Alfie Evans case

Staticneuron · Apr 25, 2018

While I don't believe in these people storming the hospital or causing trouble. I must admit that this is ridiculous and so are many of the posters in this thread that are telling parents to let go. It isn't your call nor your right to dictate this to them.

I support a hospitals and the governments rights to intervene when they know they can save a life, but if death is a certain outcome and the baby cannot speak for itself then let the parents try to take the baby to another hospital. It is not an insane or unreasonable request. Just a couple of things should be cemented here. If doctors advise against this then that means that after baby leaves facility the responsibility falls back on parents. That includes death during transport. It should not be a concern of the government especially if they safely make it to Italian hospital.

danowat · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
I have to ask ERA, why is it a problem letting his family take him away? Why are some so against it?

I honestly can't understand. Does it cost more tax money? No. Does it affect you in any way? No it doesn't. Why?

Because there is a chance that he is in pain, and there is zero chance of recovery, living in that situation isn't living, it's existing.

King_Moc · Apr 25, 2018

MouldyK said:
The Alfie Army and Parents don't agree.

They're also woefully unqualified to come to that conclusion.

Stuart444 · Apr 25, 2018

Okay so again, the Hospital they want to take the kid to has also said there is nothing they can do except provide similar care to what he is getting already. He could also die in transit.

This isn't a case of "These medical professionals have given up but these other ones haven't" it's a case of "This other hospital is willing to provide the same type of care he is already getting but there is a risk that the kid will die in transit to the other hospital"

Tito · Apr 25, 2018

HenrySwanson said:
I'm sorry it came across that way, I was just trying to illustrate how medical teams can be children's advocates, and how the best interest of that child is always the priority in their mind.

As a Christian, I get your argument - that life is precious and worth protecting no matter what. But as a med student in the UK I can understand how and why this has played out the way it has. I justify it as believing that sometimes palliation is the Christian thing to do - something which I learnt whilst being a Healthcare Assistant on a geriatric ward for over a year.

You make an interesting point. "As a Christian, I get your argument".

If you are not a Christian, if you think there is nothing after death, how can you reasonably make the argument that death is better than anything else.

How can you say that death is better than suffering? How can you say that death is better than torture?

That's at least irrational. I would answer, I'm tortured but alive, I'm suffering, but alive.

Logically speaking, the only thing an atheist has is life, when he looses it, he has nothing.

danowat said:
Because there is a chance that he is in pain, and there is zero chance of recovery, living in that situation isn't living, it's existing.

Pain is worst than death in your opinion. Do you have scientific data to back it up?

Thornton Reed · Apr 25, 2018

i wonder if this case is playing on the parents minds?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashya_King_case

danowat · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
Pain is worst than death in your opinion. Do you have scientific data to back it up?

Scientific data to back what up?

Staticneuron · Apr 25, 2018

danowat said:
Because there is a chance that he is in pain, and there is zero chance of recovery, living in that situation isn't living, it's existing.

There is a "chance" he is in pain? With that much brain matter gone? And that chance trumps the parents choice to try to keep their loved one alive as long as possible? The second part about living versus existing is a personal opinion (I agree mind you) but I also think in this particular situation this should be on the parents. If there was undeniable proof he was in pain then I would side with the hospital. It is uncertain he is in pain, it is uncertain he will die during transport. It is certain they will no longer offer support for him in the current hospital while the second hospital offer support even if it is end-of-life support. This really should be a not be a huge debate except people are actually arguing that this kid should die sooner because of their personal opinion on his condition versus allowing the parents to choose to continue on. The kid is going to die it seems but in the parents point of view they haven't tried everything they could and letting the kid die in this situation gives them an external target to project their grief instead of letting them come to terms on their own.

DryCreek · Apr 25, 2018

Deleted member 31104 · Apr 25, 2018

While I have sympathy for the parents, families all over the world deal with terminal prognosis of children. No-one else is inciting a mob to storm a hospital over it.

