The Tragic Case of Alfie Evans

endacl

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I just don't understand the purpose of a march in Ireland against this.

Facebook said to.

Ursus Horribilis

I suppose it ties in nicely with the referendum and keeping babies alive at all costs.

seamus

robp wrote: »

Such a loop hole is grounds for extraordinary abuse, motivated by whatever idealogical bent is current. I also think very very few people would agree to it is they were given the choice in a plebiscite.

So you don't like the current system, but you're not prepared to suggest one that would work better?

Any system has loops holes for extraordinary abuse. Look at what happened in Ireland when the church was given absolute power over the children in its care.

What the court system has going for it that none of the others have, is democracy. Parents are not accountable to the public. Give them absolute power and their abuses go unseen and unchecked.

The same is not true for the courts.

iamwhoiam

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I just don't understand the purpose of a march in Ireland against this.

Neither do the marchers . But they feel good being " activists" in front of their friends . No thought about how Alfie feels being locked into his world or what Alfies needs are

Ursus Horribilis

There is also potential for abuse if parents have the final say in every single case. In the case of this poor unfortunate child who is severely brain damaged and is dying, his parents want to keep him alive at all costs. Even if it means inflicting pain on a defenceless child who has no say in the matter.

retro:electro

Is it true that he has not been given any sedatives or painkillers?

endacl

retro:electro wrote: »

Is it true that he has not been given any sedatives or painkillers?

If he’s non-responsive to stimuli, what purpose would they serve?

iamwhoiam

retro:electro wrote: »

Is it true that he has not been given any sedatives or painkillers?

Why ? Do you think he needed them ?

Neyite

retro:electro wrote: »

Is it true that he has not been given any sedatives or painkillers?

He may not actually need them depending on the brain damage - I stand to be corrected on that.

At this stage as well, often pain relief has the side effect of hastening death, so I can't see a doctor there prescribing it while simultaneously being accused on social media of being murderers.

wexie

Neyite wrote: »

At this stage as well, often pain relief has the side effect of hastening death, so I can't see a doctor there prescribing it while simultaneously being accused on social media of being murderers.

Thing is, no matter what the doctors do at this stage they'll end up vilified.
I can only imagine how many drs and nurses in that hospital are completely stressed out over this when all they are trying to do is their best for Alfie...

splinter65

robp wrote: »

That is my point though. Any parent might, rather than every parent would.In absence of the person having a say the parents get to decide. The hospitals bureaucrats won't be visiting the gravestone.

So for you it’s all about the parents rights, the parents feelings. What about the baby’s rights? Stop thinking about yourself for one minute and think about your child.

Ashbourne hoop

Riva10 wrote: »

The same people will pay for this treatment who paid for the extended search for Madeline McCann. The British Taxpayer. In excess of £10 million. A search for a child who disappeared because of her parents negligence.
Who or what is the hospital afraid of . Why are they so adamant in stopping the parents from taking this baby to Italy for another diagnosis. Have they got something to hide. Was the delivery botched.?[/QUOTE]

From the Court Judgement: Alfie was born at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital. He was delivered at full term with a healthy weight and discharged home three days after the birth. Alfie’s mother was then 18 years old and this was her first pregnancy. Alfie’s father Tom was 19 years of age. Though self-evidently very young and though Alfie had not been planned his parents were delighted by him. They were both determined to be good parents and, from what I have seen and read, were instinctive and natural. The couple were well-supported by their respective extended families. Alfie was a happy smiling baby who seemed to be perfectly well.

So it would appear the delivery was not botched.

splinter65

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Neither do the marchers . But they feel good being " activists" in front of their friends . No thought about how Alfie feels being locked into his world or what Alfies needs are

Letting the “man” know that they know what their “rights” are.
No obligations. No responsibilities. Just rights and entitlements.

retro:electro

endacl wrote: »

If he’s non-responsive to stimuli, what purpose would they serve?

Didn’t realise that. Just asking!

wexie

splinter65 wrote: »

No obligations. No responsibilities. Just rights and entitlements.

I remember a time when they all came as a package deal.

As a matter of fact I think they still do for some of us.

Martina1991

MRI scans have show his brain has had "catastrophic degradation". Even though the doctors have not been able to give a definitive diagnosis, nothing will save this boy. He will never recover or have any quality of life.

