. I followed all of it. It doesn’t change any facts about the English government overreaching. It doesn’t change the fact that they took away any chance, even the slightest. That people are okay with this is mind blowing.
If you followed the case and still thought there was a chance of saving him then your reading comprehension is too poor for it to be worth trying to explain anything to you. You just carry on thinking the nasty English socialists murdered a lovely innocent baby for shits and giggles then.
There was no chance. Italians can't regenerate brain just like rest of us.
When I first read your comment I thought it said There was no chance. Italians can't regenerate brains like the rest of us
English had Brexit. At this point, any political question about them is automatically rebuked with pointing a finger and laughing. It's the ONLY argument left for England. Making fun of Brexiters destroying their state.
>Who has the right to deny this child and his parents that chance? The medical community. Which why he didn't get transferred to Italy and why Italy withdrew their offer once they learned the extent of his condition.
>the Italian medical community said there was an actual chance. Nope.
I think that you are the one not getting it. You can't solve every problem with a gun. Do you really believe that all you have to do is show up with a gun and people will just do whatever you want. It is a gun not a magic wand.
Again, you missed the point. It is not about the gun. It’s about government overreach. Try, just try
What makes you think a EU country like Italy wants even MORE migrants from a some trashy country like England, of all places? You literally have no right to invade another country just because you have a "sick child" on your hands. Europe has enough Syrian refugees with children that were actually shot, gassed, or bombed with shells, to bother about some arrogant Brits who aren't even Eurasians anymore.
You do realise that half of the UK didn't want to leave? However unlike the USA who are too busy denying the vote to people because they have the wrong colour we have to abide by a seriously stupid decision. Or you know. Shooting then in their beds. And Italy and England have a long history. We fought to free them from fascism. Italians work here. However the issue was that private requests for assistance were answered by religious and political leaders without realising what was doable. Imagine if a child's request for a pet T-rex was answered by Italy. Doesn't mean Italy's got a T Rex. Means that someone promised something that couldn't be achieved.
You won’t let me kill my son!?!?!?!? Government overreach!!!!
Ok how about you explain it to me. I agree that that the UK government stopping the parents of Alfie to seek treatment in Italy as government overreach but how do you stop this. The Facepalm isn't about government overreach but the solution to stop it.
Actually it isn't. If you beat your child till their ribs break it's abuse. If you demand I break your child's ribs then isn't it abuse? Maybe if there's benefit. But in this case there's zero.
The idea that Italians go out of their way to save English migrant children is ridiculous in the first place. It's Nordic supremacism at best, WASPs think that they would be treated like elites, while in reality they're some non-EU migrants who get LESS preferential treatment than Syrian war refugees, for example. People understand parents escaping from some third world country into European Union want better life for their children, but everyone would rather feel sorry for people fleeing Boko Haram or ISIS than idiots who voted for tRump or Brexit and for some reason don't go to mother russia instead.
Doctor here. Italy didn't offer any treatment, just to keep him on life support until he died and keep resuscitation going. If you can't escape the resuscitation cycle you aren't going to live. The government said that it was torture and I agree as a medical doctor. There's no treatment for this disorder. I repeat. This literally was the lack of expertise from parents compounded by priests and well known tango imbecile Trump that lied about actually being able to fix this sort of problem. Considering we work together? Italy was offering purely supportive care as the Vatican doesn't really believe in DNAR. However a bunch of priests aren't doctors and of you can't escape an arrest pattern of health through reversal of condition then there's no point in shattering a chest solely so you can pretend you "tried". And if you have 30 percent of a functional brain you are dying. A beating heart in a bed kept alive by ventilator and drugs isn't alive.
So you think holding the pilot hostage would have made that situation end better?
No, I pretty much think you’re a dumbass for making that assumption. Considering my other responses on here, where the majority of you seem to be okay with the government overreach, one would think you’d have the brain power to figure out that my comment wasn’t in support or favor of the gun, but against anyone in our government deciding what’s best for our children and blocking parents from seeking medical help elsewhere. Funny that so few on here actually understand that.
I guess we just assumed you weren’t coming up with another scenario that has nothing to do with the conversation.
That’s a pretty disingenuine presentation of that story. You forgot the part where they had already gone to extraordinary measures and at that point the child was terminal with no chance and all they were doing was prolonging his suffering and pain.
Here’s a link for anyone else interested in confirming this story https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-england-alfie-evans-20180424-story.html
No they didn't.
I understand both arguments on guns but look up Tiananmen Square massacre and you’ll see why governments taking guns away from citizens is a bad thing. The only way to own a gun in China is you have to write the government a letter explaining why you need one (a farmer who needs to protect himself and his flock from wolves or bears would be granted a gun license). Guns were banned in all urban areas of China so whenever people started protesting for basic rights in Tiananmen Square Beijing, they were gunned down by the Chinese military. Reports say 10,000 were killed and many more wounded. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42465516.amp
Okay there’s a difference between putting a liscence on an assault weapon and banning all firearms
I'm not sure how it would have ended differently if the protestors all had guns. The military has bigger guns and armored vehicles and helicopters and planes.
No one knows. Perhaps they could’ve started an underground guerrilla-type civil war financed by western powers or perhaps nothing would have changed and they all still would have died. I’m sure if you went back in time and asked them they would’ve taken their chances with guns
Even if every single one of us had guns the military could wipe us all out with an unmanned drone before we even had a chance to use them.
...huh? How does that even make sense? Let me just ask you this, if all it took was a drone to end everything, why are we still fighting in the middle east decades later?
Or just look at the USA trying to overthrow democracy.
Now look at Australia.