Why wouldnt you just hold like Johns Hopkins doctors at gun point to treat your son? Leave your crazy in the US, Italy has had enough problems.
@BennMann, The post was in response to the Alfie Evans situation in England, not US, in which a court decided that the parents of a child were not allowed to take them to Italy when offered a fully paid treatment trial for their son's extremely rare condition, and if they even tried to move him, they'd be arrested. They were told to simply let him die.
@BennMann, You're gonna regretti if you upsetti the land of spaghetti
@TheCrust, the medical experts agreed that the kid would never recover, so taking him to Italy was not going to cure him. It would have only prolonged his life a short amount of time
@InsaneAnimeCleavage, which is entirely within the rights of the parents.
@InsaneAnimeCleavage, they argued that the act of transporting him to Italy would have lead to a painful death on the way there
@TheCrust, which is why the hospital moved to, and successfully did, have parental rights removed on the grounds that maintaining him in the state he was in was nothing short of inhumane, and that given the simple act of driving him to the hospital triggered horrific seizures, the trip to Italy would have just killed him anyway.
@TheCrust, The kid had been in a coma for most of his life, his brain had degenerated to the point of being 75% water/spinal fluid, he had no cognitive functions and he was only being kept alive by machines. It was the opinion of all doctors that he had no hope of recovery - even Rome was just saying “we’ll keep him hooked up and in a coma until he dies” (they were offering palliative care, not treatment). His doctors argued that artificially prolonging his suffering was not in his best interests and that nature should be allowed to run its course.
It’s a horrible situation (I know, because I had to deal with something very similar for my father two weeks ago) but sometimes what is best for the patient isn’t what the family wants, and someone has to act for them. Every court in the land, even the European Court of Human Rights, agreed with the doctors.
@InsaneAnimeCleavage, But that's not for the hospital to decide. If there's even the tiniest chance that a treatment would work most parents would do anything to try to save their kid. The only time that parental override should be used, especially in a socialized system, is if they're trying to bar their child from life-saving treatment. This was not the case, so the hospital should not have any right to bar parents from trying everything to save/improve quality of life for their child.
@TheCrust, And governments do this. A lot...
@The Eye of the Hawk, I do agree with you. But the point made by the doctors was it wouldn't improve his quality of life or save him. It would just extend it by keeping him in a coma. And the child could have died painfully on the journey to Italy. At what point are you keeping them alive for your own sake vs theirs?
In the US he could choose treatment for his kid and the government doesn’t say what he can or can’t do
The problem is with the UK government and police (the tyrants) not letting the family move their son for treatment. There is no problem with the airport. The Vetican would probably send their private jet to pick up the family and bring them to Italy.
@Branded, I would assume that it all stems from the “socialized medicine” thing. When you don’t use your own money to get treatment, you are subject rules and stipulations from whatever institution is allowing you to get treatment. This kid was in a coma in the hospital for over a year in a vegetative state, with an untreatable degenerative condition dooming him to die soon. The decision was made not to kill the kid, but to remove life support that he had been on for a year by now.
It’s sad but continuing to use up resources needlessly to extend a child’s life(even though it’s been over for a while) when plenty of other people need help, is a product of the socialized medicine.
@Richard Cypher, I totally agree with the fact that the kids is pretty much dead already and any treatment will be a waste of time and money that could be used to treat other people.
@Richard Cypher, not even that resources could be used for others - that child was in pain. Was always going to be in pain, Italy or not
@Richard Cypher, I half agree with you - but the decision wasn’t about money (if it was, they’d have done this a year earlier), it was about a legally appointed representative (his doctors) advocating what was in his best interests. The government had nothing to do with this - and do you think an insurance company would fund keeping a person with an incurable and degenerative brain condition in a coma forever? How long after the doctors go “he’s never waking up” do you think a private medical insurer would have stopped paying the bills? (The family were not rich, so I doubt they’d have good insurance - if any - under the US system).
Did he say anything about hijacking the plane? No.
Stop putting words into people's mouths.
@Sir LancesALot, “Hijacking planes is fine as long as you don’t use the word hijack,” is currently my favorite take on 9/11.
@Sir LancesALot, dude he is still talk about bringing a gun into an airport
@Geo1345, Did he? Where did he say he would bring a gun to the airport?
@Sir LancesALot, I’m curious as to what you think he means then
@Geo1345, Over turning the government, revolution, just demanding the government to let his son on the plane. There's many things he could mean, not necessarily good either, but he didn't say he would hijack the plane or bring a gun to the airport. For all I know, he did mean that, but I'm not going to just say he said it because that's putting words into his mouth, which I am against. If pro-gun advocate put words into a anti-gun advocates mouth, I would still be against it. There are other things to fault the guys argument on because it's a horrible argument, like how empty of an argument it is.
@Sir LancesALot, dude you're reading waaaaay too far into this. Don't make it into a political thing.
@Curmudgeon, to be fair it was already a political thing.
