Alfie Evans

[buckchuckler]

Has anyine been following this situation?  Does anyone know why Britian has the right to tell these parents they can't take their child home or to Italy for treatment?  I don't know the nuance of their legal or health-care system but this seems to be a good argument against government run health care.  But, again, I could be wrong and misunderstanding this case because nothing about it makes sense to me. 

[GGGG]

I don't think it is much a damnation of government run health care as it is a reflection of a society that doesn't care as much about individual rights as we do here.

[Dr. Blackheart]

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=51888.0

[buckchuckler]

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=51888.0

Sorry, didn't mean it to be political.  I was just curious if anyone had any insight into another country's laws and rights.   Didn't mean to upset the apple cart.   Feel free to lock the thread or whatever.

[buckchuckler]

I don't think it is much a damnation of government run health care as it is a reflection of a society that doesn't care as much about individual rights as we do here.

Yeah, you're probably right about the health-care part, but how can the UK prevent the family from leaving.   They wouldn't let the kid go home because they deemed them a "flight risk".   How does it hurt the UK if the family gets treatment in Italy?

[MUfan12]

It's a discussion worth having. And I'd like to learn more as well, because on the surface, it's unsettling.

[MU82]

What's it all about, Alfie?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=51888.0

No discussion of anything interesting that might possibly have political ramifications!

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Yeah, you're probably right about the health-care part, but how can the UK prevent the family from leaving.   They wouldn't let the kid go home because they deemed them a "flight risk".   How does it hurt the UK if the family gets treatment in Italy?

Basically, the UK is saying it is a human rights violation for Alfie's parents to try to keep him alive. According to the UK and its doctors, it is in Alfie's best interests to just die.  Messed up. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

No discussion of anything interesting that might possibly have political ramifications!

Take it to Reddit

[Lennys Tap]

Basically, the UK is saying it is a human rights violation for Alfie's parents to try to keep him alive. According to the UK and its doctors, it is in Alfie's best interests to just die.  Messed up.

Death Panels.

[Jay Bee]

The Pope is his only hope. Religion does good again.

[naginiF]

The Pope (nh) is his only hope. Religion does good again.

you forgot your standard

[mu_hilltopper]

Death Panels.

Death Panels with Logan's Run Carousel.   Sign us up.

[Golden Avalanche]

I don't get it either.

Why in the world would they take medical advice from medical professionals?

[buckchuckler]

I don't get it either.

Why in the world would they take medical advice from medical professionals?

Why does the British government have the right to prevent medical care given by medical professionals from Italy, if Italy is offering to provide care, cover the cost, cover the transport etc?

[Golden Avalanche]

Why does the British government have the right to prevent medical care given by medical professionals from Italy, if Italy is offering to provide care, cover the cost, cover the transport etc?

Firstly, I believe the offer of care is provided by Vatican City. That would be different from Italy.

Secondly, the courts (two, in fact) have decided against the above possibility. Not the government.

Thirdly, the National Health Service has kept this child alive under no possibility of a return to healthy living for nearly two years.

Fourthly, the NHS has done the above at zero financial cost to the family.

Fifthly, because the family has not been put into financial ruin (and would continue to be free of any financial burden regarding medical care) their decision-making is certainly influenced by this fact.

Finally, not one person on this website nor in this country will remember the child's name in six weeks. Political tempest in a teapot.

[GGGG]

Firstly, I believe the offer of care is provided by Vatican City. That would be different from Italy.

Secondly, the courts (two, in fact) have decided against the above possibility. Not the government.

Thirdly, the National Health Service has kept this child alive under no possibility of a return to healthy living for nearly two years.

Fourthly, the NHS has done the above at zero financial cost to the family.

Fifthly, because the family has not been put into financial ruin (and would continue to be free of any financial burden regarding medical care) their decision-making is certainly influenced by this fact.

Finally, not one person on this website nor in this country will remember the child's name in six weeks. Political tempest in a teapot.

So this can go back to being the only Alfie we remember?

[GGGG]

Except for the old guys around here.  You probably remember this guy too.

[Spotcheck Billy]

So this can go back to being the only Alfie we remember?

That's Alf, this was Alfie

[mu03eng]

Secondly, the courts (two, in fact) have decided against the above possibility. Not the government.

Did I miss the memo where we(and/or the British) privatized court systems so they are no longer part of the government?

[barfolomew]

Did I miss the memo where we(and/or the British) privatized court systems so they are no longer part of the government?

Yes, you may have missed it because there was not a memo, only a tweet.

[buckchuckler]

Firstly, I believe the offer of care is provided by Vatican City. That would be different from Italy.

Secondly, the courts (two, in fact) have decided against the above possibility. Not the government.

Thirdly, the National Health Service has kept this child alive under no possibility of a return to healthy living for nearly two years.

Fourthly, the NHS has done the above at zero financial cost to the family.

Fifthly, because the family has not been put into financial ruin (and would continue to be free of any financial burden regarding medical care) their decision-making is certainly influenced by this fact.

Finally, not one person on this website nor in this country will remember the child's name in six weeks. Political tempest in a teapot.

Firstly, the Vatican reached out, but so has Italy.  The hospital in question is in Rome, not Vatican City, and Italy has granted citizenship to the family. 

Secondly, as mentioned, how are the courts not part of the government?

Thirdly, isn't that their job?  And how does that explain why he can't leave?

Fourthly, yeah, that's the deal there right?

Fifthly, I have no idea what you are trying to say.  Since the costs have been covered by the NHS, they should just shut up about it?  Is that your point?N

None of that explains why he can't leave.  Unless receiving the care of the NHS makes one beholden to remain in the UK for the rest of one's days.

And the fact that he will be forgotten means nothing.  Everything and everyone is forgotten.  That doesn't make the case irrelevant. 

I understand the end of life care situation.  What I don't understand about this situation is how the child seems to have become property of the state, where the courts have said he can't leave the hospital to go home, or to another hospital. 

[Lighthouse 84]

 

I understand the end of life care situation.  What I don't understand about this situation is how the child seems to have become property of the state, where the courts have said he can't leave the hospital to go home, or to another hospital.

Exactly.  The courts are, in effect, ruling that this particular hospital and doctor are superior to any others and the parents are not entitled to a second opinion.  It's a messed up world we live in when a parent's desire to keep his or her child alive is outweighed by a government's decision to let the child die when there are other avenues to take that could prolong life.

[GGGG]

  Exactly.  The courts are, in effect, ruling that this particular hospital and doctor are superior to any others and the parents are not entitled to a second opinion.  It's a messed up world we live in when a parent's desire to keep his or her child alive is outweighed by a government's decision to let the child die when there are other avenues to take that could prolong life.

In England, parents do not have that absolute right.  The courts have a right to intervene if they believe it is not in the best interests of the child to be on indefinite life support.  Obviously that is a very troubling sentence to type, but I do agree that parents do not have an absolute right to make these decisions and I also agree that life for the sake of being alive and nothing else isn't really "life." 

But I'm not sure as to where those lines need to be drawn.