Frankly the father should be arrested. A dying child is terrible and grants you a lot of leeway, but he's way, way beyond that.

dennett316 · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
Pain is worst than death in your opinion. Do you have scientific data to back it up?

Of course pain and torture are worse than death...that's the reason why we put animals to sleep rather than have them suffer. It's why many campaign for the right to end their suffering, and have help doing so without that help being prosecuted. Pain and suffering vs non-existence. You no longer feel that pain and suffering...for many, that is better than existing with little but pain.
The rest of your post with atheists having nothing after death, so they should cling to life...I'm sorry, it's both stupid and offensive.

HenrySwanson · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
You make an interesting point. "As a Christian, I get your argument".

If you are not a Christian, if you think there is nothing after death, how can you reasonably make the argument that death is better than anything else.

How can you say that death is better than suffering? How can you say that death is better than torture?

That's at least irrational. I would answer, I'm tortured but alive, I'm suffering, but alive.

Logically speaking, the only thing an atheist has is life, when he looses it, he has nothing.

Pain is worst than death in your opinion. Do you have scientific data to back it up?

This is hard because as Christians we are taught that suffering is part and parcel of the job of following Christ.

As for the case in hand I believe it's hard to know if Alfie is in any pain, and if he somehow were to make it to his tenth birthday we'd still probably be unsure. I guess it comes down to the futility of "life-saving" measures. I have another question for you (just out of interest, I'm not trying to trap you!) - do you believe relatives/next of kin should have the final say in DNACPR (do not resuscitate) decisions made on behalf of elderly patients, or should it lie with medical professionals?

dennett316 · Apr 25, 2018

Staticneuron said:
There is a "chance" he is in pain? With that much brain matter gone? And that chance trumps the parents choice to try to keep their loved one alive as long as possible? The second part about living versus existing is a personal opinion (I agree mind you) but I also think in this particular situation this should be on the parents. If there was undeniable proof he was in pain then I would side with the hospital. It is uncertain he is in pain, it is uncertain he will die during transport. It is certain they will no longer offer support for him in the current hospital while the second hospital offer support even if it is end-of-life support. This really should be a not be a huge debate except people are actually arguing that this kid should die sooner because of their personal opinion on his condition versus allowing the parents to choose to continue on. The kid is going to die it seems but in the parents point of view they haven't tried everything they could and letting the kid die in this situation gives them an external target to project their grief instead of letting them come to terms on their own.

Even if he's not in pain, there comes a point where just keeping a body alive mechanically for the sake of it becomes cruel for all involved. This is about the parent's welfare as well, and right now they are making an inflammatory situation worse, having doctors fearing retaliation by a baying mob, other sick children and families are being disturbed. And for what? Ultimately, they are harming themselves by ignoring all rational help and advice and creating this fantasy that their child has a chance, but these evil doctors and nurses are actively trying to kill him off. It's not healthy for them, and they are robbing their child of his dignity with this circus that they've created.
Just because they're his parents doesn't mean they're capable of or even willing to make the best call for their child. His life has already ended, he mechanically exists. That's not life.

HenrySwanson · Apr 25, 2018

dennett316 said:
Even if he's not in pain, there comes a point where just keeping a body alive mechanically for the sake of it becomes cruel for all involved. This is about the parent's welfare as well, and right now they are making an inflammatory situation worse, having doctors fearing retaliation by a baying mob, other sick children and families are being disturbed. And for what? Ultimately, they are harming themselves by ignoring all rational help and advice and creating this fantasy that their child has a chance, but these evil doctors and nurses are actively trying to kill him off. It's not healthy for them, and they are robbing their child of his dignity with this circus that they've created.
Just because they're his parents doesn't mean they're capable of or even willing to make the best call for their child. His life has already ended, he mechanically exists. That's not life.

Mmmm, but are we to judge that rather than his parents.

Tito · Apr 25, 2018

HenrySwanson said:
This is hard because as Christians we are taught that suffering is part and parcel of the job of following Christ.

