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
  • 2
  • 4
So the UK is going to impose the death sentence...
Topic Started: Apr 22 2018, 07:30 PM (1,854 Views)
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John Galt
Apr 25 2018, 04:38 PM
I'm not a lawyer, even less so a British lawyer.
[stupid nitpick mode] i think the term would be solicitor or barrister [/stupid nitpick mode]

(just needed to add some humour (with a u) to what is otherwise a very disturbing thread)
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brenda
Member Avatar
..............
George K
Apr 25 2018, 05:43 PM
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.
Yes. Well put, Jon. You nailed it.
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.”
~A.A. Milne
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Friday
Senior Carp
brenda
Apr 25 2018, 07:39 PM
George K
Apr 25 2018, 05:43 PM
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.
Yes. Well put, Jon. You nailed it.
Agreed.




This whole thing is so upsetting. And not understanding the hospital/government's rationale just makes it worse. Many of us here are parents. Who among us could just sit and watch our child die in this manner?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
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.
It’s the Charlie Gard case. The British government first strips the natural rights of parents, and then orders the death of the children.

From a friend of mine in England:

“Alfie Evans has been breathing on his own for more than sixty hours, despite being deprived, at times, of oxygen, water, and food. (Happily, he is now, finally, being given oxygen, hydration and nutrition).

His doctors believe that it is in Alfie's best interest that he die. They have testified to this in court. They have worked to bring about this end, both actively and passively. They confidently assured the courts that Alfie could not breath on his own. It is not a moral judgment, but a medical one, to observe that their prognosis was wrong. It happens. Doctors are not infallible.

But now that the condition of their patient has radically changed, why are they not re-evaluating their diagnosis? Why aren't they looking at different treatment options? Why aren't they allowing other doctors to look at a situation that has stymied them? Why aren't they allowing a second opinion?

Alder Hey Hospital, by their continued, persistent refusal to consider course of action that does not lead imminently to Alfie's death, are continually showing that their determination is based not on medical considerations, but on an ideological conviction that Alfie's life is not worth living.”
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Quote:
 
“My gladiator lay down his shield and gained his wings at 2:30” BST (9:30 p.m. New York time), Tom Evans wrote on Facebook a few hours ago. “absolutely heartbroken love you my guy”
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
England, and those doctors, are guilty of murder in my opinion ion. It's sad that now that the boy is dead, most likely it will all be forgotten in a few weeks.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The reports about his death don't say much about how/why the boy died, but most likely he would have been dead by now regardless of whether he had been transferred to Italy or not, simply because his condition had progressed. Hence I don't think any "murder" has taken place. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was in my opinion fundamentally wrong to hold the boy hostage and not respect the wish of the parents.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Davis
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Very sad. Hospice was the way to go. Lots of ethical lapses all around.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Government turf war over an innocent life. Horrible.
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
 
Davis
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Mikhailoh
Apr 29 2018, 04:24 AM
Government turf war over an innocent life. Horrible.
Failure of the parents and Catholic Church too. No adults in the room but the power play by the government is by far the most inexcusable, so I am not arguing any moral equivalency.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Good. I see none. The parents had inherent, inarguable rights. The church got involved in an already-sickening situation over principles and in the absence of anything resembling governmental moral leadership.
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
 
Friday
Senior Carp
RIP baby.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Davis
Apr 29 2018, 05:51 AM
Mikhailoh
Apr 29 2018, 04:24 AM
Government turf war over an innocent life. Horrible.
Failure of the parents and Catholic Church too. No adults in the room but the power play by the government is by far the most inexcusable, so I am not arguing any moral equivalency.
The Pope intervened and arranged for him to be moved to Gesu Bambino in Rome.

Alfie Evans is now numbered among the saints.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
How does the UK public react to this?
Any relevant poll so far?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I’m curious why Moonbat or Andy didn’t chime in. They’ve both been around since the thread was active.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
From what I can see, none of the top politicians or most popular media in the UK demand any changes to the laws that strip parents of their power.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Comments I've seen from British friends are that it's a terrible situation, but that the parents were in denial. The laws that are in place are there to protect kids from, for example, parents who refuse treatment for religious reasons, and that there are instances where the state needs to take charge. It seems to me that this wasn't one of those cases, but I'm not a doctor.

It seems that the medical opinion was that this child could not be saved.

It was also reported that a number of the protesters were extremely abusive to Alder-Hey hospital staff, who had to run the gauntlet on their way to work.

I have to say that using this case to show how dreadful the NHS is not where I'd have gone in an argument. There are plenty of things wrong with British healthcare, but this seems to me to be a legal issue, and not an example of bad health-care. It's arguably a bad law.

The other thing that I've seen noted is that Alfie's parents were at liberty to give details quite freely to the press, whereas the hospital wasn't, so we're not necessarily getting a fully balanced story.

It's clearly a heartbreaking situation for a lot of people. I don't think that people with an axe to grind describing it as state-sanctioned murder is accurate, helpful, or for that matter particularly unexpected.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Bull sh!t.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
Apr 29 2018, 03:33 AM
The reports about his death don't say much about how/why the boy died, but most likely he would have been dead by now regardless of whether he had been transferred to Italy or not, simply because his condition had progressed. Hence I don't think any "murder" has taken place. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was in my opinion fundamentally wrong to hold the boy hostage and not respect the wish of the parents.
Sorry, but we do not know if he would have made it to Italy.

The state did not allow it.

And some people say violence doesn't work...
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
Yeah, even putting aside the general problem with counterfactuals, the UK hospital took him off the ventilator. Italy wasn't going to do that. (ok, they were, but they were going to give him a trache to continue external oxygen, you know what I mean)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Apr 30 2018, 11:24 AM
Comments I've seen from British friends are that it's a terrible situation, but that the parents were in denial. The laws that are in place are there to protect kids from, for example, parents who refuse treatment for religious reasons, and that there are instances where the state needs to take charge. It seems to me that this wasn't one of those cases, but I'm not a doctor.

The problem with the parallel to JWs refusing blood transfusion is that there is a difference between the State intervening to save the life of a child over the parents' objection, from the State intervening to expedite the death of the child over the parents' objection. (and I appreciate that you also don't consider it one of those cases).
Quote:
 

It seems that the medical opinion was that this child could not be saved.

Yes, he was probably terminal -- but we don't get to expedite death. Cancer wards are full of terminal patients who shouldn't be hastened by withholding basic care.

Quote:
 

I have to say that using this case to show how dreadful the NHS is not where I'd have gone in an argument. There are plenty of things wrong with British healthcare, but this seems to me to be a legal issue, and not an example of bad health-care. It's arguably a bad law.

I agree with you -- but it was NHS who decided to hold him captive and cause the courts to get involved.

Quote:
 
I don't think that people with an axe to grind describing it as state-sanctioned murder is accurate, helpful, or for that matter particularly unexpected.
Again I agree with you.

My bottom line is a pretty low bar for basic duty of care: provide hydration, nutrients, and air even by alternative delivery methods, as long as the patient is able to process these without distress or undue pain; care of wounds and pain management; medicine to fight infection.

No need for heroics, no need for extraordinary means to save life at any cost, DNRs are perfectly fine with patient consent.

Basically just give the patient what is needed to live, and when the patient decides enough is enough, that the body is ready to die, they will die.

Is that fair enough, for you doctors and nurses here who have to actually deal with end of life issues?

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4