Save Alfie madness

[comrade spurski]

Meanwhile somewhere today a child who could have been saved will die, cos the NHS is spunking money on keeping alive a baby that is already brain dead!

There should be money for EVERYONE who needs help in the NHS ... including parents of children who are struggling to come to terms with the fact that Drs have diagnosed their son as brain dead.
Spending money on this is not "spunkng money away".

Am seriously surprised at the lack of empathy for these parents by some on here.

 

[mauvais]

Barring certain legal provisions, anyone deemed to have capacity can do whatever they want with regards to care.

Children? See above.

 

[Grump]

I would distinguish between the parents, who must be going through agony at the thought of losing their child, and those 'supporters' who turn up to scream and shout. I suspect, on admittedly little evidence, that they are involved for the emotional ride, glorying in the idea of seeing themselves as protectors of a defenceless baby. It is all part of our descent into populism, the rejection of science and 'experts' and the emphasis on 'emotion' being supreme.

 

[alan_]

Well this escalated quickly

 

[TruXta]

Children? See above.

In principle, parents and others with lasting power of attorney can refuse treatment. Of course there comes a point where safeguarding duties conflict with that power, and in those cases safeguarding concerns will generally win out.

 

[alan_]

I would distinguish between the parents, who must be going through agony at the thought of losing their child, and those 'supporters' who turn up to scream and shout. I suspect, on admittedly little evidence, that they are involved for the emotional ride, glorying in the idea of seeing themselves as protectors of a defenceless baby. It is all part of our descent into populism, the rejection of science and 'experts' and the emphasis on 'emotion' being supreme.

Or else the supporters might be thinking if I do not fight for this kid, they may snatch and kill my baby next using the guise of "science" (hyperbole deliberate)

 

[Edie]

what bad things will happen if he is transfered to rome and has his palliative care prolonged in a hospital with connections to the vatican?

This will have been very carefully considered by the treating team, and three courts. Given the options are a quick death, or prolonging death via further attempted treatment, there must be a degree of belief or at the least uncertainty around whether transferring him for further treatment will cause greater suffering.

Terrible for the parents.

 

[redsquirrel]

there must be a degree of belief or at the least uncertainty around whether transferring him for further treatment will cause greater suffering.

Must there, why hasn't that formed (or at least been mentioned as) the reasoning for the medical teams argument/judges' decision then?

 

[Edie]

Or else the supporters might be thinking if I do not fight for this kid, they may snatch and kill my baby next using the guise of "science" (hyperbole deliberate)

Snatch and kill babies? No rational person thinks that’s what the nhs does?

 

[Edie]

Must there, why hasn't that formed (or at least been mentioned as) the reasoning for the medical teams argument/judges' decision then?

Probably to protect patient confidentiality

 

[alan_]

Snatch and kill babies? No rational person thinks that’s what the nhs does?

Although I did qualify my post with the last two words, I still think the parents would think this more accurate than a voluntary action

 

[Edie]

Although I did qualify my post with the last two words, I still think the parents would think this more accurate than a voluntary action

Possibly they do. Which is awful. Do you think that parents should always decide what’s in the best interests of their child, or are there cases where the state should override parents decisions?

 

[alex_]

Possibly they do. Which is awful. Do you think that parents should always decide what’s in the best interests of their child, or are there cases where the state should override parents decisions?

Jehovah’s Witnesses denying blood transfusions for example ?

Alex

 

[cupid_stunt]

Nail on head, from Edie in post #67.

Doctors not only in the UK, but aboard too, are in agreement there's no hope of any recovery. The highest courts in the UK & Europe have considered this case time & time again, and accepted that.

The offer from Rome is not to cure the poor boy, but just to keep him alive with the aid of machines for who knows how much longer, whilst no one knows if he is suffering as his brain continues to degenerate.

 

[redsquirrel]

Probably to protect patient confidentiality

Right so the judge can say

a high court judge who ruled that further treatment would harm Alfie’s future dignity.

but can't say that maintaining life support would cause continuing suffering, and despite judge's making such statements about suffering in other cases. Hardly a convincing argument.

