Archie is brain dead. He is flatlined, and he has been for months.
There are two problems with this;
It is not unheard of for people who have been declared brain dead to suddenly wake up. It is also not unheard of for doctors to simply be wrong and fail to detect brain activity, where activity is, in fact, occuring.
When people awake from being 'brain dead', it almost always occurs within 2-5 weeks. Archie has been out for 12.
If you ask me, he's gone and there's no fucking way he's ever waking up - and if in the millions to one possibility that he does, he will be retarded beyond recovery.
Now, open him up and look for the vax nanoparticles.
I'd seen "social media challenge" on some articles. I would have assumed it was something much more stupid than that. Hold your breath as long as you can is a dangerous challenge? I used to do that all the time at the pool when I was a kid. There has to be something else to it.
Supposing that your argument is true, and it may very well will be. It's still quite interesting that they phrase this as "being in his best interests". If he is brain-dead, and cannot even suffer, how could something possibly be in his best interests?
It's just an attempt to explain the decision. I agree it was a mistake to phrase it like that, as if the doctor had any right to decide such a thing and not his family.
That being said, if the brain stem is dead, this isn't euthanasia.
"Every day that (Archie) continues to be given life-sustaining treatment is contrary to his best interests and, so, a stay, even for a short time, is against his best interests," he added.
Even if there's nothing to be done for him, I fail to see how dying sooner rather than later is in his "best interests".
"Every day that (Archie) continues to be given life-sustaining treatment is contrary to his best interests and, so, a stay, even for a short time, is against his best interests," he added.
It's against his best interests to not be dead. Um, OK.
Anyway, legally the decision was correct. The UN has no jurisdiction over the UK. It's just that the UK's laws are messed up.
And obviously, unhinged Impy is trying to make a gender issue out of it.
Unfortunately, Archie is already dead. Modern technology is amazingly good in many ways, but the ability to sustain the life of the body long after the mind has died does not mean there is any hope of recovery. I don't think it's in the best interests of his family to string them along with the false hope that Archie is still alive.
"Every day that (Archie) continues to be given life-sustaining treatment is contrary to his best interests and, so, a stay, even for a short time, is against his best interests," he added.
I mean as shitty as healthcare standards have gotten, the kid was brain dead near enough four months ago and organ failure was starting to set in, there's no mistaking that's past the point of no return.
The "against his best interests" line is almost disgustingly trite, being kept alive isn't against anyone's best interests, but the kid was effectively long gone and keeping a corpse warm forever isn't really in anyone else's best interests.
the kid was effectively long gone and keeping a corpse warm forever isn't really in anyone else's best interests
I agree with this, and if the doctors aren't being honest about this with the family then they should lose their medical licenses. That said this is a call the family needs to make. That the family may make a retarded choice isn't a good reason to deprive them of their choice. Remember the Obamacare death panel debate? This is what the Right was worried about.
So you go around claiming that every such case was a boy, and when you were proven wrong, you said that "you hadn't heard of that case"? Whose fault is that exactly, when I found this case within 20 seconds of Googling?
RIP to the poor kids killed by the desires of my birth country's government, whatever they may be.
Wow, two shows of decency in two consecutive days? You sure you're feeling alright?
Claiming that pulling the plug is in the patient's "best interest" is silly, obviously.
That's the part of all this that seems weird.
It does seem like it's probably the best decision overall though. There's no point in keeping a brain dead vegatable alive with machines as his other organs are starting to fail one by one. It's a waste of ressources with no potential positive outcome, as far as I can tell.
Ultimately, the UN should have precisely zero influence over UK laws. Some UK laws should probably be changed, overhauled or scrapped completely, but that should be up to UK citizens and lawmakers, not some UN committee.
This is a tough one for me. Boy in my family this same age who I'm really close to, and I know I'd be insanely upset if this was him. Being that 12 year old boys can be idiots it very well could be. Still though, I think I'd feel really bad if he really was never coming back to choose clinging to mechanical life versus being willing to let go. It's a tough predicament.
