Proud to be English

[walshie 2,804]

This is hard reading and I respect people's various opinions. My only question is to the people who say he should be kept alive. As per my previous post, should the next person with brain damage be kept alive, and the next and the next? Work out how long it would be till whole hospitals were full of people with no chance of recovery.

Talking about a hypothetical person - "person A."

Person A has zero chance of recovery. Doctors think the machines should be switched off. The only people who want Person A kept alive are his family, so the doctors do just that, for years and years. What happens when the family themselves die? Do they switch off the machines then, or carry on when there is no-one who thinks they should?

I still believe the parents are doing this for their own ends rather than the poor little kid's.

[Born Hunter 17,763]

18 minutes ago, scothunter said:

Well if ever I take a stroke or am crippled where my quality of life is shit and im able to. im off to Switzerland to end it if im not able to do it myself, and all those pro life c**ts can go f**k themselves. Not that they would care anyway there no story or media hype in my suffering or demise.

If I can't travel to dignatas maybe if I piss off born hunter he will travel up and shoot me lol 

But that'll be your choice mate. Or the choice of the one responsible for your care in the event you are a vegetable. Question is, should the state be making that choice for you or your carer?

If I was a vegetable with no ability to communicate my reasonable opinion, does the state have the right prevent me of getting health care because they deem that dieing is the lesser evil? It's all about the balance between suffering and chance of winning the fight to life and where we draw that line.

[riohog 5,701]

3 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

But that'll be your choice mate. Or the choice of the one responsible for your care in the event you are a vegetable. Question is, should the state be making that choice for you or your carer?

If I was a vegetable with no ability to communicate my reasonable opinion, does the state have the right prevent me of getting health care because they deem that dieing is the lesser evil? It's all about the balance between suffering and chance of winning the fight to life and where we draw that line.

the point you made earlier is quite relevant    , regarding  finance  man hrs ect   im sure that plays a big part in decissions who should be given care  and to what degree 

[Kay 3,709]

Looks like the press have started to turn on the dad, in the sun its reported that he stabbed a 14 year old twice over a row about a bike & the lad who was near death as it punctured his lung but his life was ironically saved at Alder Hay , The press work in strange ways , they have been supportive of the family so far , so why rake this up now . whats there agenda ? 

[Born Hunter 17,763]

Just now, riohog said:

the point you made earlier is quite relevant    , regarding  finance  man hrs ect   im sure that plays a big part in decissions who should be given care  and to what degree 

Of course. No one likes to talk about it but it is an inescapable reality. There's two aspect to that though, economic and moral.

The economic cost has to be balanced against whether that money is being spent doing the most good i.e. is the money being wasted on a probable lost cause at the expense of other causes with much better chance of success. That's an NHS decision.

The moral cost is in suffering vs. chance of survival i.e. at what point does the weight of suffering become too higher cost to pay for the chance to life? That decision is being made by the state here which is the crux of all this really.

[riohog 5,701]

3 minutes ago, Kay said:

Looks like the press have started to turn on the dad, in the sun its reported that he stabbed a 14 year old twice over a row about a bike & the lad who was near death as it punctured his lung but his life was ironically saved at Alder Hay , The press work in strange ways , they have been supportive of the family so far , so why rake this up now . whats there agenda ? 

kay it justifies there job  to rake up sh.. in this fkd up world we are now living in 

[WILF 46,787]

40 minutes ago, riohog said:

the child did not comit a henous crime the pedo did ,he made a choice to commit that crime the pedo knew the consiquences  ..

Point is, your government says one is barbaric and one isn’t.......how f****d is that.

[riohog 5,701]

5 minutes ago, WILF said:

Point is, your government says one is barbaric and one isn’t.......how f****d is that.

the looneys are running the asylum   pal  

[WILF 46,787]

49 minutes ago, scothunter said:

Well if ever I take a stroke or am crippled where my quality of life is shit and im able to. im off to Switzerland to end it if im not able to do it myself, and all those pro life c**ts can go f**k themselves. Not that they would care anyway there no story or media hype in my suffering or demise.

If I can't travel to dignatas maybe if I piss off born hunter he will travel up and shoot me lol 

As Born Hunter pointed out much more eloquently than I ever could, what if the state wasn’t asking you if you want to die they were just telling you that you must and your nearest and dearest don’t get a say? 

[South hams hunter 8,921]

31 minutes ago, walshie said:

This is hard reading and I respect people's various opinions. My only question is to the people who say he should be kept alive. As per my previous post, should the next person with brain damage be kept alive, and the next and the next? Work out how long it would be till whole hospitals were full of people with no chance of recovery.

Talking about a hypothetical person - "person A."

Person A has zero chance of recovery. Doctors think the machines should be switched off. The only people who want Person A kept alive are his family, so the doctors do just that, for years and years. What happens when the family themselves die? Do they switch off the machines then, or carry on when there is no-one who thinks they should?

I still believe the parents are doing this for their own ends rather than the poor little kid's.

Course they are walshie... my misses was a carer before she had the kids and the amount of bed bound vegetables that couldn' do anything was unreal. Did they have any quality of life? No and where kept alive purely for the families

[riohog 5,701]

4 minutes ago, WILF said:

As Born Hunter pointed out much more eloquently than I ever could, what if the state wasn’t asking you if you want to die they were just telling you that you must and your nearest and dearest don’t get a say? 

lol that may come  but at the moment they are to bust with the windrush affair    !!

[WILF 46,787]

1 minute ago, riohog said:

lol that may come  but at the moment they are to bust with the windrush affair    !!

I wonder if they have done a benefit to cost calculation on any of that ?  

[WILF 46,787]

4 minutes ago, South hams hunter said:

Course they are walshie... my misses was a carer before she had the kids and the amount of bed bound vegetables that couldn' do anything was unreal. Did they have any quality of life? No and where kept alive purely for the families

So the state should have power to kill them ? 

[riohog 5,701]

3 minutes ago, WILF said:

I wonder if they have done a benefit to cost calculation on any of that ?  

lol ask ms  amber rudd   before she goes    ..haaaaaaaaaaa  you know how it works wilf , sack the sh.t house cleaner    thatll solve the problem  

[WILF 46,787]

While we are letting the government happily cut about killing private citizens we can all forget about it and celebrate Stephen Lawrence day.......that will take our mind off things.

f**k me, it’s like The Stepford Wives !