Brain death

Sponsored Links
Praying on vulnerable desperate people and causing huge waste of NHS resources would be one view.

Christian Concern are pro life extremists.
they also think IVF is wrong



 

The main thrust is: they think that the wrong decision was made and the law needs to be changed so that under the same circumstances they should get a different outcome and faster. They still think their child could have lived and every court and hospital said otherwise.
 
Last edited:
We need to remember miracles can happen, look at the boy who was declared brain dead, whose parents were about to switch off the machines and donate his organs back in March 2021, he woke up?! You just never know?
Well the medics clearly got that wrong, and he wasn't brain dead. It wasn't a miracle, it was an error in diagnosis with a lucky outcome for the boy.
 
Sponsored Links

The main thrust is: they think that the wrong decision was made and the law needs to be changed so that under the same circumstances they should get a different outcome and faster. They still think their child could have lived and every court and hospital said otherwise.
If they don't want another family to go through this again, then they should turn their attention to the viral challenges like this and the skull cracker which are causing kids brain damage or worse.
 
They still think their child could have lived and every court and hospital said otherwise.
So could you tell us who you think ultimately has the control, or indeed should have control of your life/death or a family member's life/death?

You or your family, the doctors, or the state?

You see it's an important issue, but some always try to separate certain issues when they are in fact connected...

Why can a court decide to remove life support, and yet refuse a person the right to die?

Whilst other countries have a different approach...

Are they right, or is the UK wrong?
 
I thought you were all for anyone over the age of 60 being euthanised as a matter of course as soon as they were unable to eat soup without dribbling it? How old did you say you were?
 
So could you tell us who you think ultimately has the control, or indeed should have control of your life/death or a family member's life/death?

You or your family, the doctors, or the state?

You see it's an important issue, but some always try to separate certain issues when they are in fact connected...

Why can a court decide to remove life support, and yet refuse a person the right to die?

Whilst other countries have a different approach...

Are they right, or is the UK wrong?
Generally, the parents or legal guardian.

If the parent is doing something vastly against a child's best interests then the state can intervene and give guardianship to someone else. Normally that's applied for adoption but it also be gets applied for health matters when the parents are acting against the interests of the child.

The parents want to remove the ability of the state to intervene.
 
I think its not helpful using this term best interests of the child, though I accept this is the general language used in all the legal arguments. Once dead, there really isn't much someone can do. What we do have to consider is the best interests of the living. Those being the family and others who need the life saving resources of the NHS.

If we allow next of kin to demand life support for dead people either state funded or otherwise we end up with all sorts of problems.
 
The parents want to remove the ability of the state to intervene.
Not at all...

I believe that the parents simply want the system not to be biased towards the state...

That is why they have called for a public inquiry, as have the parents of Charlie Gard...

But would you care to tell us what happens when the state acts against a parent's wishes and it goes wrong?

That's right, the 'lessons will be learned' rhetoric will be wheeled out yet again...

And f*ck all will change !
 
I believe that the parents simply want the system not to be biased towards the state...
Some parents actually want their children dead. Someone has to intervene where ever they can.

1659978361252.png
 
Some parents actually want their children dead. Someone has to intervene where ever they can.
I guess we could go back and forth on this...

My baby was taken into care - then murdered


"Laura Corkill was prepared for the birth of her son. The baby's room was newly decorated - she had even chosen the name. Leiland-James Micheal Corkill was born by emergency Caesarean four days before Christmas at West Cumberland Hospital.
Mother and baby bonded straight away - Laura describes it as "perfect".

"I remember his big bright eyes. I was happy, full of joy. I was looking forward to bringing my baby home."

But 48 hours after he was born, Leiland-James was taken away. The midwife who had helped deliver him came to tell Laura there was a social worker at his cot about to remove him.

Laura says she went and confronted the social worker but was told paperwork had been sent to her solicitor.  "I still haven't seen any paperwork," says Laura.

Laura's world "shattered" when her son was carried away.

It was 2019, and over the following year, she would try to get him back. But just days after his first birthday, the woman - who social workers had placed him with - murdered him.

Laura Corkill has never spoken out before. She wasn't involved in the subsequent murder trial. She wasn't involved in Cumbria County Council's review into his death. She says she feels silenced."

Most parents don't want their children murdered...

And would rather the state biased system was changed!
 
I thought you were all for anyone over the age of 60 being euthanised as a matter of course as soon as they were unable to eat soup without dribbling it? How old did you say you were?

You are the one who chose to disclose that you are an old git and partial to a bottle of wine at breakfast...

Others prefer to keep personal details/habits private, so it's noyfb time again :)
 
Laura Corkill wasnt capable of looking after her children! Her last child was at risk!
 
The parents want to remove the ability of the state to intervene.

The parents are never the best placed to judge what is right or wrong, their judgement is coloured and they will always want their child kept alive. The hospital has made it clear he was brain dead, the judge in the case has ruled the same, yet they still will not just let it go. I can sympathise with the parents on the loss, but this whole thing is a ridiculous waste.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top