I can absolutely feel for the family who would do anything to save him but it cannot be done.

The amount of attention and publicity this has generated is astounding. Even if his life support was turned back on, he will never improve.

What do these protesters hope to achieve?

Ashbourne hoop

Martina1991 wrote: »

MRI scans have show his brain has had "catastrophic degradation". Even though the doctors have not been able to give a definitive diagnosis, nothing will save this boy. He will never recover or have any quality of life.

I can absolutely feel for the family who would do anything to save him but it cannot be done.

The amount of attention and publicity this has generated is astounding. Even if his life support was turned back on, he will never improve.

What do these protesters hope to achieve?[/QUOTE]

Facebook likes....

iamwhoiam

Martina1991 wrote: »

MRI scans have show his brain has had "catastrophic degradation". Even though the doctors have not been able to give a definitive diagnosis, nothing will save this boy. He will never recover or have any quality of life.

I can absolutely feel for the family who would do anything to save him but it cannot be done.

The amount of attention and publicity this has generated is astounding. Even if his life support was turned back on, he will never improve.

What do these protesters hope to achieve?

Attention . They feel good showing off being " activists "

RocketRaccoon

Martina1991 wrote: »

MRI scans have show his brain has had "catastrophic degradation". Even though the doctors have not been able to give a definitive diagnosis, nothing will save this boy. He will never recover or have any quality of life.

I can absolutely feel for the family who would do anything to save him but it cannot be done.

The amount of attention and publicity this has generated is astounding. Even if his life support was turned back on, he will never improve.

What do these protesters hope to achieve?

The parents need to come out and tell these people to behave and cop on, unfortunately the father has been doing the complete opposite.

super_furry

Do people honestly believe that health professionals, people who have dedicated their lives to saving people, are suddenly trying to kill a baby.

To what end?

Lollipops23

In some ways I'm reminded of the Shannon Matthews case, where the locals' mistrust of the professionals hindered the investigation and ended up causing more disruption than helping.

Once they got the hell out of the way, they police found her.

Is it some weird chip on shoulders whereby they refuse to trust the experts?

yabbav

https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2018/04/25/real-reason-britain-wont-release-alfie-evans-italy/

In recent weeks many people across the globe have been moved and outraged by the story of little Alfie Evans, whose life hung in the balance in a British hospital and whose fate was taken from the hands of his parents by the National Health Service (NHS) and the courts.

As of the time of this publication, Alfie was forcibly removed from his breathing devices but continues to breathe on his own. The NHS and the courts would not even allow Alfie to go home with his parents, and when the nation of Italy offered to fly him to a Rome hospital for experimental treatment (at their own expense) the courts told Alfie’s parents they would not be allowed to leave the country.

Even after Alfie surprised doctors with his will to live he was denied water for nearly six hours. He continued to be denied nourishment. With the denial of his exit from England altogether it was clear that the British courts and the NHS had no intention of letting Alfie live.

But why?

Though still morally squishy there’s a valid argument to be made that when a nation votes for socialist healthcare they are agreeing to let the government treat their lives as algorithms. When the bottom line is measured in dollars rather than lives, the risk a society takes is illustrated in cases like Alfie’s. The NHS simply cannot afford the extremely expensive prospect of keeping alive a little boy who most likely will not live much longer due to an incurable condition. Alfie’s chances of any meaningful recovery were slim to none. It isn’t outside the boundaries of reason that the government tasked with his treatment would deem it simply not worth the effort expended.

It’s cruel, but logical…the inevitable result of a single-payer system.

I may not agree with such reasoning, but I can at least derive the path that such woeful decisions must take in a place like the UK.

What is not logical and nearly incomprehensible is the decision of the court not simply to deny Alfie further treatment, but then deny his right and the right of his parents to leave the country to seek treatment elsewhere. Even that decision might make a tiny bit of sense if it were to add to the NHS’ costs. That would be a problem for that pesky algorithm. However, Italy had already sent an airlift equipped to take the young child. His transportation and hospital provisions were covered by donations and the state of Italy. In fact, to move Alfie out of the care of the NHS would only save them money and labor. Alfie’s parents would have one more shot at rescuing his life. It seems like a win-win for everyone.
And still, the courts have barred the family from leaving the country.

