Britain to cut off life support of infant Alfie Evans soon

[Nui-ta]

All this having been said: he should also have gone home. If he's on hospice, he should be home. If his parents decide to seek additional treatment, that's their right as parents. Healthcare professionals have to do the best they can to ensure the best treatment and care given to those under their charge, but unless the parents were being abusive they cannot deny the wishes of the parents to seek more care, even if it wasn't medically sound. Ethics in a care-giving setting are such that sometimes, you just have to let the POA do what they think is right.

I would be interested to see an investigation of the hospital's handling of the discussion between parent and clinician. I'm not saying that doctors shouldn't have their opinions respected (they did go through years of medical school), but there is still a level of choice that must be given to parents when taking care of terminally ill children.

Run by me why doctors need to put the the feelings of the parents of their patient ahead of the interests of their patient himself.

Ideally they shouldn’t. But when you’re dealing with a person in a vegetative state that can’t communicate with you, medical ethics gives the power of choice and interest to the POA.

In this case: his parents.

This is especially true in the case of children. There’s entire classes that you have to take on medical ethics to work in healthcare that dictate the if’s and when’s of when a patient is incapacited to the point of being unable to make their own medical decisions —- and the answer of who you go to when this is the case is ALWAYS the POA unless the POA is being abusive or if there isn’t a POA to begin with.

Do I think the decision to keep Alfie alive is in his best interest? No.

But are his parents being abusive in their handling of him? Also no.

Their right as POA stands. This is the way the law is set up (at least in the States, but as far as In aware in Britain it’s supposed to be about the same).

[Neutraligon]

Holy shit look at the big picture.

Like the Charlie Gard case, it seems most of NS has lost the fucking point. Forget about the kids. Forget about the parents. Forget about the courts. Both Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans would be undergoing experimental procedures. For those that don't know what an "experiment" is, you need a subject. Let the parents take the kids to undergo these operations so at least he doctors can gather data even if it doesn't work out, and give everyone a sense of closure. Parents are at least marginally happier that they held out to the end and their child's death meant something, courts get fuzzies for working towards the "greater good", and hopefully the research gained can keep this from reaching this stage again.

Everyone comes out a big ahead on a sorry situation, even the nanny state apologists.

Experimental procedures are great and all, but only if they are done ethically. It is why it is so hard to do tests on inmates.

[Fartsniffage]

Run by me why doctors need to put the the feelings of the parents of their patient ahead of the interests of their patient himself.

Ideally they shouldn’t. But when you’re dealing with a person in a vegetative state that can’t communicate with you, medical ethics gives the power of choice and interest to the POA.

In this case: his parents.

This is especially true in the case of children. There’s entire classes that you have to take on medical ethics to work in healthcare that dictate the if’s and when’s of when a patient is incapacited to the point of being unable to make their own medical decisions —- and the answer of who you go to when this is the case is ALWAYS the POA unless the POA is being abusive or if there isn’t a POA to begin with.

Do I think the decision to keep Alfie alive is in his best interest? No.

But are his parents being abusive in their handling of him? Also no.

Their right as POA stands. This is the way the law is set up (at least in the States, but as far as In aware in Britain it’s supposed to be about the same).

If that were true then don't you think one of the multiple judges who have sat on the case might have mentioned it? Perhaps one of the solicitors or barristers? Did it just slip the minds of multiple legal professionals?

[Neutraligon]

Run by me why doctors need to put the the feelings of the parents of their patient ahead of the interests of their patient himself.

Ideally they shouldn’t. But when you’re dealing with a person in a vegetative state that can’t communicate with you, medical ethics gives the power of choice and interest to the POA.

In this case: his parents.

This is especially true in the case of children. There’s entire classes that you have to take on medical ethics to work in healthcare that dictate the if’s and when’s of when a patient is incapacited to the point of being unable to make their own medical decisions —- and the answer of who you go to when this is the case is ALWAYS the POA unless the POA is being abusive or if there isn’t a POA to begin with.

Do I think the decision to keep Alfie alive is in his best interest? No.

But are his parents being abusive in their handling of him? Also no.

Their right as POA stands. This is the way the law is set up (at least in the States, but as far as In aware in Britain it’s supposed to be about the same).

Except in this case the doctors have been assigned that role. There was I believe a court case already about that.

[Nunavutialand]

Holy shit look at the big picture.

Like the Charlie Gard case, it seems most of NS has lost the fucking point. Forget about the kids. Forget about the parents. Forget about the courts. Both Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans would be undergoing experimental procedures. For those that don't know what an "experiment" is, you need a subject. Let the parents take the kids to undergo these operations so at least he doctors can gather data even if it doesn't work out, and give everyone a sense of closure. Parents are at least marginally happier that they held out to the end and their child's death meant something, courts get fuzzies for working towards the "greater good", and hopefully the research gained can keep this from reaching this stage again.