In the end, it shouldn't be on the government though to decide. That's what happens with social medicine. Burden on the system. At the very least the family should have the decision themselves to decide to pool the resources necessary to keep going.
The combination of we still don't fully understand the brain and the lack of trust in the experts really makes this a tricky case.
I fully understand a parent fighting for any scrap of hope their child will get better, and that's where I'll leave it. I don't trust doctors enough to claim they are 100% right and Archie will never recover as it could just be he's only organs being kept working by a machine or could be they don't want the cost if I was being really cynical.
Amazing! I saw that older people got more points, so I thought it must be good. So they also want to let old people die?
and the title is perfectly accurate.
It really isn't, but I suppose you prefer being able to whine about ConPro downvoting you than in people actually getting to see what may be a disturbing story (though legally, the decision to reject the UN was correct).
The crisis plan was to let older men die (Sorry, I meant "use palliative care") whenever possible, but in a truly dire situation, let nearly all men die to save women.
And where did you get that "crisis plan"? 1 point isn't going to make that difference.
So it's not exactly unheard of for the UK to bring their feminist psychopathy into medicine.
You have no idea what the motivation for that was though. It looks bad, but it could have a legitimate basis. It seems like they wanted to let anyone with lower chances of surviving die. Could it be that men have a lower chance of surviving?
No wait, it must all be psychopathy and 'puppeteering' and DeSantis trying to kill you for NOW bribes, eh?
Archie is brain dead. He is flatlined, and he has been for months.
There are two problems with this;
It is not unheard of for people who have been declared brain dead to suddenly wake up. It is also not unheard of for doctors to simply be wrong and fail to detect brain activity, where activity is, in fact, occuring.
When people awake from being 'brain dead', it almost always occurs within 2-5 weeks. Archie has been out for 12.
If you ask me, he's gone and there's no fucking way he's ever waking up - and if in the millions to one possibility that he does, he will be retarded beyond recovery.
Now, open him up and look for the vax nanoparticles.
[laughs in Fauci]
Sooo, was he vaxxed?
and then what, he slipped and fell? even drowning the body WILL gasp for air at some point.
I'd seen "social media challenge" on some articles. I would have assumed it was something much more stupid than that. Hold your breath as long as you can is a dangerous challenge? I used to do that all the time at the pool when I was a kid. There has to be something else to it.
Yeah, in my uninformed judgment, that sounds very unlikely.
Supposing that your argument is true, and it may very well will be. It's still quite interesting that they phrase this as "being in his best interests". If he is brain-dead, and cannot even suffer, how could something possibly be in his best interests?
It's just an attempt to explain the decision. I agree it was a mistake to phrase it like that, as if the doctor had any right to decide such a thing and not his family.
That being said, if the brain stem is dead, this isn't euthanasia.
Even if there's nothing to be done for him, I fail to see how dying sooner rather than later is in his "best interests".
I don't care if you have strong opinions, but can you please make the thread titles descriptive?
You should have stopped there.
a title is not descriptive if I have to click through to know what the fuck happened
It's against his best interests to not be dead. Um, OK.
Anyway, legally the decision was correct. The UN has no jurisdiction over the UK. It's just that the UK's laws are messed up.
And obviously, unhinged Impy is trying to make a gender issue out of it.
I suggest you prove that this case (1) is wrong and that (2) it was motivated by his gender.
That is, if the power grid doesn't collapse due to the 90% death rate you predicted due to the vaccine.
Good luck!
Unfortunately, Archie is already dead. Modern technology is amazingly good in many ways, but the ability to sustain the life of the body long after the mind has died does not mean there is any hope of recovery. I don't think it's in the best interests of his family to string them along with the false hope that Archie is still alive.
This is why we own guns in America.