@Curmudgeon, umm, explain how it’s not a political thing? Government not allowing someone to treat their own child is tyranny.
People misuse the words “it’s a right” all the time. Guns are a right. Healthcare should be a right.
A right, is not something that the government gives you. It’s something that they should absolutely not be allowed to be taken away.
@big freedom, that, right there. Talking about rights, government shoulds and all. Please, let's just keep it to cats, djckbutts, etc.
@Curmudgeon, amen. #bringbackdickbutt
@Sir LancesALot, Why else would she need the AR15? To barter it for a ticket?
@big freedom, This wasn’t a government decision - it was the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights.
@Nellybert , I don’t think you understand how government works... Court is government.
@big freedom, No, we have an independent judiciary.
@Nellybert , do they have the ability to put you in jail? Do they make decisions that affect your life? Do they... govern a citizens ability to travel?
Government does not mean parliament. All the bureaucrats that write the laws, enforce the laws, decide who’s guilty of breaking laws... that is government
@big freedom, I disagree with your definition, but I won’t debate it as there’s no clear right/wrong answer and I doubt I’ll change your mind. 👍🏻
@Nellybert , @big freedom , The three branches of GOVERNMENT are Executive, Legislative, and JUDICIAL.
Sorry for the caps; they're for emphasis only. I'm just regurgitating that thing we all learn over and over in primary school.
I don't care about this argument either way. I just know this thing. And I don't know many things.
@Tinkledink, Different country, different schools, different definitions. We’re taught that the two Houses of Parliament are government, the judiciary is separate and independent.
@Nellybert , I did not realize we weren't talking about freedom land. Excuse me, good sir. Carry on.
@Tinkledink, No worries, like I said - no right or wrong answer. 👍🏻
You’re talking about Freedom Land v2, I’m from Freedom Land v1. (It was the prototype, v2 upped the freedom content by 27.2% - unfortunately that seems to have created the ‘the Earth is flat’ error code in places).
@Nellybert , I’m definitely open to having my mind changed. Help me understand how someone can lawfully stop a parent from traveling and it’s not governance.
@big freedom, I wasn’t saying it wasn’t ‘governance’ - I was saying that in the UK we refer to the judiciary as being a separate entity and not part of the ‘government’. Over here, ‘the government’ is generally used to refer to politicians, specifically the party currently in control of the House of Commons - so a ruling made by a judge would not be regarded as a decision by the government.
Can I use a metaphor to explain the distinction? (Just let’s not get sidetracked by it - I’m not trying to change the topic). Calling a UK judge part of the government is like me calling an AR15 an ‘assault rifle’ - sure, it is a rifle and you can assault someone with it, but it doesn’t fit the actual definition of an assault rifle. Yes, judges are part of the system of governance, but they are not part of the government. (Did that make sense?)
@Nellybert , makes perfect sense.
I look at all bureaucracies (elected and non-elected) that have the ability to deny liberty as “government”
@big freedom, I think it’s just semantics we’re debating - in the US you’re taught that there are three branches of government, here we just use the word ‘government’ to refer to one of those three. 👍🏻
@Nellybert , yes. A distinction without a difference.
@big freedom, A rose by any other name.....
Well, to be fair, Britain has socialized too. The difference was, their socialized medicines death panel decided the son didn’t deserve to be treated whereas, Italy’s death panel decided they would treat him. The rub in Britain is that they will@fight you tooth and nail to make sure you die, even by denying you the right to seek treatment elsewhere. “This” is literally everything the Dems said didn’t exist in Obamacare, even though it was clearly there in black and white.
@anal muffin, Ah, as opposed to the fluffy & caring private medical insurance companies? I have no doubt that, upon being told by every doctor who examine the kid that his brain has degenerated to a big sack of liquid and that artificially keeping him alive is no longer in his best interests, they would have gone “NO! We shall keep this poor mite in a coma for as long as we can! Blow the cost and our shareholder returns be damned!”
@Nellybert , As far as I know, we don’t know the full details of his medical condition. That being said, my point was, socialized medicine, single payer, Obamacare, whatever you call it, are all the same thing and, they all have death panels that decide a persons worth and car level. You are correct though that insurance screws us too. Many of us here have encountered similar death panels from insurance agencies. There are no easy answers but what Britain has been up to is just wrong.
@Nellybert , but they could not have stopped him from leaving the country to see a different doctor. There’s a huge difference
@anal muffin, They confirmed that he had a degenerative brain condition and 75% of his brain had basically turned to water - he had been in a coma most of his life and was never going to wake up.
There was no ‘death panel’ deciding his worth. His doctors simply reached the end of all they could do and concluded that his condition was irreversible, so the choices were to artificially keep him alive or allow him to pass away naturally. They believed that artificially keeping him going in that state was not in his best interests, so wanted to withdraw artificial life support. It wasn’t some economic decision by a socialist system, it was a medical decision by doctors.
@big freedom, The highest court in the land had ruled that the doctors were the ones to make the treatment decisions - the court was simply acting to support them.