Everyone comes out a big ahead on a sorry situation, even the nanny state apologists.

What experimental procedure is being proposed for this undiagnosed condition?

Maybe they could take a brain out of every baby born and therefore stop it from turning into water and CSF.

No, there is no cure and no way to stop this and no experimental procedure could fix that.

[The New California Republic]

I'm not sure if they absolutely ruled out the possibility of a cure -- it sounded like they thought it was very unlikely, but wanted to keep an open mind..

Seriously Auralia, are you still beating that drum? I thought we'd already established that you cannot cure a brain that has turned to mush.

[Nulla Bellum]

Hmm. It seems to me if your side didn't have personal attacks to go to, you'd have nothing at all.

We've already seen the effort to prove me "a liar" turn up evidence that yes, the kid was misdiagnosed. Have you given any serious consideration to knowing what you're talking about? Occur to you all? Even a little bit?

I know more than you. You have shown you are either flat out lying or know next to nothing about this case and politics/medicine/ethics in general. Other people in this thread at least have looked stuff up. You have postwd nothing but rumours and factually incorrect info. You haven't posted anything that hasn't at the very least distorted the truth beyond all recognition. It isn't on us to disprove your wild accusations and you haven't presented any evidence to back them up.

Do you have any evidence that the British government's judicial branch is open to any alternatives to starving a kid to death and not charging the doctors who are unlawfully detaining the child with crimes including murder?

[Bakra]

Holy shit look at the big picture.

Like the Charlie Gard case, it seems most of NS has lost the fucking point. Forget about the kids. Forget about the parents. Forget about the courts. Both Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans would be undergoing experimental procedures. For those that don't know what an "experiment" is, you need a subject. Let the parents take the kids to undergo these operations so at least he doctors can gather data even if it doesn't work out, and give everyone a sense of closure. Parents are at least marginally happier that they held out to the end and their child's death meant something, courts get fuzzies for working towards the "greater good", and hopefully the research gained can keep this from reaching this stage again.

Everyone comes out a big ahead on a sorry situation, even the nanny state apologists.

What experimental procedure is being proposed for this undiagnosed condition?

Undiagnosed, braindead person with a strange illness, with his parents wanting to go for some sort of (probably subsidized?) treatment abroad. I'd say that qualifies as "experimental treatment" or even research.

Experimental procedures are great and all, but only if they are done ethically. It is why it is so hard to do tests on inmates.

Which is why it should be done on these children. I must say I don't have any kids yet, but judging by how my own parents are and how I've seen the parents of Gard and Evans act, I would rest at least slightly easier at night knowing that my child died for something more. And, you know, science likes it too.

[Nui-ta]

Ideally they shouldn’t. But when you’re dealing with a person in a vegetative state that can’t communicate with you, medical ethics gives the power of choice and interest to the POA.

In this case: his parents.

This is especially true in the case of children. There’s entire classes that you have to take on medical ethics to work in healthcare that dictate the if’s and when’s of when a patient is incapacited to the point of being unable to make their own medical decisions —- and the answer of who you go to when this is the case is ALWAYS the POA unless the POA is being abusive or if there isn’t a POA to begin with.

Do I think the decision to keep Alfie alive is in his best interest? No.

But are his parents being abusive in their handling of him? Also no.

Their right as POA stands. This is the way the law is set up (at least in the States, but as far as In aware in Britain it’s supposed to be about the same).

Except in this case the doctors have been assigned that role. There was I believe a court case already about that.

Why though? Under what legal precedent? (And this is where my understanding of the case comes to its end).

Also to the other guy who responded to me (I’m replying on mobile right now)

You can’t just forget things like that, but I wonder if there was a work-around for it. Maybe there’s a way for them to claim POA status in Britain. Maybe the law is a bit different. I already said I wasn’t entirely sure —- I just had yet to see evidence to the contrary.

[Ifreann]

Run by me why doctors need to put the the feelings of the parents of their patient ahead of the interests of their patient himself.

Ideally they shouldn’t. But when you’re dealing with a person in a vegetative state that can’t communicate with you, medical ethics gives the power of choice and interest to the POA.

In this case: his parents.

This is especially true in the case of children. There’s entire classes that you have to take on medical ethics to work in healthcare that dictate the if’s and when’s of when a patient is incapacited to the point of being unable to make their own medical decisions —- and the answer of who you go to when this is the case is ALWAYS the POA unless the POA is being abusive or if there isn’t a POA to begin with.