Let’s ponder that for just one moment. Great Britain is a nation with a proud history of freedom and democracy. Most other nations around the world and Britons themselves would describe it as a “free country”, and yet here is a case where its free citizens are not allowed to leave its borders.

Is this something that should happen in a “free country”? Would Alfie’s parents be barred from taking a vacation? Would anyone in their right mind in that country find it acceptable or consistent with British values to deny any family the right to leave for a vacation or to visit a relative abroad? Why then is it allowable for this family to be virtual hostages in their land simply because their reason for travel is medical care rather than pleasure?

Some years ago I watched a documentary on the design and building of the Berlin Wall between East Germany and West Germany. It included extremely rare clips of interviews with the architects (I was shocked to learn there was actually a deliberate design to that monstrosity).

I searched high and low for the film, but was unable to locate it. If any reader has any clue where to find it please do let me know…I’ve been desperate to watch it again.

In one clip, an aging (former) East German Wall architect spoke briskly about the strategy of his designs. Although the interview was conducted during what must have been the last years of his life, he still seemed deeply resentful that he was being asked to defend the wall’s erection even after the fall of the Eastern Bloc. I’ll never forget what he said in that interview – it made the hair stand up on my arms.

With great sincerity – almost pleading with the interviewer – he said, “We had to build the wall. Too many people were leaving for the West and you need people to make socialism work. We had to build the wall to keep them in so they could see how great socialism was, so they could see that it works.”

As I can’t find the clip, you’ll just have to take my word for it (or not). The point is – this man and his comrades felt that the only way to sell people on their socialist vision was to force them to live in it. Those leaving were just too stupid to understand that it was the best thing for them.

This is exactly the point in the ruling by the NHS and the courts to forbid their free citizens from leaving the country. If they are allowed to flee the heart-wrenching consequences of socialism, then others will want to do the same. How can a socialist system work without the cooperation of everyone? And how can you force people to participate in that socialist system when they discover that system may kill them or their loved ones?

You build a wall.

Great Britain doesn’t yet have a wall to keep its citizens in, but the courts have built one with the law. Just as East Germany could not tolerate the massive loss of defectors who were leaving with their training, intellect and tax dollars, Great Britain’s healthcare system cannot tolerate the defection of those who might find better healthcare somewhere else.

After all, how would it look if Alfie were allowed to leave England (allowed to leave a free country! Even to write the words feels absurd!) and then found a successful treatment in another country?

It would be an abject embarrassment to a government that holds up their socialist healthcare as one of the wonders of the Western world. Not only would they be forced to admit that their own doctors and bureaucrats were wrong for denying this baby life-saving measures, but they would then have to deal with hundreds, maybe thousands of other citizens fleeing the bondage of NHS algorithms for a chance at swifter, more modern healthcare.

For some bizarre reason, a nation that boasts figures like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, a tiny island nation that was once so powerful and broad it was said that the sun never set on the British empire…for some inexplicable reason that nation has chosen to hang its pride and joy on socialized medicine.

If you think I exaggerate just look up the opening ceremonies of the London Olympics.

To release this child to the care of any other nation would be to admit failure, and heartless bureaucrats who will never have to watch young Alfie struggle for air or dehydrate to death have decided that their misplaced pride is more valuable than the lives of their citizens.

As a born Canadian I’ve often heard friends and family condescendingly mock the United States for our dogged refusal to bow to socialized medicine. They have the woefully ill-informed idea that people without health insurance here don’t receive care or expensive treatment at all.

“I’d rather pay higher taxes for “free” healthcare than deal with America’s health system,” they often say.

To anyone who echoes such sentiments, let me point to poor, sweet Alfie Evans and his helpless parents as to why most Americans still abhor the idea of the government having the last say in whether or not you get the treatment you need to live.
Ask anyone here and 9 times out of 10 they’ll tell you they’d give their last dollar, sell their last possession, go into debt for the rest of their lives to save the life of someone they loved rather than sit helpless as their government sentences that person to death because it just isn’t “worth it”.

It’s never “worth it”…until it’s your child. When government controls your healthcare, they ultimately control what your life is worth to the people who love you. I’ll take the system we have here in America over what Canada or the UK shoves down the throats of its citizens every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Given how many Canadians seek surgeries and treatments south of their border every year, I reckon they would too.

