It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:23 pm

HSC AffiliatesClick here for our affiliate link to Christianbook.comDonate to HSC





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 8677
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/24/alfie-evans-breathing-unassisted-for-nine-hours-says-father

As i read thru this i had conflicting emotions - until i read "since Dec 2016".

There is not enuf information in this particular article but from what is there i am wondering why they want to prolong this toddler's life on life support? Has he been on life support long?

Am i the only one that thinks absorbing medical staff and sources for one's own gratification (and probably NOT at their own expense), selfish? Is this child abuse?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm
Posts: 7824
I don't see any room for controversy at all.

Taking a child off life support is quite simply murder. Help breathing is no different from providing food & water. I had a friend who was on "life support" (a ventilator) for 14 years. He was a quadriplegic who visited with friends, went to the mall, enjoyed restaurants, went to college, attended sporting events & went to Church. During those years, how was he less deserving of life than I am?

How could they even THINK of depriving this child of WATER?!

Couldn't we say that *all* children exist for the gratification of their parents (if that's how we chose to see the world?) Couldn't we say that we're all "in the process of dying?"

But, I remember from my Westminster Catechism as a child "Man's Chief End is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." - we don't exist for other humans, we live by God's act and at - and for- *His* pleasure. To kill another human is a sin.

How can the state step in and order the killing of some else's child?

I don't see how anyone could look into this child's face and say, "we're now going to kill you - slowly and painfully - be depriving you of water."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-video-shows-a-lively-and-alert-alfie-evans-on-the-day-he-was-scheduled?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com

And the fact that they won't allow the family to travel to Italy - where they CAN get care - is exceptionally cruel.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:16 pm
Posts: 2223
Location: Sunshine State
Doctors are not godly. Their job is to make a diagnosis, treat it and move on to the next patient. If they can't treat it, they want the bed to go to the next patient. An empty bed means they are not wasting money. It's a business.

Here is the case of a woman who woke up 20yrs after a car accident left her in a coma. Her family put her in a nursing home. Doctors say her brain rewired itself to communicate and eventually fully wake up out of the coma. Alfie's doctors could learn something from helping Alfie's parents keep him alive. But they have no patience (pun intended).

Sara Scantlin
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarahs-story/

Video documentary
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TOWTXwM0tik

_________________
"...with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 8677
Briva wrote:
Doctors are not godly. Their job is to make a diagnosis, treat it and move on to the next patient. If they can't treat it, they want the bed to go to the next patient. An empty bed means they are not wasting money. It's a business.

Here is the case of a woman who woke up 20yrs after a car accident left her in a coma. Her family put her in a nursing home. Doctors say her brain rewired itself to communicate and eventually fully wake up out of the coma. Alfie's doctors could learn something from helping Alfie's parents keep him alive. But they have no patience (pun intended).

Sara Scantlin
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarahs-story/


Video documentary
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TOWTXwM0tik


I've watched the "Sleeping Beauty" documentary before on Sara Scantlin. I SO disagree with her parents choice but i do NOT disagree with their right to make that decision so that's a moot point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 8677
Anna1111 wrote:
I don't see any room for controversy at all.

Taking a child off life support is quite simply murder. Help breathing is no different from providing food & water. I had a friend who was on "life support" (a ventilator) for 14 years. He was a quadriplegic who visited with friends, went to the mall, enjoyed restaurants, went to college, attended sporting events & went to Church. During those years, how was he less deserving of life than I am?

How could they even THINK of depriving this child of WATER?!

Couldn't we say that *all* children exist for the gratification of their parents (if that's how we chose to see the world?) Couldn't we say that we're all "in the process of dying?"

But, I remember from my Westminster Catechism as a child "Man's Chief End is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." - we don't exist for other humans, we live by God's act and at - and for- *His* pleasure. To kill another human is a sin.

How can the state step in and order the killing of some else's child?

I don't see how anyone could look into this child's face and say, "we're now going to kill you - slowly and painfully - be depriving you of water."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-video-shows-a-lively-and-alert-alfie-evans-on-the-day-he-was-scheduled?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com

And the fact that they won't allow the family to travel to Italy - where they CAN get care - is exceptionally cruel.