As for the case in hand I believe it's hard to know if Alfie is in any pain, and if he somehow were to make it to his tenth birthday we'd still probably be unsure. I guess it comes down to the futility of "life-saving" measures. I have another question for you (just out of interest, I'm not trying to trap you!) - do you believe relatives/next of kin should have the final say in DNACPR (do not resuscitate) decisions made on behalf of elderly patients, or should it lie with medical professionals?

If the medical professionals have used all their resources and they decide there is no chance (as in Alfie's case), then the family should have the right to take the patient home or wherever they want. I don't understand why it's so crazy to say this. IMO this is a basic human right.

In Alfie's case, the experts have said there is no chance, let the family take Alfie away, transport him to Italy or whatever; how is it possible that the family can't go into the hospital, grab the kid and take him somewhere else? Ridiculous. It makes no sense to me. The italian government have spoken, they will help, even the Pope said he will help, there's $100.000 in money raised by willing donators (not taxpayers money), the family agrees, everything is in place, but it can't be done, because some judge, some government, some bureaucrat decided it is not in the best interest to do it. Fuck off, honestly.

Blue Lou · Apr 25, 2018

The appeal is ongoing.

Follow https://twitter.com/HarryFarls/with_replies and https://twitter.com/danwnews/with_replies for live updates.

The parents have decided to get seperate representation. This is so sad.

The father has stuck with the Christian Legal Centre's Paul Diamond, the mother has opted for Jason Coppell QC.
.

The King beyond the wall · Apr 25, 2018

You guys should read the Judgment from the High Court in which it clearly sets out the situation that Alfie is in.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf

- Around 70% of Alfie's brain matter has dissolved.
- He no longer has the capacity to see, hear, smell, or feel.
- There is a 0.0% chance of any recovery. All medical professionals have agreed on this, only the father argues otherwise (bizarrely arguing that Alfie's brain matter can regenerate, an argument all doctors have rejected).
- Alfie's father is no longer legally represented and is a litigant-in-person, having instructed and fired 7 sets of solicitors.
- Alfie is constantly suffering seizures (similar to epileptic seizures)
- He was suffering intense muscle spasms, but his muscles have now become very weak (no longer tensed).
- it is 'unlikely' that he is feeling pain, but it is possible.
- Transferring Alfie to another hospital would achieve nothing, and he would likely die in transit.

The child is in the hospital's care and the medical staff have a duty of care for the child. The child does not belong to the parents, he is not their property, and the child has no quality of life. With no possible treatment or recovery possible, and with Alfie in a vegetated state with little to no brain activity and suffering from seizures, the legal and medical conclusion is that it is in his best interest to let him pass-away. Prolonging the inevitable achieves nothing.

treble · Apr 25, 2018

Deleted member 31104 · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
If the medical professionals have used all their resources and they decide there is no chance (as in Alfie's case), then the family should have the right to take the patient home or wherever they want. I don't understand why it's so crazy to say this. IMO this is a basic human right.

In Alfie's case, the experts have said there is no chance, let the family take Alfie away, transport him to Italy or whatever; how is it possible that the family can't go into the hospital, grab the kid and take him somewhere else? Ridiculous. It makes no sense to me. The italian government have spoken, they will help, even the Pope said he will help, there's $100.000 in money raised by willing donators (not taxpayers money), the family agrees, everything is in place, but it can't be done, because some judge, some government, some bureaucrat decided it is not in the best interest to do it. Fuck off, honestly.

It's the doctors at the childrens hospital who are saying that moving him is risky. The Italian doctors concur that there is risk as their own report presented to the court stated the following

"It is possible that during travel Alfie may present continuous seizures due to stimulations related to the transportation and flight: these seizures might induce further damage to (the) brain, being the whole procedure of transportation at risk."

This is nothing to do bureaucrats, it's to do with the opinion of medical professionals.

Barry Sandwich · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
Pain is worst than death in your opinion. Do you have scientific data to back it up?

There are literally quantifiable quality of life scores, when assessing a person's health, that are worse than / score lower than death.

