Alfie Evans....

[SimonMac]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...cted-hospital/

Aysha King, nothing more to be said on the matter.

<Thread Closed>

Not quote the same thing, for Aysha both options offered a course of treatment, where as with Alfie they don't even know what is wrong with him, so can't offer a prognosis or potential cure, even the hospital in Rome cannot guarantee they can diagnose and treat him.

For every Aysha King there is a Mahdi Bacheikh, patient "OT" or Charlie Gard to name just three. Which means each case needs to be reviewed on the facts of that case alone, which is what the High Court, Court of Appeal (three times), Supreme Court (twice) and ECHR have done.

[TwoWolves]

So why when a parent decides to prolong the suffering of a child is the situation different

Conjecture. He's unconcious so nobody can know.

[original PM]

Here is something that will probably shock you....

Not every single person in the hospital is 100% committed to saving lives - a (quite large) number of them are trying to balance the books and make a profit.

My FIL would be dead now if his wife and my missus had not spent pretty much every waking hour at the hospital when he needed a triple heart bypass - they would have preferred to let him die because it was cheaper.

Especially as it was abroad and the treatment was being paid for by insurance.

[NigelJK]

If the BBC are to be believed then he has been examined by both Munich docs and roman docs, they both say no further treatment possible but both offer a different place to end.

[northernladyuk]

They have withdrawn care and expect him to die

So they have in my view withdrawn all interest.

The child still has interests and the clinical team still has a duty to act to the child's overall benefit.

I have developed and implemented care pathways which include the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment from children on the basis that it is no longer to the child's overall benefit. It is a very difficult and contentious topic, as well as being emotive.

[WTFH]

The child still has interests and the clinical team still has a duty to act to the child's overall benefit.

You've forgotten the mantra - it's not Tory policy or Daily Mail policy to support the NHS.
All NHS doctors are evil and should not be trusted not one single doctor working in the NHS is interested in their patients, only in money.
Repeat until you start to believe it.

The NHS is about a civilised country with a social conscience trying to help sick people. The Tory/DM faithful do not want anything that has to do with society or working together, only with personal gain and financial greed. Society, by extrapolation is socialist, it is communist, it is evil. You must remember that some people on here actually believe that.

[northernladyuk]

You've forgotten the mantra - it's not Tory policy or Daily Mail policy to support the NHS.
All NHS doctors are evil and should not be trusted not one single doctor working in the NHS is interested in their patients, only in money.
Repeat until you start to believe it.

The NHS is about a civilised country with a social conscience trying to help sick people. The Tory/DM faithful do not want anything that has to do with society or working together, only with personal gain and financial greed. Society, by extrapolation is socialist, it is communist, it is evil. You must remember that some people on here actually believe that.

What people need to understand is that these areas of practice are more guided by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health than by the NHS.

[vwdan]

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...ey-v-evans.pdf

For anyone with sufficient intelligence and intellect to fully inform themselves.

I hear a lot of talk about the parents, their rights and their beliefs from the types of morons who are calling themselves Alfies Army and very little about what is truly in the best interests of the child.

Dying in distress during transit during an unnecessary trip to Rome does not seem like a fitting end when all educated parties agree that there is no hope and no treatment.

Parents do not and should not have ultimate control and authority over life and death matters of those in their care.

[CoolCat]

1 NHS Trusts are an arm of the state largely out of control, with next to no democratic control, and the patients (and their parents) are totally dis empowered and are left in a "take it or leave it" rationed environment
2 Docs find it hard to speak out against the fashions or views from their trust
3 The way this child would have been treated in most other developed countries would have been radically different (and it is supreme arrogance on the part of the NHS to assume they know better than the entire rest of the developed world)
4 There is no way the state (including the NHS and legal system, and police) should be preventing parents taking children to hospitals in other countries, the parents have every right to do so without any challenge from the state

[vwdan]

1 NHS Trusts are an arm of the state largely out of control, with next to no democratic control, and the patients (and their parents) are totally dis empowered and are left in a "take it or leave it" rationed environment

Maybe true. But that doesn't extend to the Judge.

2 Docs find it hard to speak out against the fashions or views from their trust

As above, except add other experts as fit.

3 The way this child would have been treated in most other developed countries would have been radically different (and it is supreme arrogance on the part of the NHS to assume they know better than the entire rest of the developed world)

Really? Where are these foreign experts with claims of cure and treatment? Rome is offering further life support and nothing else. Please, go into detail - I assume you're fully read up on his condition and are an expert in possible treatments. I thoroughly look forward to you reaching out to the family with your unparalleled expertise.

4 There is no way the state (including the NHS and legal system, and police) should be preventing parents taking children to hospitals in other countries, the parents have every right to do so without any challenge from the state

I disagree. Parents are entrusted to act in the best interests of their children - when it's believed that this is not the case somebody has to intervene. We don't allow child abuse - sometimes that line is a huge gulf of grey. If only there were some system where all sides could be heard, experts could testify and an educated and impartial person could make a decision. Imagine, still, if that system allowed appeals and multiple levels of authority to really ensure the right thing is done.