Metaphor time again (bear with me, this could be a bit clunky) - imagine that a politician in the US (decided that in his area (county?) the US Constitution did not apply, so all guns were banned. Some people might support his idea, but he would be trying to overrule the highest legal authority in the country. Regardless of how a judge felt on gun control, they would be legally bound to oppose his actions as he is trying to overrule the Constitution and Supreme Court. Here, the doctors were the legal medical guardians, so the law had to act to ensure their treatment plan was followed.
It may be true that people who are pro-gun, do tend to also be against universal healthcare; however.....they are two separate issues...
@ A Sad Blow Job, usually people that are “pro gun” tend to be pro personal liberty. Universal healthcare is so draconian and anti-personal liberty that anyone who’s ever read about the VA scandal would absolutely be anti “government run healthcare”.
Both of these are oversimplifications but I ultimately quite like the end result.
To the people who feel we citizens need deadlier and deadlier guns Incase we need to form a militia again or something; we stand no chance. The police have become so militarized and the Army can easily cream us if we get rowdy. Our AR-15s stand no chance against even a single tank. Back on the day a militia may have been able to work, but now we are like ants going against the ant bully
I have no need for an AR-15... Thanks to my AK-47.
We can all argue about whether prolonging his life was what Alfie would have wanted, or was in his best interest. To me that’s secondary to the main question which is: Are you (in this case the parents) the best person to make decisions about your life or is it the State.
@Dyslexic eman resu, It wasn’t the State making the decision - the doctors recommended a course of action, the parents challenged the doctors right to make that decision, the judge was asked to rule if Alfie’s doctors had the right to act in what they believed was Alfie’s best interests and the judge ruled that the doctors were best placed to decide his treatment.
At all stages, it was the doctors doing what they thought was best for the poor little kid. (As someone who had to go through something very similar with a parent last month, I know how painful it can be - but that sometimes what we want and what is right aren’t the same thing).
@Nellybert , First of all, I’m sorry for the loss your parent. Regardless of the circumstances it’s always difficult to lose a loved one.
To your point on the doctors making the decision and not the state. Who do you think the state is? The Doctors work for the hospital. A hospital which is run by NHS (National Health Service) I.E. the State.
@Dyslexic eman resu, You think doctors act in accordance with what the government tells them, rather than their medical opinions and what they believe is right? I think you do them a massive disservice (and massively underestimate the god complex of the average doctor) and have a warped view of the NHS. There are no ‘death panels’ deciding who lives and who dies, certainly not on economic grounds.
@Nellybert , obviously in general doctors believed what they are doing is right. If anyone is underestimating the “god complex” it’s you. I think that playing god is exactly what they were doing. They so believed they were right that they didn’t think he would live more than a few minutes off of oxygen. It took starving him to end his life. I understand the doctors position that they didn’t feel his life was worth living. That prolonging it caused suffering beyond the benefit of life. I’m merely stating that the best person to make that decision is the patient, or in a case where the patient is a minor child, the parent.
@Dyslexic eman resu, You’re not quite right on some bits there, but there’s nothing to be gained by arguing over trivial details.
Why is the parent the best person to make the decision of what’s best for a child in extreme circumstances like these? (I’m not referring to normal, day to day stuff, just things like complex medical issues). If a kid had cancer, the doctors said “let’s zap him with a proton beam and cure him” and the parents said “nope, we’ll go to our homeopath and get him a tincture of nettles. That and a good prayer session will sort him out” would you say that those parents know best too?
@Nellybert , you should have at least made the ridiculous vaccine autism argument if you were going to go down that road. Regardless, in the scenario you just laid out the doctors are attempting to save his life, not end it.
@Dyslexic eman resu, I was torn between the ‘idiot anti-vaxxer’ and the ‘idiot homeopath’ analogy, a literal life or death scenario seemed more suited to the homeopath one.
But under your assertion, you’d be supporting taking the kid out of hospital and to a homeopath (who is probably also anti-vax) because you said that the parent is the best person to make the decision for the child.
@Nellybert , In a case like Alfie’s, (which is what this discussion is about) I’d be completely on board with his parents trying homeopathic treatments. Wouldn’t you? The Doctors’s admitted there was nothing more they could do, and advocated “on his behalf” that it’d be better for him to die. Your made up scenario is completely different from the situation that happened. I didn’t think you were doing it on purpose but maybe I was wrong about that. I assumed it was implied when I stated in your scenario that they were attempting to save his life, not end it, that id be against taking the child to do homeopathic treatments.
@Dyslexic eman resu, Just to avoid confusion before we go on, were you saying that ‘the parents are the best people to make medical decisions for a child’ or ‘parents are the ones who are best placed to take a pulling the plug decision for a child’?
@Nellybert , I believe the individual is the best person to make decisions about their own life. In the case of a child, that decision should rest with the parent until the child is able to make such a decision. Obviously, there are exceptions to this which I believe your scenario was attempting to point out. I feel the same is true to your second question about pulling the plug.