bahmer

Horror: Real Reason UK Won’t Let Alfie Go to Italy Is Bone Chilling
BY BENJAMIN ARIE
APRIL 25, 2018 AT 6:53PM

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” That warning about an overly powerful bureaucracy was uttered by Ronald Reagan in 1986, but it has become all too real in 2018.

Across the Atlantic in the United Kingdom, the British healthcare system has decided to “help” a young boy by forcing him to die.

Two-year-old Alfie Evans has a mysterious illness that has left him in a coma for over a year. He has been on life support at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool since December 2016. Despite the dire predictions of medical experts, the boy has fought for life, although his improvement is at best a long shot.

Long shot or not, the boy’s parents have decided that he has a right to life, and deserves a fighting chance.

Shockingly, the National Health Service and the British courts disagree. Not only have they ordered Alfie’s treatment and life support to end, but they are also blocking the parents from seeking help elsewhere.

“As of the time of this publication, Alfie was forcibly removed from his breathing devices but continues to breathe on his own,” explained Kira Davis for RedState.

“The NHS and the courts would not even allow Alfie to go home with his parents, and when the nation of Italy offered to fly him to a Rome hospital for experimental treatment (at their own expense) the courts told Alfie’s parents they would not be allowed to leave the country,” she continued.

In a blistering editorial piece, Davis pointed out that it’s an unfortunate reality of socialized healthcare that the government has decided to pull the plug on the young child. To them, he’s simply too expensive.

Do you believe Britain has put protecting its socialized health system over the life of this boy?

Yes No
Continue with Facebook
-- or --

Enter your email
SUBMIT
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
“When the bottom line is measured in dollars rather than lives, the risk a society takes is illustrated in cases like Alfie’s,” Davis pointed out. “The NHS simply cannot afford the extremely expensive prospect of keeping alive a little boy who most likely will not live much longer due to an incurable condition.”

“It’s cruel, but logical…the inevitable result of a single-payer system,” she continued.

The real horror, Kira Davis went on to explain, is the realization of why the British government won’t even release Alfie for treatment in another country, where charities and even the pope have offered to cover his medical expenses.

“To move Alfie out of the care of the NHS would only save them money and labor. Alfie’s parents would have one more shot at rescuing his life. It seems like a win-win for everyone,” Davis wrote. “And still, the courts have barred the family from leaving the country.”

Why? In Davis’ view, the answer is something that is almost Orwellian.

RELATED: H**eful Fresno Prof Literally Blaming Her Troubles on R****m

“Some years ago I watched a documentary on the design and building of the Berlin Wall between East Germany and West Germany,” she explained. As history buffs know, the infamous wall wasn’t there to keep people out. It was meant to keep people in, to prevent desperate Germans on the c*******t side from escape their living hell.

“How can a socialist system work without the cooperation of everyone? And how can you force people to participate in that socialist system when they discover that system may k**l them or their loved ones?” the journalist asked. “You build a wall.”

No, there’s no modern Berlin Wall around England, yet there is a de facto wall that is enforced by court decree.

“Just as East Germany could not tolerate the massive loss of defectors who were leaving with their training, intellect and tax dollars, Great Britain’s healthcare system cannot tolerate the defection of those who might find better healthcare somewhere else,” she pointed out.

“Sadly, Alfie – and little Charlie Gard before him – is doomed to be the sacrificial lamb at the altars of p***e and socialism.”

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

That is the glaring difference between national healthcare and universal healthcare, where the former is administered by the government, and where in the later, the government only underwrites health insurance.

I have seen many medical cases in the US go to court; Doctors and hospitals suing parents who refused treatment for a child, and children suing hospitals trying to activate the parents end-of-life declaration. What we never see here, is a court determining the expiration date of a sick child. I have never heard of a court or government agency refusing to allow a US citizen to exit the country for medical treatment, no matter how ill advised it may have been.

I'm sure a lawyer could go on for hours making a case for the UK, claiming "for the greater good" or some such crap, but no reasoning being can fathom such a thing. If there is no expense to the British Government, what the hell difference does it make to them? At they very least, they could allow the parents to do what they want - reserving the right to chant "we told you so!" if it doesn't work.

bahmer

It is like the Berlin wall it wasn't to keep people out it was to keep desperate Germans on the c*******t side from escaping their hell hole and getting free and telling the world what it was really like.