I mean as shitty as healthcare standards have gotten, the kid was brain dead near enough four months ago and organ failure was starting to set in, there's no mistaking that's past the point of no return.
The "against his best interests" line is almost disgustingly trite, being kept alive isn't against anyone's best interests, but the kid was effectively long gone and keeping a corpse warm forever isn't really in anyone else's best interests.
I agree with this, and if the doctors aren't being honest about this with the family then they should lose their medical licenses. That said this is a call the family needs to make. That the family may make a retarded choice isn't a good reason to deprive them of their choice. Remember the Obamacare death panel debate? This is what the Right was worried about.
They didn't help Terri Schiavo.
You need to be willing to use them as well. Schiavo's family wasn't. Note that I'm not expressing a view either way on the Schiavo case.
This case was literally the third Google result: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2021-06-22/ty-article/u-k-court-rules-that-orthodox-couples-daughter-must-be-taken-off-life-support/0000017f-df1d-df7c-a5ff-df7fc5de0000
Don't you feel just a bit silly?
We all know the answer to this. Feeling silly requires self awareness.
You had to go back to 2017, eh? While ignoring the case from last year - even though you falsely claimed that "every time" it was a boy.
You being silly is an understatement.
So you go around claiming that every such case was a boy, and when you were proven wrong, you said that "you hadn't heard of that case"? Whose fault is that exactly, when I found this case within 20 seconds of Googling?
Wow, two shows of decency in two consecutive days? You sure you're feeling alright?
Claiming that pulling the plug is in the patient's "best interest" is silly, obviously. That's the part of all this that seems weird.
It does seem like it's probably the best decision overall though. There's no point in keeping a brain dead vegatable alive with machines as his other organs are starting to fail one by one. It's a waste of ressources with no potential positive outcome, as far as I can tell.
Ultimately, the UN should have precisely zero influence over UK laws. Some UK laws should probably be changed, overhauled or scrapped completely, but that should be up to UK citizens and lawmakers, not some UN committee.
This is a tough one for me. Boy in my family this same age who I'm really close to, and I know I'd be insanely upset if this was him. Being that 12 year old boys can be idiots it very well could be. Still though, I think I'd feel really bad if he really was never coming back to choose clinging to mechanical life versus being willing to let go. It's a tough predicament.
In the end, it shouldn't be on the government though to decide. That's what happens with social medicine. Burden on the system. At the very least the family should have the decision themselves to decide to pool the resources necessary to keep going.
The combination of we still don't fully understand the brain and the lack of trust in the experts really makes this a tricky case.
I fully understand a parent fighting for any scrap of hope their child will get better, and that's where I'll leave it. I don't trust doctors enough to claim they are 100% right and Archie will never recover as it could just be he's only organs being kept working by a machine or could be they don't want the cost if I was being really cynical.
You're mad that women are disadvantaged when it comes to getting care for Covid? I thought you wanted them dead.
Also, I thought you learned your lesson that you shouldn't be posting utterly retarded titles.
Amazing! I saw that older people got more points, so I thought it must be good. So they also want to let old people die?
It really isn't, but I suppose you prefer being able to whine about ConPro downvoting you than in people actually getting to see what may be a disturbing story (though legally, the decision to reject the UN was correct).
And where did you get that "crisis plan"? 1 point isn't going to make that difference.
You have no idea what the motivation for that was though. It looks bad, but it could have a legitimate basis. It seems like they wanted to let anyone with lower chances of surviving die. Could it be that men have a lower chance of surviving?
No wait, it must all be psychopathy and 'puppeteering' and DeSantis trying to kill you for NOW bribes, eh?
So? What's the proof that it was based on bribes from NOW, or whatever you're claiming now, rather than for example, chances of survival?
Stop trying to make the UK government sound sensible. Obviously, if there's a high CFR, the number of women surviving is more important than men.
Is that where your brilliance comes from, like claiming that Kim Potter saw the opportunity to kill a guy?