 

[Plumdaff]

what bad things will happen if he is transfered to rome and has his palliative care prolonged in a hospital with connections to the vatican?

Of course, like everyone else I don't know everything about the case, however I suspect that there's an extremely high chance the child would die on route. It's far better to die in a calm hospital room than in an ambulance, or on a plane. In principle I think parents' wishes should be listened to and respected, but they shouldn't override the rights of a child to dignity and the possibility of a peaceful death, and it's unlikely that this decision would have made so clearly and decisively unless the medical team and judges were very sure it's in his best interests to remain in Liverpool.

Certainly, I can't imagine any other outcome than an awful unplanned death had the protesters managed to reach him. A tragic case.

P.S. There's definitely an element of silly thicko parents. I can't imagine what this would do to you and they should be treated with compassion.

 

[redsquirrel]

Nail on head, from Edie in post #67.

No it's not, suffering doesn't seem to be a (prime) factor in this case. Treatment is to be stopped because it would harm the child's dignity.

 

[Edie]

Jehovah’s Witnesses denying blood transfusions for example ?

Alex

That could be one example. Another might be refusing an operation, or not complying with medical treatment.

It’s unusual but it does happen.

You didn’t answer the question though.

 

[alan_]

Possibly they do. Which is awful. Do you think that parents should always decide what’s in the best interests of their child, or are there cases where the state should override parents decisions?

There are numerous contentious issues where the state overrules parents eg social workers. What we have here is an impasse. If the child is killed, next weeks scientific breakthrough will be a moot point. However if still on life support who knows. I cannot understand what the big fucking deal is with keeping the bellows pumping for a while. Why are you against this?

 

[not-bono-ever]

horrendous spectacle. some site on FB were calling for people inside the hospital to set off the fire alarms to stop the kid getting his lethal injection.

 

[alan_]

horrendous spectacle. some site on FB were calling for people inside the hospital to set off the fire alarms to stop the kid getting his lethal injection.

That sounds more like an execution rather than withdrawing treatment

 

[not-bono-ever]

 

[not-bono-ever]

That sounds more like an execution rather than withdrawing treatment

i know, the langage being used is truly incendary

 

[andysays]

horrendous spectacle. some site on FB were calling for people inside the hospital to set off the fire alarms to stop the kid getting his lethal injection.

Where has the suggestion of a "lethal injection" come from?

 

[Edie]

No it's not, suffering doesn't seem to be a (prime) factor in this case. Treatment is to be stopped because it would harm the child's dignity.

Does the child not deserve dignity? Does he not deserve a peaceful death? Are those not important considerations, or do you think the parent’s anguish (and possibly a reduction in their suffering if they are allowed to take him to Rome) should be prioritised over the child’s best interests?

Not an easy question. Glad I’m not the judge.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Where has the suggestion of a "lethal injection" come from?

 

[cupid_stunt]

No it's not, suffering doesn't seem to be a (prime) factor in this case. Treatment is to be stopped because it would harm the child's dignity.

And, you don't think considering any possible suffering is not involved in considering the lad's dignity?

The Supreme Court justices said: "Alfie looks like a normal baby, but the unanimous opinion of the doctors who have examined him and the scans of his brain is that almost all of his brain has been destroyed.

"No-one knows why. But that it has happened and is continuing to happen cannot be denied.

"It means that Alfie cannot breathe, or eat, or drink without sophisticated medical treatment. It also means that there is no hope of his ever getting better."

Note the use of 'almost' in describing the state of his brain, so clearly there's the possibility that he is suffering.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Where has the suggestion of a "lethal injection" come from?

Far more civilised than the electric high chair though.

 

[alan_]

Does the child not deserve dignity? Does he not deserve a peaceful death? Are those not important considerations, or do you think the parent’s anguish (and possibly a reduction in their suffering if they are allowed to take him to Rome) should be prioritised over the child’s best interests?

Not an easy question. Glad I’m not the judge.

I'm not sure where this amorphous quality of dignity comes into it. Can a two year old have dignity? He wont care if he is dead. Dignity for who, the medicos the judges

 

[andysays]

View attachment 133516

Wow, are the parents behind that, or is it someone else's idea of how to "save" the poor child?