Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
So the UK is going to impose the death sentence...
Topic Started: Apr 22 2018, 07:30 PM (1,856 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
According to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Doesn't LOOK false.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Galt
Fulla-Carp
Offered as information only, not necessarily in support of the government's decision to get guardianship of Alfie and make his health care decisions for him.

The court's ruling from February. Includes a comprehensive review of the case to that point. The government had guardianship by this point (granted in December 2017).

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf

It's worth reading the whole thing.
Edited by John Galt, Apr 25 2018, 03:26 PM.
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
John Galt
Apr 25 2018, 03:21 PM
Offered as information only, not necessarily in support of the government's decision to get guardianship of Alfie and make his health care decisions for him.

The court's ruling from February. Includes a comprehensive review of the case to that point. The government had guardianship by this point (granted in December 2017).

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf

It's worth reading the whole thing.
Quote:
 
It was entirely right that every reasonable option should be explored for Alfie. I am now confident that this has occurred. The continued provision of ventilation, in circumstances which I am persuaded is futile, now compromises Alfie’s future dignity and fails to respect his autonomy. I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfie’s best interest.
Says the court, citing the testimony of some doctors. There are probably other doctors who would disagree. There are doctors, in Italy, which granted Alfie citizenship, who were willing to accept him as a patient, at no cost to the family or the NHS.

I can't comment on the medical aspects of the case, because it's been hard, if not impossible, to find out what his diagnosis really is. However, I agree that his prognosis is terrible, based on what I've read.

Nevertheless, whose life is it, anyway?

The government had guardianship? Wow. From what your link says, the parents were not dangerous, incompetent or uncaring (as a matter of fact, quite the contrary). Amazing.

Basically, I'm just reiterating what Jon already said.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Whether Alfie lives or dies is not the crux of this disgraceful situation. The central question is much, much larger.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Galt
Fulla-Carp
Need to clarify something I messed up...the court didn't have guardianship in December....that Sun article that George posted yesterday had a timeline that reflects what happened.

Quote:
 
11 December 2017

The hospital and family disagree over Alfie's treatment, with his parents saying that the hospital applied to the High Court to remove parental rights and withdraw ventilation.

19 December 2017

The High Court case begins with Mr Justice Hayden saying he will make a decision on what is best for Alfie.

1 February 2018

A hearing begins at the High Court in Liverpool in which lawyers acting for the hospital claim further treatment for Alfie is unkind and inhumane.

2 February 2018

One of Alfie's doctors tells the judge there is 'no hope' for the youngster, who is in a semi-vegetative state from a degenerative neurological condition doctors have not been able to definitively diagnose

20 February 2018

Mr Justice Hayden rules in favour of the hospital and accepts medical evidence that further treatment would be futile.


The 20 page doc from the High Court is the last item in the timeline. At this point, the parental rights have been revoked.
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
John Galt
Apr 25 2018, 04:10 PM
The 20 page doc from the High Court is the last item in the timeline. At this point, the parental rights have been revoked.
Yeah, I couldn't find that in the link you posted.

However, your last sentence is the outrage. On what basis? By whose authority?

As Jon has said, I can understand the gummint saying "We're not going to pay for this." I can't conscience the gummint saying "We won't allow you (or anyone else) to pay for it."
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Galt
Fulla-Carp
I may be reading too much into what the Sun timeline said. Re-reading it, it says the the *father* says that the hospital has "applied to the High Court to remove parental rights and withdraw ventilation". I have not found the original petition, so I don't know if the father's statement is an accurate description. I'm not a lawyer, even less so a British lawyer. Regardless of the specific language, that's what has effectively happened.

