Alfie Evans and the end of the myth of the UK as a free country.

[Fisherking]

Because these acts of violence also come from strong feelings and people having the best interests of their family at heart.
You're misreading the comparison. I'm not saying the acts are comparable, I'm saying the underlying motivations may be comparable and that people in general tend to do things they themselves may think of as stupid later on when they are very emotional.
Some try to take their own lives in such moments and later regret it and thank those who saved them. I don't doubt their motives, I question the validity of their desired course of action. It might as well have just prolonged the suffering of the whole family needlessly, strained them a lot more financially and in other ways, and so on.



How many court cases were there and how did comparable cases play out in other countries?
It's irrelevant to appeal to my potential emotions because I'm talking about the logical course of action. I don't even think I'd go to court in the first place just to prolong the inevitable for two more weeks if I'd already had 18 months to say goodbye.

In the first part, this is conflation and only leads to obfuscation of the topic. But as courts have traditionally taken the emotional state of the accused into consideration as extenuating circumstances.

Child protective laws such as this were mainly crafted for the opposite circumstance. Parents who refused to treat seriously ill children as a means of safeguarding the minors, mainly for religious reasons.

These cases in the UK are the only ones I am aware of where a law is used to prevent further treatment or to exit the country. Without reading the entire law I surmise that the suits by the government are for parents refusing state medical advise. One would expect that advice and treatment to be lifesaving but here it is being used to force the parents to sit by while their child dies. It seem a perversion of the original intent.

In roughly the last 5 years the UK has extended their End of Life Pathways to cover children. It had already proved controversial with the elderly with reposts of coercion by family members and it has proved the same with children where parents also have complained of pressure and coercion. In most other countries this would be something specifically requested by the patient or next of kin. In the UK it appears to be urged or even forced upon them by some in the medical community. Hence, why we only see these cases coming from the UK.

[Pannonian]

In the first part, this is conflation and only leads to obfuscation of the topic. But as courts have traditionally taken the emotional state of the accused into consideration as extenuating circumstances.

Child protective laws such as this were mainly crafted for the opposite circumstance. Parents who refused to treat seriously ill children as a means of safeguarding the minors, mainly for religious reasons.

These cases in the UK are the only ones I am aware of where a law is used to prevent further treatment or to exit the country. Without reading the entire law I surmise that the suits by the government are for parents refusing state medical advise. One would expect that advice and treatment to be lifesaving but here it is being used to force the parents to sit by while their child dies. It seem a perversion of the original intent.

In roughly the last 5 years the UK has extended their End of Life Pathways to cover children. It had already proved controversial with the elderly with reposts of coercion by family members and it has proved the same with children where parents also have complained of pressure and coercion. In most other countries this would be something specifically requested by the patient or next of kin. In the UK it appears to be urged or even forced upon them by some in the medical community. Hence, why we only see these cases coming from the UK.

The intent of the law is already perverted by outside agencies providing ill-founded medical advice. The US with its religious base, exorbitant medical-legal industry, and the power to push its agendas, is particularly fond of providing second, third and fourth opinions that usually involve courts and extraordinary procedures, both of which divert eye-watering amounts of money to already deep pockets. The NHS wasn't designed to serve US legal minds.

[Husar]

These cases in the UK are the only ones I am aware of where a law is used to prevent further treatment or to exit the country. Without reading the entire law I surmise that the suits by the government are for parents refusing state medical advise. One would expect that advice and treatment to be lifesaving but here it is being used to force the parents to sit by while their child dies.

They would also have sat by and watched their child die in another country. One might even argue their child was already dead for quite a long time. Should the doctors have tried to keep a more or less brainless body alive until it stopped moving at age 75 if possible and if required by the parents?

In roughly the last 5 years the UK has extended their End of Life Pathways to cover children. It had already proved controversial with the elderly with reposts of coercion by family members and it has proved the same with children where parents also have complained of pressure and coercion. In most other countries this would be something specifically requested by the patient or next of kin. In the UK it appears to be urged or even forced upon them by some in the medical community. Hence, why we only see these cases coming from the UK.

That may well be a concern, but you extrapolate the "end of freedom" in the UK from that, which I just don't see, because freedom can mean a lot of things and not just the ability to do what you want provided you can pay all the private corporations you need to do it (which in itself could be called a lack of freedom for the poor).