If I tie a dog up, with no food and no water, is that a crime???? Is that cruelty?
So what if I take a baby, leave him and fail to feed him and let him die.....Am I guilty of murder?
Manslaughter?
Depraved indifference?
That is, after all, what the British National Institute of Health did to Alfie Evans.
They, after deciding he was too costly to try to keep alive, took him off of life support.
He kept breathing on his own.
So they got the courts to order that he not have food or water.
He died.
Now, from a pure dollars and cents perspective, this was the right thing.
That money could have gone to pay for many other things.
And little Alfie was't gonna ever get better. I think we all understand that.
But the British Medical folks failed him. And the Italians offered to take him in and care for him....at no cost...
The British courts, instead said he had to die. And they made it happen. And his parents were helpless to stop it. Because the State's servants had force, and were many, and the family had none, and were few.
Things like this are why we need our Second Amendment. The minions and servants of the State would not have prevented MY child from being moved to a place where he could have gotten care, even if it were simply supportive....if that was the future I chose for the child. Simply trying to stop the transport of a child to where he could get care would be grounds for injury or death. "Just Following Orders" doesn't cut it. I don't care how many folks were injured or shot in the attempt to stop me, the kid would get to where he could get care.
It is possible that letting Alfie Evans die was the most humane treatment. If so, the State should have euthanized him, not starved him to death. And, really, shouldn't that be the decision of his parents, not some faceless Bureaucrat?
So what if I take a baby, leave him and fail to feed him and let him die.....Am I guilty of murder?
Manslaughter?
Depraved indifference?
That is, after all, what the British National Institute of Health did to Alfie Evans.
They, after deciding he was too costly to try to keep alive, took him off of life support.
He kept breathing on his own.
So they got the courts to order that he not have food or water.
He died.
Now, from a pure dollars and cents perspective, this was the right thing.
That money could have gone to pay for many other things.
And little Alfie was't gonna ever get better. I think we all understand that.
But the British Medical folks failed him. And the Italians offered to take him in and care for him....at no cost...
The British courts, instead said he had to die. And they made it happen. And his parents were helpless to stop it. Because the State's servants had force, and were many, and the family had none, and were few.
Things like this are why we need our Second Amendment. The minions and servants of the State would not have prevented MY child from being moved to a place where he could have gotten care, even if it were simply supportive....if that was the future I chose for the child. Simply trying to stop the transport of a child to where he could get care would be grounds for injury or death. "Just Following Orders" doesn't cut it. I don't care how many folks were injured or shot in the attempt to stop me, the kid would get to where he could get care.
It is possible that letting Alfie Evans die was the most humane treatment. If so, the State should have euthanized him, not starved him to death. And, really, shouldn't that be the decision of his parents, not some faceless Bureaucrat?
No comments:
Post a Comment