Alfie Evans not allowed to leave UK

[Billy no mates]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html?rm=1

A lot of right wingers are using this as a case study against universal healthcare. But it's possible to have UHC without instances like this, right? I don't think most advocates of UHC in the US want to model our system after Britain's.

Have those right wingers worked out how the parents would have paid for the treatment Alfie has already received .

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html?rm=1

A lot of right wingers are using this as a case study against universal healthcare. But it's possible to have UHC without instances like this, right? I don't think most advocates of UHC in the US want to model our system after Britain's.

Single payer is single decider.

 

[oldshadow]

I found an interesting comment on social media that states:



and



To me the question is this: Given all the available information will the transfer of the patient give any meaningful improvement to their wellbeing and compare this against will the transfer of the patient cause additional suffering.

If the courts have found through various expert opinions that the transfer of the child will only cause more harm then I agree with the courts decision. They should not allow a parent to cause harm to their child even if it is through misguided hope and optimism.

He is is not going to be in pain as that can be managed and even if there is no hope the parents have the right to decide when as long as the child is not undue suffering.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I found an interesting comment on social media that states:



and



To me the question is this: Given all the available information will the transfer of the patient give any meaningful improvement to their wellbeing and compare this against will the transfer of the patient cause additional suffering.

If the courts have found through various expert opinions that the transfer of the child will only cause more harm then I agree with the courts decision. They should not allow a parent to cause harm to their child even if it is through misguided hope and optimism.

1. How can transferring a child do more harm than actively denying him health care?
2. Parents, and not courts, should decide when hope and optimism are misguided or justified.

 

[oldshadow]

If the court hears expert opinions that this will only hurt the child should the parent be allowed to hurt the child.

How will it hurt the child? He is comatose and can be give more meds if needed. He will be moved under medical supervision and the parents have raised money to pay for the transport.

 

[Neph]

He is is not going to be in pain as they can be managed and even if there is no hope the parents have the right to decide when as long as the child is not undue suffering.

and how do you know this?

I would agree with you, by the way, if it was proven that he would not suffer. I would say that if the family can transport him at their own cost then go for it.

I would hesitate to accept that he is not suffering when stricken with a neurodegenerative disease assocaited with severe epilepsy and has been in a semi vegetative state for more than a year. To me that is suffering and if the child is on a cocktail of medicine it is not a good thing. Those drugs fuck your body severely.

 

[panamaican]

This is a socialist death-panel. The leftist government is deciding this child has to die, and the parents don't have a right to leave with him.

The right would insist the free people, have freedom of movement. A father should be able to take his child out of that hospital.

Yes, free people with freedom of movement which presumes that the NHS isn't being asked to maintain any role in that movement.

By not answering the "who is paying for it question?" you're operating in this quasi-free state where the parents have freedom of movement but the government has to facilitate that movement. I agree that a father should be able to take his child out of the hospital, presuming he's doing the normal checkout procedure.

 

[Neph]

1. How can transferring a child do more harm than actively denying him health care?
2. Parents, and not courts, should decide when hope and optimism are misguided or justified.

If the very existence is one as described, which I'll copy again:

stricken with a neurodegenerative disease assocaited with severe epilepsy and has been in a semi vegetative state for more than a year

There's a case that the child is suffering. If the medical advice is there is no chance of improvement and all they are doing is sustaining this suffering then I think there is an ethical argument to cease treatment (which will therefore cease the suffering).

 

[panamaican]

He has been removed from the ventilator which they thought would kill him but it hasn't yet.

They have raised funds to cover moving him.

If they wish to have him treated someplace eles it should be their decision.

Now it is just the UK doctors and the government saying he should be killed and we are going to make sure it happens no matter what the parents try to do.

He very well stand no chance but the government should allow the parents to decide. Espicaly if the parents will fund it.

This goes beyond universal health care and into government killing a incent child.

I can't agree or disagree because my understanding of the case seems different from the internet discussion. My understanding is that the case was about removing ventilation. Which the parents lost and then appealed. They wanted to maintain ventilation because they felt that treatment was viable elsewhere...but intrinsic to getting to that treatment was the continuance of ventilation.

Which gets back at the core of my questions about who is expected to pay for the transport? My next question is about whether or not the parents are allowed to take the child home, assuming they follow the normal release procedures.

 

[Byron Carter]

Yes, free people with freedom of movement which presumes that the NHS isn't being asked to maintain any role in that movement.

By not answering the "who is paying for it question?" you're operating in this quasi-free state where the parents have freedom of movement but the government has to facilitate that movement. I agree that a father should be able to take his child out of the hospital, presuming he's doing the normal checkout procedure.