Do I think the decision to keep Alfie alive is in his best interest? No.

But are his parents being abusive in their handling of him? Also no.

What the parents want is only going to cause Alfie to suffer.

Suffering is bad.

Their right as POA stands. This is the way the law is set up (at least in the States, but as far as In aware in Britain it’s supposed to be about the same).

This is not the way the law is set up.

You can tell because every legal option has already been pursued and the parents did not win.

[Neutraligon]

What experimental procedure is being proposed for this undiagnosed condition?

Undiagnosed, braindead person with a strange illness, with his parents wanting to go for some sort of (probably subsidized?) treatment abroad. I'd say that qualifies as "experimental treatment" or even research.

Experimental procedures are great and all, but only if they are done ethically. It is why it is so hard to do tests on inmates.

Which is why it should be done on these children. I must say I don't have any kids yet, but judging by how my own parents are and how I've seen the parents of Gard and Evans act, I would rest at least slightly easier at night knowing that my child died for something more. And, you know, science likes it too.

Except that it seems that this kid can experience pain( at least for now). To force any creature to continue to experience pain just so you can get your experiment is unethical. What is more they can try and do an autopsy to figure out what is going on.

[Nui-ta]

I'm not sure if they absolutely ruled out the possibility of a cure -- it sounded like they thought it was very unlikely, but wanted to keep an open mind..

Seriously Auralia, are you still beating that drum? I thought we'd already established that you cannot cure a brain that has turned to mush.

At this time in medical technology, if this was true I wouldn’t have a job. (As in, if we actually could restore brain from mush).

I’ve definitely seen some rich people come by who would be candidates for the expensive the brain no mushy no more program.

[Nui-ta]

Ideally they shouldn’t. But when you’re dealing with a person in a vegetative state that can’t communicate with you, medical ethics gives the power of choice and interest to the POA.

In this case: his parents.

This is especially true in the case of children. There’s entire classes that you have to take on medical ethics to work in healthcare that dictate the if’s and when’s of when a patient is incapacited to the point of being unable to make their own medical decisions —- and the answer of who you go to when this is the case is ALWAYS the POA unless the POA is being abusive or if there isn’t a POA to begin with.

Do I think the decision to keep Alfie alive is in his best interest? No.

But are his parents being abusive in their handling of him? Also no.

What the parents want is only going to cause Alfie to suffer.

Suffering is bad.

Their right as POA stands. This is the way the law is set up (at least in the States, but as far as In aware in Britain it’s supposed to be about the same).

This is not the way the law is set up.

You can tell because every legal option has already been pursued and the parents did not win.

Well there you have it then.

[Nulla Bellum]

And why they offered a military air ambulance designed to negate all the concerns about air pressure deviations and vibrations, which makes transporting soldiers with TBIs from Afghanistan to Walter Reed Army Hospital in the US possible.

All of the technical objections to moving Alfie to continued care are either on their face ridiculous or readily remedied. They even made Alfie an Italian citizen to try to overcome the British government's need to kill their subjects by court order.

All that's really left of the other side's argument is "Kill the baby already you evil fundie bastards."

Which really boggles the idea that these people want their government in charge of determining who has a rational mind.

The British government isn't involved and no one is killing anyone.

Why are these simple facts so hard for you to understand?

We need to agree on things readily observable. The sky is blue, the grass is green, the judiciary is a branch of the British government, deliberately denying sustenance and hydration to a human will kill, and no amount of blithering idiocy you post can change these facts.

[Vassenor]

What experimental procedure is being proposed for this undiagnosed condition?

Undiagnosed, braindead person with a strange illness, with his parents wanting to go for some sort of (probably subsidized?) treatment abroad. I'd say that qualifies as "experimental treatment" or even research.

Experimental procedures are great and all, but only if they are done ethically. It is why it is so hard to do tests on inmates.

Which is why it should be done on these children. I must say I don't have any kids yet, but judging by how my own parents are and how I've seen the parents of Gard and Evans act, I would rest at least slightly easier at night knowing that my child died for something more. And, you know, science likes it too.

The only thing they were offered in Italy was the same palliative care he's currently receiving.

[Bakra]

Except that it seems that this kid can experience pain( at least for now). To force any creature to continue to experience pain just so you can get your experiment is unethical. What is more they can try and do an autopsy to figure out what is going on.

It doesn't have to be painful, it's not like we lack anesthetics. In the case of Alfie Evans, I'm sure someone in the medical community could latch onto this and find a way to gather some research on Alfie. It sounds uncomfortable and callous, but pain is pain and can be suppressed with the proper attention from medical professionals, which in this case should happen.