People saying it's the parents right should bear in mind how many children these hospitals deal with whose parents don't have their child's interest at heart.
The patient is a citizen under care of a medical professional, not at the mercy of their parents' beliefs.

Gibson · Apr 25, 2018

Staticneuron said:
While I don't believe in these people storming the hospital or causing trouble. I must admit that this is ridiculous and so are many of the posters in this thread that are telling parents to let go. It isn't your call nor your right to dictate this to them.

I support a hospitals and the governments rights to intervene when they know they can save a life, but if death is a certain outcome and the baby cannot speak for itself then let the parents try to take the baby to another hospital. It is not an insane or unreasonable request. Just a couple of things should be cemented here. If doctors advise against this then that means that after baby leaves facility the responsibility falls back on parents. That includes death during transport. It should not be a concern of the government especially if they safely make it to Italian hospital.

The hospital has a duty of care to the patient, not to the parents. If it's ruled the child is at risk being discharged (and flew to Italy) then I think it's perfectly reasonable the parents are prevented from doing that. I believe the hospital has offered to allow the child to be taken to a hospice/ die at home but of course with the situation the way it is, there's nothing to stop the parents disregarding this and taking him to Italy anyway. Hence the need for the legal preventative measures.

Tito · Apr 25, 2018

kmag said:
It's the doctors at the childrens hospital who are saying that moving him is risky. The Italian doctors concur that there is risk as their own report presented to the court stated the following

This is nothing to do bureaucrats, it's to do with the opinion of medical professionals.

The opinion of medical professionals is that the kid is going to die.

The decision to not let the family take the kid from the hospital has nothing to do with medical professionals or anything, it's some bureaucrat sitting over good and bad dictating what is "best" for the kid.

What is the risk of moving the kid? That he could die? It's the same risk of letting him stay on that hospital!! Ridiculous argument.

The family has the right to take the kid and bring him to Italy or his house, or an experimental treatment in Timbuktu.

From the moment doctors said they are not treating him anymore and given their final opinion, the decisions should be all on the family, it doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect the government, at this point it is just pointless ideological discussion.

Funky_Monk · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
The opinion of medical professionals is that the kid is going to die.

The decision to not let the family take the kid from the hospital has nothing to do with medical professionals or anything, it's some bureaucrat sitting over good and bad dictating what is "best" for the kid.

What is the risk of moving the kid? That he could die? It's the same risk of letting him stay on that hospital!! Ridiculous argument.

The family has the right to take the kid and bring him to Italy or his house, or an experimental treatment in Timbuktu.

From the moment doctors said they are not treating him anymore and given their final opinion, the decisions should be all on the family, it doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect the government, at this point it is just pointless ideological discussion.

Got a citation for that claim?

HenrySwanson · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
If the medical professionals have used all their resources and they decide there is no chance (as in Alfie's case), then the family should have the right to take the patient home or wherever they want. I don't understand why it's so crazy to say this. IMO this is a basic human right.

In Alfie's case, the experts have said there is no chance, let the family take Alfie away, transport him to Italy or whatever; how is it possible that the family can't go into the hospital, grab the kid and take him somewhere else? Ridiculous. It makes no sense to me. The italian government have spoken, they will help, even the Pope said he will help, there's $100.000 in money raised by willing donators (not taxpayers money), the family agrees, everything is in place, but it can't be done, because some judge, some government, some bureaucrat decided it is not in the best interest to do it. Fuck off, honestly.

Seems like the crux of the case is the transportation.

treble said:

The King beyond the wall · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
The opinion of medical professionals is that the kid is going to die.

The decision to not let the family take the kid from the hospital has nothing to do with medical professionals or anything, it's some bureaucrat sitting over good and bad dictating what is "best" for the kid.

What is the risk of moving the kid? That he could die? It's the same risk of letting him stay on that hospital!! Ridiculous argument.

The family has the right to take the kid and bring him to Italy or his house, or an experimental treatment in Timbuktu.

