Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alfie Evans' Death

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
    (...)
    So a parent takes their child to the ER, the staff diagnose the child with Tuberculosis, the parent refuses to believe the diagnosis and attempts to remove the child from the hospital.....

    In matters pertaining to the medical well being of a child the parent does not have absolute authority, they just don't and you saying that they do just shows your ignorance (not an attack).
    ....
    Tbh - I don't think this case compares.

    In the situation described above, removing the child from the hospital would seriously reduce the chances of *survival*.

    Even then - it is within a patient's rights to seek treatment for TBC at a different clinic.

    Complete refusal on the part of the parents to seek treatment for their child should imho result in intervention, if for no other reason than that TBC is a highly contagious bacterial infection.



    In this case though - removing or moving the child to a different place will do nothing but delay the inevitable, so I think it should suffice to have the parents sign a declaration whereby they accept responsibilty, and the medical staff clearly state their objections.

    All that being said, this should never have been an article in the Guardian, nor two six page threads here on the ACG, least of all a case before the Brit supreme court.

    All that is the result of a number of idiotic decisions by all concerned, except the child obviously.

    It's a private matter, and should be resolved in private fashion.

    What we're seeing here is political exploitation, on both sides.

    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    (...)
    I complained that they were denied the right to remove their child from the hospital.
    Who would prevent you from taking your own child from a hospital ?

    You walk in, pick up the child and leave again.

    No Equal Rights, Christian Lawyers or Supreme Court required, except maybe afterwards - but by then all will be said and done.

    The law comes after the fact, at least it should in matters of importance.
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 03 May 18, 08:16.
    Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
      Tbh - I don't think this case compares.

      In the situation described above, removing the child from the hospital would seriously reduce the chances of *survival*.

      Even then - it is within a patient's rights to seek treatment for TBC at a different clinic.

      Complete refusal on the part of the parents to seek treatment for their child should imho result in intervention, if for no other reason than that TBC is a highly contagious bacterial infection.



      In this case though - removing or moving the child to a different place will do nothing but delay the inevitable, so I think it should suffice to have the parents sign a declaration whereby they accept responsibilty, and the medical staff clearly state their objections.

      All that being said, this should never have been an article in the Guardian, nor two six page threads here on the ACG, least of all a case before the Brit supreme court.

      All that is the result of a number of idiotic decisions by all concerned, except the child obviously.

      It's a private matter, and should be resolved in private fashion.

      What we're seeing here is political exploitation, on both sides.



      Who would prevent you from taking your own child from a hospital ?

      You walk in, pick up the child and leave again.

      No Equal Rights, Christian Lawyers or Supreme Court required, except maybe afterwards - but by then all will be said and done.

      The law comes after the fact, at least it should in matters of importance.
      On the last point. In this case the police were on hand to physically prevent the parents removing the child.
      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
        On the last point. In this case the police were on hand to physically prevent the parents removing the child.
        Because the parents made the entire legal hoopla beforehand.

        You want to remove your child from a hopsital, don't call a Christian lawyer collective, or the Vatican, just do it.

        Face the legal consequences afterwards, if need be.
        Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
          Because the parents made the entire legal hoopla beforehand.

          You want to remove your child from a hopsital, don't call a Christian lawyer collective, or the Vatican, just do it.

          Face the legal consequences afterwards, if need be.
          Couldn’t happen in this case as Alfe was wired up to the life support.
          There was another case a few years ago where the parents did just as you said and rescued their kid from hospital. They escaped to the continent perused by the police and got the necessary treatment to save their son. Hospitals have stepped up security to prevent future occurrences.
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
            Because the parents made the entire legal hoopla beforehand.

            You want to remove your child from a hopsital, don't call a Christian lawyer collective, or the Vatican, just do it.

            Face the legal consequences afterwards, if need be.



            The only time there should be legal consequences is when the parents prevent life saving care (as happens here sometimes).
            In this case, as the government decreed there would be no more care, there would be no negative impact on the child if he were removed from the hospital.

            What I can't understand, is why it was so important to the government that the child die while in their control.

            I see letting them remove the child as a situation where both sides benefit and there are no negative consequences, but for reasons that will never be explained, the government didn't approve of that.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
              (...) They escaped to the continent perused by the police and got the necessary treatment to save their son. Hospitals have stepped up security to prevent future occurrences.
              That's quite unbelievable - if you have to guard your patients for fear of them escaping, maybe something is wrong with the way healthcare is organized there ?

              Note I did say idiotic decisions by all concerned - not just the parents.

              I really don't understand the way the NHS goes about this either, just have the parents sign a form and be done with it.

