The early version?
or the later??
Posted on 02/09/2021 2:40:41 PM PST by edwinland
1. I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
2. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.
3. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.
4. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
5. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
9. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
10. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
PRODUCE THE BODY
Habeaus Corpus
You are technically wrong.
The Courts, not the NHS, made the decision and allowed the hospital to remove life-support.
Like all such very rare cases, a Court in England & Wales will carefully consider all arguments, in what is always an “impossible” situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Freberg
No one murdered Alfie. He had an untreatable and terminal condition. The experimental treatment offered was unlikely to improve his condition, for very technical reasons. But subjecting Alfie to that treatment could have increased his discomfort, which was already high due to the terminal illness. I am certain that the court that decided against using the experimental protocols on Alfie carefully considered expert testimony before they made their decision.
As bad as the NHS is, it actually does not discard children who have a fatal disease. Look at their webpage for parents of children who have a known fatal genetic disease: Tay-Sachs disease. It looks to me like they are willing to spend quite a bit on care of children who are going to die by the age of 6.
Can the soul die?
The British National Health Service most certainly murdered Alfie Evens. Preventing someone from receiving potentially life saving or even life extending medical treatment they (or their parents) wish for them and can pay for is certainly murder.
But subjecting Alfie to that treatment could have increased his discomfort, which was already high due to the terminal illness.
Baloney. There were many palliative care options that would have been available during treatment. In addition, it was the parents' natural right to determine where and who their child should receive treatment from. Several countries had aircraft on standby to fly Alfie to children's hospitals in their countries. The NHS insisted Alfie Evans die as soon as possible in their system.
I am certain that the court that decided against using the experimental protocols on Alfie carefully considered expert testimony before they made their decision.
The court hearings were a farce and everyone who watched this tragedy unfold could see that. Even the commentators there on the pro-death side noted how fixated the judges in the case were on Alfie dying without treatment. It was a simple exercise of state power forcing a child to die in a government hospital rather than permit the child's parents to take their child to free treatment in other countries.
As bad as the NHS is, it actually does not discard children who have a fatal disease.
They dope them up and prevent their parents from taking their children elsewhere where they can receive real treatment. Despite your weak apologies, the NHS is a socialist deathtrap with some of the worst medical outcome rates anywhere in the first world.
As an aside, it is fascinating to watch people like you try to rewrite the history in this case after the fact. As someone who claims to be both an ex-Democrat and a mother, you exhibit none of the conviction of a conservative or the compassion of a parent. Pro-death people like you who would defend the use of state power to deny parents from treating their child can be neither good conservatives nor good mothers.
The experimental protocols would not have helped Alfie. They were not developed to treat the specific condition that he had. Furthermore, that protocol had never been tested in clinical studies. If I recall correctly, the only testing of that prototype drug took place in vitro, so we didn't even know what it would do in animals. I suspect that the inventor of those experimental drugs saw there an opportunity to get funding and investors.
There were many palliative care options that would have been available during treatment.
Alfie was receiving palliative care all along.
Several countries had aircraft on standby to fly Alfie to children's hospitals in their countries.
Where they would not have been able to treat his mitochondrial disorder, since no treatment specific for his disorder existed. This leads to a bigger ethical issue--is it okay to start administering experimental drugs and treatments that haven't ever been tested in clinical trials to sick children? Or to anyone else, for that matter? Taking advantage of people dealing with serious illness to test an untested drug prototype is a huge violation of research ethics. When children are involved, the ethical question becomes even more complex, since a child cannot consent to being a research subject.
They dope them up and prevent their parents from taking their children elsewhere where they can receive real treatment.
No, they don't. There is NO treatment for a child with Tay-Sacks, or for children with many other conditions. But those children do receive care, even in the NHS system.
Matthew 10:28 ESV
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Ezekiel 18:4 ESV
Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
Acts 3:23 ESV
And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’
Not according to Christian theology. Although Pope Bergoglio says it can be annihilated.
We'll never know if they would have or wouldn't have.
They were not developed to treat the specific condition that he had.
Many, if not most pharmaceuticals, were originally developed to treat diseases other than what they are presently used for.
Furthermore, that protocol had never been tested in clinical studies.
Every successful drug or treatment originally started in the same way.
If I recall correctly, the only testing of that prototype drug took place in vitro, so we didn't even know what it would do in animals.
That's not what I remember and your assertion wasn't in any of the articles I read about the topic at the time.
I suspect that the inventor of those experimental drugs saw there an opportunity to get funding and investors.
Your sad, tired arguments are the same ones that the pharmaceutical lobbyists and the government healthcare systems used against President Trump's "Right to Try" law. There is a reason that it ultimately passed overwhelming in a bipartisan fashion: people are naturally disgusted by pro-death forces like yourself.
Alfie was receiving palliative care all along.
There is absolutely no proof that treating Alfie Evans would have caused him any suffering. Not even the NHS lawyers argued that. Your claims that "treatment could have increased his discomfort" are completely hollow.
Where they would not have been able to treat his mitochondrial disorder, since no treatment specific for his disorder existed.
And if people like you and the NHS have there way, no treatments ever will.
This leads to a bigger ethical issue--is it okay to start administering experimental drugs and treatments that haven't ever been tested in clinical trials to sick children?
"Terminal" children? Yes, absolutely. Your "ethical issue" reveals your immorality.
Or to anyone else, for that matter?
Yes, of course. That is what the "Right to Try" initiative way all about. Only a death fetishist or a conscienceless accountant could oppose that.
Taking advantage of people dealing with serious illness to test an untested drug prototype is a huge violation of research ethics.
Your "research ethics" sound like a sinister of way of saving government healthcare systems from treating their patients. This is the reason why people are disgusted with your values and are passing legislation to work around you.
When children are involved, the ethical question becomes even more complex, since a child cannot consent to being a research subject.
Ha, there we have it! Yes, the PARENTS can decide. You would rather have soulless medical bureaucrats pass judgement on these children. Quislings like you who put the government's decrees over the parent's rightful role have no constructive role in society.
No, they don't. There is NO treatment for a child with Tay-Sacks, or for children with many other conditions.
Wrong. There are plenty of possible treatments. The only question is how effective they are. If it were up to people like you, no new treatment would ever be attempted.
But those children do receive care, even in the NHS system.
Dope and death are all that the NHS ever offered Alfie Evans. The only good thing the NHS ever could have done for him or any other child in his situation is let them go. They refused because that didn't want him or anyone else to have any hope beyond what the government chooses to offer.
So if “we” are a soul that merely inhabits a body and if the soul never dies, what death will we be resurrected from? And if our soul doesn’t die, then even more surely the soul of Jesus couldn’t so in what sense did he die?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.