Alfie Evans may indeed have never really had a chance to survive his illness, but if there were a chance – one that would not cost the taxpayers of Great Britain – shouldn’t his parents be allowed to seek it out? Shouldn’t they, as citizens of a “free country” be allowed to leave its borders whenever they please and for whatever reason they please?

Sadly, Alfie – and little Charlie Gard before him – is doomed to be the sacrificial lamb at the altars of pride and socialism.

You will never convince me that this is right in any way. Never.

Because what this is… this is nothing short of real, actual, genuine evil.




Worth a read.

wexie

Lollipops23 wrote: »

In some ways I'm reminded of the Shannon Matthews case, where the locals' mistrust of the professionals hindered the investigation and ended up causing more disruption than helping.

Once they got the hell out of the way, they police found her.

Is it some weird chip on shoulders whereby they refuse to trust the experts?

It's the whole idea that equality means all opinions should be treated equally and carry equal weight....'my ignorance is as good as your knowledge'....because I say so....

super_furry

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Is it some weird chip on shoulders whereby they refuse to trust the experts?

It's these online echo chambers of Facebook communities and conspiracy sites. The kind of things that have people believing that vaccines cause autism and that the earth is flat. People with terrible, demonstrably wrong ideas and claims are backed up and supported by gullible followers and the whole thing snowballs from there. It's how you have hundreds of people convinced that health professionals are actively campaigning to murder a baby.

super_furry

yabbav wrote: »

Sadly, Alfie – and little Charlie Gard before him – is doomed to be the sacrificial lamb at the altars of pride and socialism.

You will never convince me that this is right in any way. Never.

Because what this is… this is nothing short of real, actual, genuine evil.




Worth a read.

It really isn't.

And this is a perfect example of the point I made above.

Half-baked notions of communism conspiracy theories exploiting the fact that there's nothing that can be done for this poor little child. It's propaganda, pretty sick propaganda that seeks to exploit a dying child to make some wishy-washy neo-conservative anti public health care rant.

wexie

yabbav wrote: »

Worth a read.

No not really

ohnonotgmail

yabbav wrote: »

https://www.redstate.com/kiradavis/2018/04/25/real-reason-britain-wont-release-alfie-evans-italy/

In recent weeks many people across the globe have been moved and outraged by the story of little Alfie Evans, whose life hung in the balance in a British hospital and whose fate was taken from the hands of his parents by the National Health Service (NHS) and the courts.

As of the time of this publication, Alfie was forcibly removed from his breathing devices but continues to breathe on his own. The NHS and the courts would not even allow Alfie to go home with his parents, and when the nation of Italy offered to fly him to a Rome hospital for experimental treatment (at their own expense) the courts told Alfie’s parents they would not be allowed to leave the country.

Even after Alfie surprised doctors with his will to live he was denied water for nearly six hours. He continued to be denied nourishment. With the denial of his exit from England altogether it was clear that the British courts and the NHS had no intention of letting Alfie live.

But why?

Though still morally squishy there’s a valid argument to be made that when a nation votes for socialist healthcare they are agreeing to let the government treat their lives as algorithms. When the bottom line is measured in dollars rather than lives, the risk a society takes is illustrated in cases like Alfie’s. The NHS simply cannot afford the extremely expensive prospect of keeping alive a little boy who most likely will not live much longer due to an incurable condition. Alfie’s chances of any meaningful recovery were slim to none. It isn’t outside the boundaries of reason that the government tasked with his treatment would deem it simply not worth the effort expended.

It’s cruel, but logical…the inevitable result of a single-payer system.

I may not agree with such reasoning, but I can at least derive the path that such woeful decisions must take in a place like the UK.

What is not logical and nearly incomprehensible is the decision of the court not simply to deny Alfie further treatment, but then deny his right and the right of his parents to leave the country to seek treatment elsewhere. Even that decision might make a tiny bit of sense if it were to add to the NHS’ costs. That would be a problem for that pesky algorithm. However, Italy had already sent an airlift equipped to take the young child. His transportation and hospital provisions were covered by donations and the state of Italy. In fact, to move Alfie out of the care of the NHS would only save them money and labor. Alfie’s parents would have one more shot at rescuing his life. It seems like a win-win for everyone.
And still, the courts have barred the family from leaving the country.

Let’s ponder that for just one moment. Great Britain is a nation with a proud history of freedom and democracy. Most other nations around the world and Britons themselves would describe it as a “free country”, and yet here is a case where its free citizens are not allowed to leave its borders.