After I read the medical experts' opinion that Alfie likely doesn't feel any pain, but they're not sure and maybe he might so no one should take the risk to do anything with him other than remove ventilation, I feel that they are on very shaky turf in holding firm on their decision. I think this is largely uncharted (perhaps uncertain is a better word) territory, and that the parents should be allowed to make the decisions they want. It's not like they trying to take him home and care for him themselves without help from medical professionals to provide palliative care. They just want to select a different set of doctors to care for him at this point. I think it's hubris of the highest order for the medical people and judge to prevent them from doing it.
Edited by John Galt, Apr 25 2018, 04:40 PM.
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
From the PDF you linked, it is unclear how many, if any, physicians actually examined the kid. There was a huge outrage when Senator Bill Frist "diagnosed" Terri Schiavo (there, I said it) from a videotape. Is the testimony of the British doctors any different?

(I'm too lazy to look into it.)
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
The whole discussion about medical opinion is a smokescreen. The fact that no one has a treatment which will improve his situation is not in dispute.

This comes down to whether the state can tell you a vegetative life is not worth living, and not give you any choice in the matter if you disagree. And that is not remotely a medical question. Not even close.

Of course the state can say 'we don't pay for this because the resources are better spent elsewhere'. But that's not what happened here.


This is essentially involuntary euthanasia.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2018, 05:39 PM
The whole discussion about medical opinion is a smokescreen. The fact that no one has a treatment which will improve his situation is not in dispute.

This comes down to whether the state can tell you a vegetative life is not worth living, and not give you any choice in the matter if you disagree. And that is not remotely a medical question. Not even close.

Of course the state can say 'we don't pay for this because the resources are better spent elsewhere'. But that's not what happened here.


This is essentially involuntary euthanasia.
The perfect summary.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I don't understand why everyone doesn't recoil at this.

Being charitable, maybe if you don't think it through it just looks like another Terry Schiavo case. Which was totally different.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
John Galt
Apr 25 2018, 03:21 PM
Offered as information only, not necessarily in support of the government's decision to get guardianship of Alfie and make his health care decisions for him.

The court's ruling from February. Includes a comprehensive review of the case to that point. The government had guardianship by this point (granted in December 2017).

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf

It's worth reading the whole thing.
Isn't it obvious to everybody what is happening?

It's been proven you can polish a lion turd, but I don't think this British version shines up too well.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2018, 05:49 PM
I don't understand why everyone doesn't recoil at this.

Being charitable, maybe if you don't think it through it just looks like another Terry Schiavo case. Which was totally different.
You don't see the similarities?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Davis
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
From what little I’ve read the argument is that the patient is improving not whether or not the state has jurisdiction. I wonder why.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Welcome to the leftists utopian world, where the government can take away a parent's rights and declare itself guardian, and then force parents to sit and watch their child die because it isn't about love and concern any more, it's now about cold dollars and cents.

Those who supported and defended socialized health care take a good look - this is what you would have saddled the US with if you could have had your way.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jolly
Apr 25 2018, 05:51 PM
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2018, 05:49 PM
I don't understand why everyone doesn't recoil at this.

Being charitable, maybe if you don't think it through it just looks like another Terry Schiavo case. Which was totally different.
You don't see the similarities?
They're superficial.


In Schiavo the patient's proxy's wishes were respected. In this case they are being overruled by the state despite the lack of a compelling interest.


I get that there exist reasons one could be unhappy with the Schiavo result that would also apply here, but that sure isn't all that's going on. You could fully subscribe to 'right-to-die', like I do, and totally be disgusted by this case. Not so Schiavo.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2018, 06:03 PM
Jolly
Apr 25 2018, 05:51 PM
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2018, 05:49 PM
I don't understand why everyone doesn't recoil at this.

Being charitable, maybe if you don't think it through it just looks like another Terry Schiavo case. Which was totally different.
You don't see the similarities?
They're superficial.


In Schiavo the patient's proxy's wishes were respected. In this case they are being overruled by the state despite the lack of a compelling interest.


I get that there exist reasons one could be unhappy with the Schiavo result that would also apply here, but that sure isn't all that's going on. You could fully subscribe to 'right-to-die', like I do, and totally be disgusted by this case. Not so Schiavo.
Schiavo was breathing on her own and her death was by dehydration due to her feeding tube being removed. AFAIK, there was no advance directive. The State sided with her husband, and allowed the feeding tube to be removed.

