To use Nazi Germany as a comparison is the height of ignorance.
Really, what's the difference between the UK court rulings and the Nazi policies? Both deemed the child a financial liability and unproductive member of society and euthanized them.
HUGE differences. Do you really need me to go into it? If so, I will.
Please do.
The Nazi's slaughtered some 2/3 of Europe's Jewish population.
Jews and many others were herded into concentration camps where they were effectively put to death in gas chambers, starved, or forced into inhumane "medical" experiments.
They were all deemed subhuman.
That's the short of it.
Alfie Evans, the child you are using to score political points has been gravely ill for most of his young life. Doctors, specialists and his parents have been unable to halt the progressive brain damage. MRI's a year earlier revealed 70% of his brain destroyed. More recent MRI's revealed further destruction. He was kept alive on life support and his doctors - medical specialists noted no brain activity between seizures.
His parents, understandably, do not want to accept that there is nothing that can be done for their child. British law states that in a conflict like this the courts provide an advocate that looks out for the child's best interests (and no they don't always side with the medical profession). They determined that it was time to cut off life support. Agree or disagree - brain damage of this type - which despite the best efforts of the medical profession - does not regenerate. This is hardly similar to the Nazi's and by making that claim you are slapping the real victims in the face.
This is how it always begins with progressives...with your best interests at heart.
There's no such thing as a "slippery slope fallacy" with you fuckers. You slide down the slope as fast as you can.
We only have to look to Europe to see where you progs will lead us 10 years from now.
In the US the right wing want private healthcare.
Many doctors are on the take, many hospitals are on the take, the insurance companies are on the take, and at the end of the day the rich get excellent healthcare and the poor get shitty healthcare.
The US federal govt spends MORE money per capita on healthcare than the UK govt does.
The Tories in the UK claim the UK is spending TOO MUCH on healthcare and has cut back massively in the past 8 years.
1) If the right wing would spend enough money on healthcare in the UK then the number of babies surviving child birth and their early years would rise.
Child mortality in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics
"There were 2,578 infant deaths (deaths under 1 year) in England and Wales in 2015, compared with 2,517 in 2014 and 6,141 in 1985."
It took the Tories years in power to see infant mortality rates rise again, the first time since 2006, after Labour had had to take the ashes of the NHS and turn it into a proper healthcare service after 18 years of Tory government.
2) The UK infant mortality rate is LOWER than the US infant mortality rate.
3) Infant mortality is lowest in states which seem to edge more towards the extreme. ie, the Deep South
It's not an exclusive "Republican v. Democrat" thing, because not all Republicans are interested in ******* everyone over, and not all Democrats are interested in making an amazing service, but it would seem that Louisiana, which has the highest murder rate, one of the lowest education ratings, also has one of highest infant mortality rates.
It's like playing golf. You're never going to get a hole in one every time, and if you play for a hole in one every time, you'll lose. You try and get as close to the hole as possible to give yourself an advantage.
The UK govt sometimes does this. The left wing govt, when in power, does this far more than the right wing govt.