Will the UK really let Alfie Evans die in a hospital unwilling to treat him?

Alright, fair enough. I have to admit that this makes it somewhat more complex for me now, so long as your advise is sound.

 

So if local council removed a child from their family home for their protection, would this be an example of government intervening in personal matters?

For just murder and child abuse?

 

While socialised medicine can decide who lives and who dies, it is important to remember that it did keep Alfie alive for quite a long time for free, whereas in the US, it possibly would've only been for as long as the insurance allows, unless Obamacare would've been able to help somehow.

 

Every country? How do you know?

 

Tripe. Unfortunately, there sometimes comes a time to stop life support. That time is when there is no chance of any meaningful recovery and so the efforts involved in keeping a patient alive, which is always painful and invasive ,should stop.

UHC does not decide who lives and dies. Sadly, some illnesses cannot be cured.

 

And what generally comes after stopping life support? Socialised medicine decides who remains on life support and who is taken OFF life support. Is this not living vs dying?

How can you say it is "ALWAYS painful and invasive?"

Exactly, some illnesses cannot be cured - that's why I didn't say that socialised medicine decides who gets cured and who doesn't get cured. It DOES decide who lives and who dies.

 

Yes and no

Never forget that medical personnel see death frequently. We accept it is part of life. Unfortunately we also see case after case where a family will insist on futile care despite the fact there is no hope. I have seen patients literally rotting to death on the end of a ventilator because the family kept insisting we do something. Conversely where I currently work death is accepted by the families. That is because they are exposed to it on a weekly basis, not a week goes past when there is "sorry business" in one of the communities and because of tribal connectivity everyone knows who where and why.

 

Maaaate been orking in this field longer than you would believe

You do not want my memories of those that lingered without hope because family could not accept it

 

Those who believe that there is nothing worse than death have never worked in ICU.

Let me tell you a case story.

He had had an accident and became quadriplegic. But he developed a syringomylema. Rare but happens. He basically became a "locked in syndrome". Locked in syndromes lose all motor control except for vertical movement of the eyes. That is all they are able to move. No matter what we did he constantly drooled huge amounts. Very distressing for him as he was aware but unable to respond.His sisters who never visited, were insisting we kept him alive. Eventually he was transferred to a hospital specialising in spinal injuries and after much "discussion" with the family and the patient life support was withdrawn

There ARE things worse than death

 

Certainly so here in Aus

 

It's always doctors that decide whether life support should be stopped, whether they work for socialised medicine or not.

What comes after life support depends on what is needed. Sometimes a patient may need palliative care for a while to make them as comfortable as possible.
Sometimes they die immediately.

https://www.thoracic.org/patients/patient-resources/resources/mechanical-ventilation.pdf

That's a good link, but it claims the ventilator doesn't cause pain, but just "discomfort".

How do you work that out? You think people who use private healthcare aren't taken off life support?
You sound like the reverse of my mother.
She believed all private hospitals just want to make money and carry out unnecessary procedures.
She might have had a point, actually.

 

Are you sure that it is that simple? First of all, can't family decide to switch off life support when they learn that their loved one cannot recover? For instance, couldn't Alfie's parents have decided to remove him from life support long before it was forced upon them? Or is it likely the case that doctors had made their final decision the very second they discovered that he wasn't able to be cured? Could there ever be a case where a family wants their loved one off life support but the NHS wants them to keep living? And could there be a case where someone didn't have an incurable illness, (unlike Alfie) but doctors decide to remove them from life support anyway? One reason perhaps to free up a bed for someone who is more likely to get better?

Yeah, my point was that what comes after stopping life support is death, whether immediate or prolonged on palliative care.

So then why did you say "ALWAYS painful?" Were you intending to sensationalise it?

Well of course they are taken off life support eventually, but wouldn't it be more in the hands of the family? I'm just assuming that with enough insurance coverage, someone could have their loved one on life support for as long as they like, the possible exception being if they could not be cured and the bed is needed for someone who can be cured.

 

Have we had any high profile cases?

 

So then you're okay with this level of intervening, even though it does involve the central government in a small way?

Even if the child abuser doesn't kill the child? Still death penalty? Its just that you said "a life for a life" which I take to mean murder for murder.

 

To get a high profile case you would have to have a press willing to make it so. There have been high profile cases though - from memory the one that sticks in my mind was a young woman who was JW. She refused transfusion and it was all over the press that the medical profession as "letting her die" by "not treating her with alternatives to blood" Never mind that there ARE no alternatives to blood that will reliably supply someone with oxygen carrying red cells

 

The hospital never said anything of the sort!

 

What is all this about death panels?

 

Addit

https://theconversation.com/withdra...abies-when-doctors-and-parents-disagree-11913

Only 2 court cases so far as of 2013 could not find anything later

 

What, we don't in Aus?

Did the media not know that she refused the transfusion?

 

Yes but it made good copy since she had a whole slew of young friends who were also JW who believed implicitly in the tripe the Watchtower posts about how blood transfusions are not required because alternatives exist like Albumen which is derived from blood anyway but does not contain red cells

 

That's how things are, and I'm cool with it.

]quote]Even if the child abuser doesn't kill the child? Still death penalty?[/quote]

Indeed so, because the child will be traumatised for the rest of its life to a greater or lesser degree.

That's exactly what I said, and what I mean. I never say things I don't mean.

 

Let's pretend that in the UK, local government made certain decisions on behalf of the Central government, one of those decisions being whether parents can discharge their child from hospital. Would the Alfie story be different for you if the parents were prevented from leaving the hospital by local government?

Yeah, I thought that the statement meant that you think that ONLY murder should be punishable by death. Obviously its murder and child abuse for you.

 

What, we don't in Aus?

 

Well you are the one saying that there have not been any high profile cases here - some of that is the paucity of medical judicial decisions but some of it is also that that sort of thing does not seem to "fly" with the general population here.

Could also be the layers of offical health care reporting sites available i.e. Healthcare ombudsman. I do know of a couple of cases where the medical staff were wrong and it was identified as such in the Coroners courts - this has led to statewide changes in how things are done.