In both cases, the state is determining who lives and who dies, and both rulings have an element of resource allocation present.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
The husband was the legal guardian, and had been for 15 years. That's just a cold hard fact. That state didn't rule on her life. The state ruled on a challenge to the guardianship.


The husband could have changed his mind at any time. He was acting as her proxy.


In fact, the parents could have won, then changed their mind. In principal, I mean.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2018, 06:17 PM
The husband was the legal guardian, and had been for 15 years. That's just a cold hard fact. That state didn't rule on her life. The state ruled on a challenge to the guardianship.


The husband could have changed his mind at any time. He was acting as her proxy.


In fact, the parents could have won, then changed their mind. In principal, I mean.

It is somewhat unusual in this country to permanently pull a feeding tube in a nursing home or skilled nursing facility once one has been inserted, when there is no advance directive, and I don't give a flying fvck who the legal guardian is.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John Galt
Apr 25 2018, 03:21 PM
Thanks for digging this up, I appreciate being able to read the Court's decision.

I still agree with pretty much everything jon-nyc has said on this case so far.

One thing I'm curious about, is the court's view on what "dignity" means for Alfie's life. I searched through that document for passages where "dignity" is references (and there are quite a few), read the surrounding text for context, and still it's not clear to me what sort of definition the Court uses for "dignity" in this case. Yet it seems the entire decision to side with the hispital rests on the argument on "dignity" of Alfie's life.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Davis
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
https://www.hospiceuk.org/about-hospice-care/what-is-hospice-care

Is hospice not an option because the state deems the patient to already be clinically dead?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jolly
Apr 25 2018, 06:23 PM
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2018, 06:17 PM
The husband was the legal guardian, and had been for 15 years. That's just a cold hard fact. That state didn't rule on her life. The state ruled on a challenge to the guardianship.


The husband could have changed his mind at any time. He was acting as her proxy.


In fact, the parents could have won, then changed their mind. In principal, I mean.

It is somewhat unusual in this country to permanently pull a feeding tube in a nursing home or skilled nursing facility once one has been inserted, when there is no advance directive, and I don't give a flying fvck who the legal guardian is.
THat's fine.


I'm just pointing out the differences in the cases. You can be ok with the Schiavo result, and still think this is a horrible case and a horrible precedent.

You could also think they're both bad based on right-to-life or even duty-to-life rationales.

My point was there are differences that I would have thought were universal in their appeal. Even to those of us who fully subscribe to right-to-die.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Axtremus
Apr 25 2018, 06:23 PM
I still agree with pretty much everything jon-nyc has said on this case so far. on these forums in the last 13 years.
FIFY, NNTTM. :)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2018, 06:26 PM
Jolly
Apr 25 2018, 06:23 PM
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2018, 06:17 PM
The husband was the legal guardian, and had been for 15 years. That's just a cold hard fact. That state didn't rule on her life. The state ruled on a challenge to the guardianship.


The husband could have changed his mind at any time. He was acting as her proxy.


In fact, the parents could have won, then changed their mind. In principal, I mean.

It is somewhat unusual in this country to permanently pull a feeding tube in a nursing home or skilled nursing facility once one has been inserted, when there is no advance directive, and I don't give a flying fvck who the legal guardian is.
THat's fine.


I'm just pointing out the differences in the cases. You can be ok with the Schiavo result, and still think this is a horrible case and a horrible precedent.

You could also think they're both bad based on right-to-life or even duty-to-life rationales.

My point was there are differences that I would have thought were universal in their appeal. Even to those of us who fully subscribe to right-to-die.
I'm still hung up on the state giving the thumbs up or the thumbs down, based on allocation of resources. And yes, in the Schiavo case, I think that was taken into the judgement, whether written into it or not.

And that's where we are headed, IMO, rather quickly. Allocation of resources by the state, if the state is footing any part of the bill.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3