I honestly want some physician to give a medical defense of this.
The child was taken off oxygen, was breathing on his own for HOURS...and the hospital...REFUSED TO PROVIDE OXYGEN AGAIN?
This is not humane. Not by any medical standard.
The child was taken off oxygen, was breathing on his own for HOURS...and the hospital...REFUSED TO PROVIDE OXYGEN AGAIN?
This is not humane. Not by any medical standard.
Basically, as we have seen in case after case, the UK doesn't really believe in the concept of patient autonomy.
The believe in medical paternalism.
The believe in medical paternalism.
If you believe the child should be in hospice care...I think that is reasonable. But hospice care usually doesn't mean NO CARE. It means palliative care to ease the suffering of the patient.
This...this is INCREASING the suffering of the patient.
This...this is INCREASING the suffering of the patient.
Ethically, the health system in the UK has major problems. In fact, I would argue they would be more ethical...if they simply believed in euthanizing the child.
This is all a horrible joke.
This is all a horrible joke.
Here is the basic problem in all of these cases: Legally, the UK has given doctors the power to veto parents in these cases.
But once you do that, the decision making process is a mess.
But once you do that, the decision making process is a mess.
Unless a judge orders something, a group of physicians are making varying decisions from minute to minute.
And judges usually make one decision over the span of weeks and months...not daily.
And judges usually make one decision over the span of weeks and months...not daily.
So, even the concept 'patient's best interests' can shift base on the day, and the collection of doctors that are in the room at the time of the decision.
This is, in turn...very bad for the patient.
This is, in turn...very bad for the patient.
This doesn't mean those docs are acting in bad faith. They are acting in what they think is the best interest.
But...as a group...the best interest can change depending on the doctors involved.
But...as a group...the best interest can change depending on the doctors involved.
Ultimately, this is why having a single guardian (in this case, the parents) is always a superior ethical position. They have one voice, and are generally consistent on what the best wishes are.
But the UK has vetoed that. So here we are.
But the UK has vetoed that. So here we are.
The other funny thing? This is, in many ways, similar to the Terry Shiavo case.
The state was trying to wrest control of health decisions away from the guardian.
Once you do that...you have serious ethical issues all around, no matter what you think the end result should be.
The state was trying to wrest control of health decisions away from the guardian.
Once you do that...you have serious ethical issues all around, no matter what you think the end result should be.
Misspelled Terri Schiavo above, dammit.
If you were mad about the Terri Schiavo case...you should be every bit as angry about this case, on medial ethics grounds.
Doesn't appear they are going to release the child.
This from the court hearing...full thread:
This from the court hearing...full thread:
Again, the ONLY reason not to allow the child to go to Rome is arrogance of the Judge, and the UK health system.
If the child is going to die any way...and the Roman officials are going to provide sufficient care...what is the harm?
In short...there is none.
If the child is going to die any way...and the Roman officials are going to provide sufficient care...what is the harm?
In short...there is none.
Simply put, there is neither a moral NOR medical case to prevent the child from being moved to Rome.
The ONLY opposition is a politically based one.
The ONLY opposition is a politically based one.
This is not like Jehovah's witness cases, etc.
In this case all agree the child is going to die. The only question is palliative care.
As long as that is guaranteed...what does it matter where the child is?
The parents should decide that part, and the govt should let them go.
In this case all agree the child is going to die. The only question is palliative care.
As long as that is guaranteed...what does it matter where the child is?
The parents should decide that part, and the govt should let them go.
Simple reality...this is the natural progression of a slowly progressive authoritarian society, that robotically acts without thinking, without regard to ethics, morality, or personal rights.