Is this something that should happen in a “free country”? Would Alfie’s parents be barred from taking a vacation? Would anyone in their right mind in that country find it acceptable or consistent with British values to deny any family the right to leave for a vacation or to visit a relative abroad? Why then is it allowable for this family to be virtual hostages in their land simply because their reason for travel is medical care rather than pleasure?

Some years ago I watched a documentary on the design and building of the Berlin Wall between East Germany and West Germany. It included extremely rare clips of interviews with the architects (I was shocked to learn there was actually a deliberate design to that monstrosity).

I searched high and low for the film, but was unable to locate it. If any reader has any clue where to find it please do let me know…I’ve been desperate to watch it again.

In one clip, an aging (former) East German Wall architect spoke briskly about the strategy of his designs. Although the interview was conducted during what must have been the last years of his life, he still seemed deeply resentful that he was being asked to defend the wall’s erection even after the fall of the Eastern Bloc. I’ll never forget what he said in that interview – it made the hair stand up on my arms.

With great sincerity – almost pleading with the interviewer – he said, “We had to build the wall. Too many people were leaving for the West and you need people to make socialism work. We had to build the wall to keep them in so they could see how great socialism was, so they could see that it works.”

As I can’t find the clip, you’ll just have to take my word for it (or not). The point is – this man and his comrades felt that the only way to sell people on their socialist vision was to force them to live in it. Those leaving were just too stupid to understand that it was the best thing for them.

This is exactly the point in the ruling by the NHS and the courts to forbid their free citizens from leaving the country. If they are allowed to flee the heart-wrenching consequences of socialism, then others will want to do the same. How can a socialist system work without the cooperation of everyone? And how can you force people to participate in that socialist system when they discover that system may kill them or their loved ones?

You build a wall.

Great Britain doesn’t yet have a wall to keep its citizens in, but the courts have built one with the law. Just as East Germany could not tolerate the massive loss of defectors who were leaving with their training, intellect and tax dollars, Great Britain’s healthcare system cannot tolerate the defection of those who might find better healthcare somewhere else.

After all, how would it look if Alfie were allowed to leave England (allowed to leave a free country! Even to write the words feels absurd!) and then found a successful treatment in another country?

It would be an abject embarrassment to a government that holds up their socialist healthcare as one of the wonders of the Western world. Not only would they be forced to admit that their own doctors and bureaucrats were wrong for denying this baby life-saving measures, but they would then have to deal with hundreds, maybe thousands of other citizens fleeing the bondage of NHS algorithms for a chance at swifter, more modern healthcare.

For some bizarre reason, a nation that boasts figures like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, a tiny island nation that was once so powerful and broad it was said that the sun never set on the British empire…for some inexplicable reason that nation has chosen to hang its pride and joy on socialized medicine.

If you think I exaggerate just look up the opening ceremonies of the London Olympics.

To release this child to the care of any other nation would be to admit failure, and heartless bureaucrats who will never have to watch young Alfie struggle for air or dehydrate to death have decided that their misplaced pride is more valuable than the lives of their citizens.

As a born Canadian I’ve often heard friends and family condescendingly mock the United States for our dogged refusal to bow to socialized medicine. They have the woefully ill-informed idea that people without health insurance here don’t receive care or expensive treatment at all.

“I’d rather pay higher taxes for “free” healthcare than deal with America’s health system,” they often say.

To anyone who echoes such sentiments, let me point to poor, sweet Alfie Evans and his helpless parents as to why most Americans still abhor the idea of the government having the last say in whether or not you get the treatment you need to live.
Ask anyone here and 9 times out of 10 they’ll tell you they’d give their last dollar, sell their last possession, go into debt for the rest of their lives to save the life of someone they loved rather than sit helpless as their government sentences that person to death because it just isn’t “worth it”.

It’s never “worth it”…until it’s your child. When government controls your healthcare, they ultimately control what your life is worth to the people who love you. I’ll take the system we have here in America over what Canada or the UK shoves down the throats of its citizens every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Given how many Canadians seek surgeries and treatments south of their border every year, I reckon they would too.

Alfie Evans may indeed have never really had a chance to survive his illness, but if there were a chance – one that would not cost the taxpayers of Great Britain – shouldn’t his parents be allowed to seek it out? Shouldn’t they, as citizens of a “free country” be allowed to leave its borders whenever they please and for whatever reason they please?