              Patients (admittedly adult patients) walk out all the time here, they just have to sign a "contract" absolving the hospital from any further responsibility and they're free to go, a clinic is not a prison after all.

              There are exceptions obviously - as noted above, when the patient poses a risk to others, but that is not the case here.
              Last edited by Snowygerry; 03 May 18, 09:23.
              Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                The only time there should be legal consequences is when the parents prevent life saving care (as happens here sometimes).
                In this case, as the government decreed there would be no more care, there would be no negative impact on the child if he were removed from the hospital.

                What I can't understand, is why it was so important to the government that the child die while in their control.

                I see letting them remove the child as a situation where both sides benefit and there are no negative consequences, but for reasons that will never be explained, the government didn't approve of that.
                It is very simple :
                what is the aim of the NHS ? =to survive and to become mightyer yet,patients are only a nuisance .

                what is the aim of the Euthanasia Lobby ? = to kill all those they consider as unworthy to live ( 90 % of the population ) .

                What would happen if the parents could escape with their child ? Thousands of people would escape with their child, their parents, their husband/wife ,...and the Death Squadrons would be out of work .It would be the end of the power of the NHS/Euthanasia Lobby . In Germany also people could not escape with their mentally/physically handicapped child .
                What would say the wifes of all these doctors who were boasting to their friends : "John has an important job : he decides over life and death ".?

                And the government ? Has nothing to say, besides the government is infiltrated by the EUthanasia Lobby .

                Comment


                • #83
                  Sorry for the delay, ...

                  ... I wanted to provide a decent response to your post, but sometimes life gets in the way of entertainment, and vice versa.


                  Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                  Just wanted to note what's in blue and highlighted. It appears that by law, doctor's withdrawing care under TADA must not only allow a patient to seek other treatment, but indeed assist them in attempting to find an appropriate facility. Therefore, if this case were under TADA rather than British Law, this particular child would have likely died elsewhere, but not under an NHS directive that he indeed perish at that particular time.
                  You can be excused for thinking that, given what the statute states, the reality however is much different. The Staff at Texas Children’s Hospital did indeed attempt to assist, by their own account they contacted 40 US hospitals over the grace period; none would agree to take the child. If another Texas hospital had accepted the child, the TADA medical futility process simply would have started again, but from square one, going through what had already transpired at Texas Children’s, a waste of effort and expense all around.

                  As for the rest, there's a belief held by some notables and organisations, that Texas Drs. must deem that there is no chance for recovery AND the patient must be without the means of paying for their care, in order to initiate futile intervention under TADA; mother Wanda Hudson apparently had no health insurance. How can we conclude that non-Texas hospitals saw things differently when none would agree to take the child under the same terms. As Veatch points out, some 50 million Americans have/had no health insurance at the time, dunno what the status of that number is now.

                  Interestingly, while both Alfie Evans and Sun Hudson required ventilators, unlike Alfie, Sun was not in a vegetative state, nor was his condition necessarily a death-sentence. Children born with Thanatophoric dysplasia have been known to live into their 20’s.

                  I do find it interesting that British Subjects have so few rights and are treated like utter shite by their government. Between the very much 'in flux' state of the NHS at times, to refusing to prosecute criminal gangs which are wholesale marketing British girls for rape.

                  C'mon, invoking the likes of "subject" and "Queen" in this day and age is a load of baloney. Americans may have had cause 250 years ago, but getting over it is long passed. In contrast, as far as Heads of State go, a US President’s State of the Union address has power and influence, a British Constitutional Monarch is handed his/her Throne Speech outlining the will of Parliament before going on stage to perform. Incidentally, Elizabeth II is also the "Queen of Canada", represented by the Governor General, the “Guardian of the Constitution”.

                  As for the rest, I’ll simply stay on topic; as individuals, Alfie Evans had more rights by way of representation and judicial oversight of health care in the UK, than Sun Hudson ever did in Texas, under TADA. I can say that because I've done a comparison, some 5 pages worth of court related info, I can post it if you wish.

                  Conclusion? I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, and I don't have an axe to grind other than stating that medical professionals on both sides of the Atlantic and around today's world, in light of the medical advances of the last 75 years or so, have very difficult decisions to make in regards to medical futility; and they pay a price for it as well. Some countries are more pro-active, Benelux for example have legislation regarding direct and active Euthanasia, others such as the Russian Federation, where “futile medicine” is absent from the vocabulary of medical professionals entirely, medical futility is considered in the context of palliative medicine.
                  Last edited by Marmat; 07 May 18, 18:29.
                  "I am Groot"
                  - Groot

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X