Nope.

The father of Alfie literally tried to carry him out of the front door of the hospital, but government police with guns stopped him and told him the child is not allowed to leave.

Doesn't matter who's paying for what.

 

[oldshadow]

and how do you know this?

I would agree with you, by the way, if it was proven that he would not suffer. I would say that if the family can transport him at their own cost then go for it.

I would hesitate to accept that he is not suffering when stricken with a neurodegenerative disease assocaited with severe epilepsy and has been in a semi vegetative state for more than a year. To me that is suffering and if the child is on a cocktail of medicine it is not a good thing. Those drugs fuck your body severely.

From all indications anyone in a deep comatose does not suffer.

They induce a deep comatose state to treat severely burned people for months to treat them to prevent shock and pain.

 

[panamaican]

Nope.

The father of Alfie literally tried to carry him out of the front door of the hospital, but government police with guns stopped him and told him the child is not allowed to leave.

Doesn't matter who's paying for what.

Which is why I said normal release procedures. While this thing is being fought over, I can't argue with the police stopping him. Why not just check the child out of the hospital properly?

 

[Neph]

From all indications anyone in a deep comatose does not suffer.

They induce a deep comatose state to treat severely burned people for months to treat them to prevent shock and pain.

I think we probably have to both concede that we are not medical experts and we do not know the full extent of treatment currently taking place or the childs exact state.

That's why I go back to my basic principles which I stated earlier as:

Given all the available information will the transfer of the patient give any meaningful improvement to their wellbeing and compare this against will the transfer of the patient cause additional suffering.

If the court has heard evidence to satisfy the latter then I agree that the suffering should not continue despite the best wishes of the family. If the latter is not satisfied then I have no problem with the family paying for everything out of their own pocket. Would you agree with that?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Yes, free people with freedom of movement which presumes that the NHS isn't being asked to maintain any role in that movement.

By not answering the "who is paying for it question?" you're operating in this quasi-free state where the parents have freedom of movement but the government has to facilitate that movement. I agree that a father should be able to take his child out of the hospital, presuming he's doing the normal checkout procedure.

In this case, hasn't the hospital in Rome already agreed to pay for the treatment and arranged medical transport? There is no expense to NHS. It is simply that their panel has already decided on death, and reversing that sets a bad example.

 

[oldshadow]

I can't agree or disagree because my understanding of the case seems different from the internet discussion. My understanding is that the case was about removing ventilation. Which the parents lost and then appealed. They wanted to maintain ventilation because they felt that treatment was viable elsewhere...but intrinsic to getting to that treatment was the continuance of ventilation.

Which gets back at the core of my questions about who is expected to pay for the transport? My next question is about whether or not the parents are allowed to take the child home, assuming they follow the normal release procedures.

Yes they wanted the ventilator to stay and him to be transported. They lost that and the courts allowed the doctors to remove the ventilator which They said would kill him by it hasn't .

They raised funds to pay for transport but still the government will not allow them to leave.

They can't even take him home to die if they wished.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Why not just check the child out of the hospital properly?

Because the courts are not allowing the child to be released. And while time passes dealing with red tape, the child is being denied medical treatment he could be getting elsewhere.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If the very existence is one as described, which I'll copy again:



There's a case that the child is suffering. If the medical advice is there is no chance of improvement and all they are doing is sustaining this suffering then I think there is an ethical argument to cease treatment (which will therefore cease the suffering).

Yeah, everyone understands that Alfie is in a bad way and will likely die despite the medical treatment being offered by Italy. No bureaucratic board should be invested with the authority to decide which patients must be refused medical care. It is a parental decision.

The parents are trying to save a life. The death panel is trying to save money.

 

[panamaican]

In this case, hasn't the hospital in Rome already agreed to pay for the treatment and arranged medical transport? There is no expense to NHS. It is simply that their panel has already decided on death, and reversing that sets a bad example.

That hospital then stated that after review they think he is untreatable.

 

[panamaican]

Yes they wanted the ventilator to stay and him to be transported. They lost that and the courts allowed the doctors to remove the ventilator which They said would kill him by it hasn't .

They raised funds to pay for transport but still the government will not allow them to leave.

They can't even take him home to die if they wished.

I'm going to disagree on this because it doesn't appear that has been decided. All that's been decided so far is that the NHS is allowed stop active treatment.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That hospital then stated that after review they think he is untreatable.

And yet they are still willing to try. In all likelihood, Alfie Evans will die soon regardless of what happens, but a very dangerous precedent is being set here. The parents ought to have the authority to make these decisions. Not a bureaucratic panel.