Sadly, Alfie – and little Charlie Gard before him – is doomed to be the sacrificial lamb at the altars of pride and socialism.

You will never convince me that this is right in any way. Never.

Because what this is… this is nothing short of real, actual, genuine evil.




Worth a read.

It contains a lie in the 2nd paragraphy so why is it worth reading further?

and when the nation of Italy offered to fly him to a Rome hospital for experimental treatment (at their own expense)

there was no experimental treatment in Italy. It was just continued palliative care.

yabbav

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It contains a lie in the 2nd paragraphy so why is it worth reading further?



there was no experimental treatment in Italy. It was just continued palliative care.

You sure?

super_furry

yabbav wrote: »

You sure?

If you can't bother your hole to educate yourself on even the most basic facts of this case, for the good of everyone else, please stay away.

wexie

yabbav wrote: »

You sure?

Yes, even the hospital in Italy have stated there is absolutely nothing they can do for him beyond palliative care.

So your article is, I'm sorry to say (not really) just a load of poorly written drivel

EagererBeaver

yabbav wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It contains a lie in the 2nd paragraphy so why is it worth reading further?



there was no experimental treatment in Italy. It was just continued palliative care.

You sure?

Yes. The author is conflating, one would suspect deliberately, different strands of truth from this case and the Charlie Gard case.

Of course you'd know all this yourself if you were prepared to read the court documents or, oh I don't know, a newspaper.

Ursus Horribilis

Are you an American by any chance?

ohnonotgmail

yabbav wrote: »

You sure?

your ignorance of the basic facts of what has happened is frightening.

SusieBlue

super_furry wrote: »

Do people honestly believe that health professionals, people who have dedicated their lives to saving people, are suddenly trying to kill a baby.

To what end?

I think that's whats most upsetting about it. As if all these medical professionals are all conspiring together to callously murder a baby just for the fun of it.
These doctors and nurses are human too and are no doubt just as upset and do not deserve to be villified for simply doing their jobs.

I know there are a few bad apples in every profession but to suggest that this amount of qualified doctors are colluding in order to cause hurt to a baby and his family is disgusting.
They can't all be wrong.
They have the baby's best interests at heart.
It must be impossible to care for Alfie with all the hype around this. I imagine the staff there feel they can't do wrong nor right, and all the while the mob outside are getting louder and the accusations are getting more serious.

I feel bad for Alfie, the staff, and the other sick children & their families in that hospital. But Alfies parents can frankly feck off. Any sympathy I had for their plight vanished when daddy started the intimidation tactics.
They are being selfish. The whole situation is disgusting.

yabbav

super_furry wrote: »

If you can't bother your hole to educate yourself on even the most basic facts of this case, for the good of everyone else, please stay away.

Nobody said there was a cure but the Italians are at least going to treat the child.

ohnonotgmail

yabbav wrote: »

Nobody said there was a cure but the Italians are at least going to treat the child.

there is no treatment. they are going to provide palliative care? do you know what means? Do you know what that entails?

SusieBlue

yabbav wrote: »

Nobody said there was a cure but the Italians are at least going to treat the child.

They won't be treating him. They'll be prolonging his suffering for no one's benefit but the parents and Toms loyal "army".

EagererBeaver

yabbav wrote: »

super_furry wrote: »

If you can't bother your hole to educate yourself on even the most basic facts of this case, for the good of everyone else, please stay away.

Nobody said there was a cure but the Italians are at least going to treat the child.

No. No they are not. You're either deliberately lying or else incredibly stupid.

_Dara_

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no treatment. they are going to provide palliative care? do you know what means? Do you know what that entails?

Well, palliative care is treatment. I’ve been on palliative treatments since my diagnosis. Treatment and cure are different things.

But there’s nothing more that can be done for this child whereas many palliative treatments actually give back a decent quality of life to patients, at least for a time. Palliative care is a bit misunderstood.

But this isn’t really relevant to this case. This poor child’s quality of life can’t be restored.

yabbav

Does anyone remember the case Ashya King. Cancer free and back at school now. I know these are different situations but another example of the public health system getting it wrong.