>>>Taking a child off life support is quite simply murder.
<<< I don't think it's a "simple" matter at all. You can keep someone's body alive for a very long time. Is it always the right thing to do?

>>>Help breathing is no different from providing food & water.
<<< I kind of disagree with this, too. Breathing is a function we perform on our own from birth. I'm not saying it's wrong, of course, but it's not the same as food and water which must be introduced to us.


>>>I had a friend who was on "life support" (a ventilator) for 14 years. He was a quadriplegic who visited with friends, went to the mall, enjoyed restaurants, went to college, attended sporting events & went to Church. During those years, how was he less deserving of life than I am?
<<< "LIFE" "support". To support LIFE. Not to support a body without life. I know there's fine line (at least in my mind). A quadriplegic that is alive and *enjoying* life - no question at all. And NO ONE'S *life* is more deserving than anyone else's.

>>> How could they even THINK of depriving this child of WATER?!
<<< I think it's considered "natural". (I'm thinking of all the children in other, less wealthy and advanced, countries where this would never even be a consideration.)

>>> Couldn't we say that *all* children exist for the gratification of their parents (if that's how we chose to see the world?) Couldn't we say that we're all "in the process of dying?"
<<< Well, no. Not *all* children exist for the gratification of their parents but i get your drift.

>>> But, I remember from my Westminster Catechism as a child "Man's Chief End is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." - we don't exist for other humans, we live by God's act and at - and for- *His* pleasure. To kill another human is a sin.
<<< I don't think this applies to these situations. I don't see God being glorified in this and i certainly don't see how this child would be enjoying God in this state. We wouldn't keep an animal alive like this. It is considered "humane" to "let them go".

>>> How can the state step in and order the killing of some else's child?
<<< Well, THIS i agree with!!!

>>>I don't see how anyone could look into this child's face and say, "we're now going to kill you - slowly and painfully - be depriving you of water."
<<< Watching someone die and killing them is two different things. We might have been able to keep mom's body alive longer by hydrating her artificially and "feeding" her. Why? Why would you do that?

>>> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-video-shows-a-lively-and-alert-alfie-evans-on-the-day-he-was-scheduled?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com
<<< I didn't see that he was awake like that! The article said he was in a coma for over a year. I knew i didn't have the whole story. I am only bringing up the subject for discussion because of what was reported.

>>> And the fact that they won't allow the family to travel to Italy - where they CAN get care - is exceptionally cruel.
<<< It seems that there are many people willing to support this couple and this child. I can't really fathom why they are not allowed to take their child to Italy?
[/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm
Posts: 7824
Not trying to be contentious here, Sis - but,

I don't think that we need to understand why God lets a person live to glorify Him - or how that glorifies Him - in order to not interfere.

As for chances of "enjoying life" - when most folks become quadriplegics, or have some other brain injury that is severe, often there is a long period of time in which we don't ever know if they'll enjoy life like my friend did. We have to provide supportive care and let God decide that.

I really don't understand at ALL the idea of depriving a person of water - just because is an impoverished country somewhere someone ELSE is also dying of thirst.

Machines cannot "keep a person alive" when God wants them to go - it's a common misconception that that is possible. I watched my sister die on life support.

I wouldn't analogize this case to your Mom's *at all* - your Mom was terminal, and had expressed her wishes and was *able* to eat & drink. It is normal for elderly folk who are dying to get to the point where they refuse food & drink. That is very different from being unable to eat but thirsty & hungry.

I know I've encouraged it before, but "When is it Right to Die" by Joni Erickson Tada gives a great discussion of these moral issues.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 8677
[quote="Anna1111"]>>>Not trying to be contentious here, Sis - but,
<<< What did you call me?! :P LOL *I* am not trying to be contentious here, either. I want to hear the arguments for this.