The only thing they were offered in Italy was the same palliative care he's currently receiving.

EDIT: Looks like I was wrong.

In any event, I still disagree with how the government is going about this, as I have some liberal tendencies, but that's not a circlejerk I'll be participating in today

[The New California Republic]

no amount of blithering idiocy you post can change these facts.

You have been lying ever since you started posting on this thread, why should anyone believe you?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The British government isn't involved and no one is killing anyone.

Why are these simple facts so hard for you to understand?

We need to agree on things readily observable. The sky is blue, the grass is green, the judiciary is a branch of the British government, deliberately denying sustenance and hydration to a human will kill, and no amount of blithering idiocy you post can change these facts.

And if you yell this Americanism long enough it even might become true.

[Ifreann]

The British government isn't involved and no one is killing anyone.

Why are these simple facts so hard for you to understand?

We need to agree on things readily observable. The sky is blue, the grass is green, the judiciary is a branch of the British government, and no amount of blithering idiocy you post can change these facts.

The judiciary isn't a branch of the British government. There isn't even such a thing as the British judiciary, the UK has multiple legal systems, each with their own judiciary, in addition to courts with UK-wide jurisdiction.

Different countries work differently from the United States. You should already know this.

[Caracasus]

I know more than you. You have shown you are either flat out lying or know next to nothing about this case and politics/medicine/ethics in general. Other people in this thread at least have looked stuff up. You have postwd nothing but rumours and factually incorrect info. You haven't posted anything that hasn't at the very least distorted the truth beyond all recognition. It isn't on us to disprove your wild accusations and you haven't presented any evidence to back them up.

Do you have any evidence that the British government's judicial branch is open to any alternatives to starving a kid to death and not charging the doctors who are unlawfully detaining the child with crimes including murder?

Provide literally any hard evidence for any of those claims you have made. Every single one is so incorrect that taken as a whole your argument doesn't even manage to be wrong, because a wrong argument needs some basis in reality.

[Wysten]

Let him go to Italy and if he dies than at least the parents can rest in the fact that they did everything to save their son, also why is it that the government can determine who gets to live and who gets to die?

[Vassenor]

Let him go to Italy and if he dies than at least the parents can rest in the fact that they did everything to save their son, also why is it that the government can determine who gets to live and who gets to die?

The courts are not the government.

[Ifreann]

Let him go to Italy and if he dies than at least the parents can rest in the fact that they did everything to save their son,

They didn't want to bring him to Italy to save him. They wanted to bring him to Italy to keep him alive longer.

also why is it that the government can determine who gets to live and who gets to die?

The government isn't involved. Alfie's doctors have determined that it is cruel and pointless to keep him on life support, and the courts have agreed.

[Nulla Bellum]

We need to agree on things readily observable. The sky is blue, the grass is green, the judiciary is a branch of the British government, and no amount of blithering idiocy you post can change these facts.

The judiciary isn't a branch of the British government. There isn't even such a thing as the British judiciary, the UK has multiple legal systems, each with their own judiciary, in addition to courts with UK-wide jurisdiction.

Different countries work differently from the United States. You should already know this.

Yes, different countries work differently than the United States. That doesn't remove the judicial branch of the British government from the British government.

Should Alfie's parents defy courts orders, are we going to see judges with robes and wigs come after them with a gavel? Or will law enforcement and other sectors of the British government get involved?

After all of the flailing personal attacks, we've reached my limit for tolerance for dishonest debaters. You'd probably default to a claim of impoliteness if we turned the discussion towards why you'd inexplicably object to being considered ill-equipped for intellectual discussion, so maybe pipe up again when we need to know what windows taste like.

Have a nice day.

[Vassenor]

The judiciary isn't a branch of the British government. There isn't even such a thing as the British judiciary, the UK has multiple legal systems, each with their own judiciary, in addition to courts with UK-wide jurisdiction.

Different countries work differently from the United States. You should already know this.

Yes, different countries work differently than the United States. That doesn't remove the judicial branch of the British government from the British government.

Should Alfie's parents defy courts orders, are we going to see judges with robes and wigs come after them with a gavel? Or will law enforcement and other sectors of the British government get involved?

After all of the flailing personal attacks, we've reached my limit for tolerance for dishonest debaters. You'd probably default to a claim of impoliteness if we turned the discussion towards why you'd inexplicably object to being considered ill-equipped for intellectual discussion, so maybe pipe up again when we need to know what windows taste like.

Have a nice day.

So it seems that asking for supporting evidence is dishonest debating.