I personally know of a person who had a brain tumor who lived another ten healthy years dispite the public health systems if both Ireland and the UK saying he was inoprable before a private us clinic took over.

ohnonotgmail

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, palliative care is treatment. I’ve been on palliative treatments since my diagnosis. Treatment and cure are different things.

But there’s nothing more that can be done for this child whereas many palliative treatments actually give back a decent quality of life to patients, at least for a time. Palliative care is a bit misunderstood.

But this isn’t really relevant to this case. This poor child’s quality of life can’t be restored.

the article actually says "experimental treatment" which to me implies some sort of cure or means of improvement.

wexie

yabbav wrote: »

Does anyone remember the case Ashya King. Cancer free and back at school now. I know these are different situations but another example of the public health system getting it wrong.

I personally know of a person who had a brain tumor who lived another ten healthy years dispite the public health systems if both Ireland and the UK saying he was inoprable before a private us clinic took over.

So tell us how this is even remotely relevant?

EagererBeaver

_Dara_ wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no treatment. they are going to provide palliative care? do you know what means? Do you know what that entails?

Well, palliative care is treatment.

No it's not. "Treatment" implies the primary objective is to fight the disease. Palliative care shifts the focus to ensuring the patient is as comfortable and pain free as possible, and will then, frequently, transition into end of life care.

Sorry to hear about your illness.

Sofiztikated

yabbav wrote: »

Does anyone remember the case Ashya King. Cancer free and back at school now. I know these are different situations but another example of the public health system getting it wrong.

I personally know of a person who had a brain tumor who lived another ten healthy years dispite the public health systems if both Ireland and the UK saying he was inoprable before a private us clinic took over.

All the Italian hospital are offering to do is a feeding tube and ventilation. That's it. Even they know its hopeless.

Edit: And one case in a million goes against the odds, so every one will?

yabbav

wexie wrote: »

So tell us how this is even remotely relevant?

It’s relevant that the parents want their child treated, the Italians want to treat the child and lots of the public and international figures also do. The NHS are making a call against the will of the child’s guardians and that in itself is messed up.

The child story you say is not relevant was sentenced to death by the NHS and due to the parents going against them the child is now back in school.

The panels of the NHS are making economic decisions.

ohnonotgmail

Sofiztikated wrote: »

All the Italian hospital are offering to do is a feeding tube and ventilation. That's it. Even they know its hopeless.

and that ventilation requires a tracheostomy. why the parents would do that to him is beyond me.

EagererBeaver

yabbav wrote: »

wexie wrote: »

So tell us how this is even remotely relevant?

It’s relevant that the parents want their child treated, the Italians want to treat the child and lots of the public and international figures also do. The NHS are making a call against the will of the child’s guardians and that in itself is messed up.

The child story you say is not relevant was sentenced to death by the NHS and due to the parents going against them the child is now back in school.

The panels of the NHS are making economic decisions.

Listen to what everyone is telling you, and what ALL medical professionals involved in this case, be they from British, Italian or German hospitals.

There. Is. No. ****ing. Treatment.

ohnonotgmail

yabbav wrote: »

It’s relevant that the parents want their child treated, the Italians want to treat the child and lots of the public and international figures also do. The NHS are making a call against the will of the child’s guardians and that in itself is messed up.

The child story you say is not relevant was sentenced to death by the NHS and due to the parents going against them the child is now back in school.

The panels of the NHS are making economic decisions.

the italians have not offered to treat the child. they have offered palliative care. palliative care that requires a tracheostomy which is a surgical procedure. why not go and educate yourself before posting again for your own sake.

wexie

yabbav wrote: »

It’s relevant that the parents want their child treated, the Italians want to treat the child and lots of the public and international figures also do. The NHS are making a call against the will of the child’s guardians and that in itself is messed up.

The child story you say is not relevant was sentenced to death by the NHS and due to the parents going against them the child is now back in school.

The panels of the NHS are making economic decisions.

ok.....once more, in little words.....there....is....no.....treatment.....

It's not a case of not wanting to spend the money, it's a case of there not being the technology to regenerate brains....not even in Italy

yabbav

Sofiztikated wrote: »

All the Italian hospital are offering to do is a feeding tube and ventilation. That's it. Even they know its hopeless.

Edit: And one case in a million goes against the odds, so every one will?

That one in a million case was everything to the kids family and the kid. To you and the NHS it would have just been collateral damage.