>>>I don't think that we need to understand why God lets a person live to glorify Him - or how that glorifies Him - in order to not interfere.
<<< I agree we don't need to understand God. Prov 3:5 is a staple verse in our house! I don't think God is "letting" them live; i think they are *making* him "live". It is interfering to MAKE him "live", it seems to me.

>>>As for chances of "enjoying life" - when most folks become quadriplegics, or have some other brain injury that is severe, often there is a long period of time in which we don't ever know if they'll enjoy life like my friend did. We have to provide supportive care and let God decide that.
<<< That's the fine line. I do realize that it can take years of "re-wiring" and then someone will "come to". That's not the case with this child, i don't think. Not an injury, is it? And i can be clear here - *I* do NOT want to be kept alive on "life-support" if there are ANY other indications like failing organs. I will come back and haunt whoever makes that decision!


>>>I really don't understand at ALL the idea of depriving a person of water - just because is an impoverished country somewhere someone ELSE is also dying of thirst.
<<< Do you mean by mouth? Or IV? Or some other way i don't know about? I can agree to keep a person hydrated while you are keeping them alive.

>>>Machines cannot "keep a person alive" when God wants them to go - it's a common misconception that that is possible. I watched my sister die on life support.
<<< I know people can die on life support. But i also know you can keep a body alive if you have no monetary restraints. Organ transplants, blood transfusions, all kinds of stuff!

>>>I wouldn't analogize this case to your Mom's *at all* - your Mom was terminal, and had expressed her wishes and was *able* to eat & drink. It is normal for elderly folk who are dying to get to the point where they refuse food & drink. That is very different from being unable to eat but thirsty & hungry.
<<< Is this toddler not terminal? It sounded like he was. You are right about her own wishes but we do rescue those who want to die, right? She ate the day before she "went to sleep" - aka semi-comatose. I wouldn't say she could eat or drink at that point and they needed permission to stop fluids (however her veins "failed" so an IV was out).

>>> I know I've encouraged it before, but "When is it Right to Die" by Joni Erickson Tada gives a great discussion of these moral issues.
<<< I'd forgotten about that book! I'll put a hold on it at the library. :)

Perhaps my view is skewed because *I*, and all of my family as adults, have said we do not want to be kept alive in a case where finances would be drained away, quality of life would be pretty much zero, and we had no say in our care. I might feel differently if their salvation were in question!

But to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord and WHY would we deny them that amazing environment?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm
Posts: 7824
Since you said you were interested : )

ONLY God can give or truly sustain life. No matter how much money or medical science, WE cannot do that yet. No matter how many machines are involved.

As for terminal-ness of the child - well, perhaps docs would say that he is terminal. But I have a friend who was told 20 some years ago that she had 6 months to live, and she's still with us. Similarly, my cousin's parents were told he wouldn't reach the age of 18, and I think he's about 45 now. So, I simply don't trust the analysis of the medical establishment. I've seen them be wrong too many times. And, even so, if a person has 10 years to live - does that mean we should just kill them now & get it over with?

Yes, PLEASE read Joni's book! It's excellent! : )

As for the "present with the Lord" idea - with that reasoning, couldn't we equally well just drop a nuke on the whole world? :mrgreen:

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm
Posts: 7824
And, of course, the real "killer" here - if you'll pardon the pun:
The child's parents have been deprived of custody because they want him to live. He's offered citizenship and free treatment in Italy - and the parents and child are literally being held prisoner in England until the child dies. It's like something out of a bad dystopian novel.

I have NO idea how the judge or other "professionals" sleep at night, knowing that they're doing this.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Alfie - controversial.
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 8677
Anna1111 wrote:
And, of course, the real "killer" here - if you'll pardon the pun:
The child's parents have been deprived of custody because they want him to live. He's offered citizenship and free treatment in Italy - and the parents and child are literally being held prisoner in England until the child dies. It's like something out of a bad dystopian novel.

I have NO idea how the judge or other "professionals" sleep at night, knowing that they're doing this.


Even with the way *I* think - that seems absolutely absurd!!!!!!! WHY!?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Theme designed by stylerbb.net © 2008
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]