From the moment doctors said they are not treating him anymore and given their final opinion, the decisions should be all on the family, it doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect the government, at this point it is just pointless ideological discussion.

At this point death is certain, but it is the manner of the death - is it better to die receiving EOL palliative care from medical professionals in the correct environment with all the equipment available, or in turbulence on a plane somewhere over Europe? If there was some chance of treatment there would be an argument for it, but since taking him to Italy would achieve nothing there is no reason for why the medical professionals, who have a duty of care for the child, would agree to moving him. The parents, who I sympathise for, are doing this for themselves and not for Alfie.

Barry Sandwich · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
What is the risk of moving the kid? That he could die? It's the same risk of letting him stay on that hospital!! Ridiculous argument.

Here's one risk, but it's not going to be a popular answer with many.

Who foots the bill and why should this child be treated differently to any other? Because of mob rule?
If you set a precedent in this case then how many more parents will want this treatment and will be given false hope that they can fly their child to a private foreign doctor as a last resort?

It's unethical and unviable.

Teddy · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
The opinion of medical professionals is that the kid is going to die.

The decision to not let the family take the kid from the hospital has nothing to do with medical professionals or anything, it's some bureaucrat sitting over good and bad dictating what is "best" for the kid.

What is the risk of moving the kid? That he could die? It's the same risk of letting him stay on that hospital!! Ridiculous argument.

The family has the right to take the kid and bring him to Italy or his house, or an experimental treatment in Timbuktu.

From the moment doctors said they are not treating him anymore and given their final opinion, the decisions should be all on the family, it doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect the government, at this point it is just pointless ideological discussion.

Let the child die peacefully in the hospital in a relatively humane fashion, or they might die in transit with potentially a lot of pain involved.

I do not doubt that the parents (in particular the fathers) actions towards the hospital and the medical staff have influenced their decision to not let Alfie go home.

The parents should be ashamed of their actions and Alfie's army should be dismissed and sent home.

Tito · Apr 25, 2018

Barry Sandwich said:
Here's one risk, but it's not going to be a popular answer with the hearts and minds of many.

Who foots the bill? If you set a precedent in this case then how many more patients will want this treatment? How many parents will have false hope that they can fly their child to a private foreign doctor as a last resort?

It's unethical and unviable.

It has been well established that the family have raised enough money to pay for themselves.

Cranston · Apr 25, 2018

How desperately sad.

Whether or not he will recover is really not the question - it is established beyond all reasonable medical evidence that the answer is no.

I have nothing but sympathy for the parents and cannot begin to fathom the pain they must be in, but it feels as though their rights to extend his life is actively against the rights of the child. The state is providing the support and, in line with its duty of care, it has the right to remove that support.

That said, if this was all private, and the parents were paying out of their own pocket, the question would be more difficult.

Tito · Apr 25, 2018

Cranston said:
How desperately sad.

Whether or not he will recover is really not the question - it is established beyond all reasonable medical evidence that the answer is no.

I have nothing but sympathy for the parents and cannot begin to fathom the pain they must be in, but it feels as though their rights to extend his life is actively against the rights of the child. The state is providing the support and, in line with its duty of care, it has the right to remove that support.

That said, if this was all private, and the parents were paying out of their own pocket, the question would be more difficult.

Nobody is arguing the right to remove life support, we are arguing the right of the parents, after the medical team has made their decision to not continue treatment, to take the kid away from there; seek other treatment or take the kid home.

Cranston · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
It has been well established that the family have raised enough money to pay for themselves.

Ah, I didn't realise that. It that the full sum for his ongoing treatment?

If so, that makes it more difficult, as the state, rather than removing it's support (fair), would be stopping a citizen from paying for that support (more difficult).

Snack12367 · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
The opinion of medical professionals is that the kid is going to die.

The decision to not let the family take the kid from the hospital has nothing to do with medical professionals or anything, it's some bureaucrat sitting over good and bad dictating what is "best" for the kid.

What is the risk of moving the kid? That he could die? It's the same risk of letting him stay on that hospital!! Ridiculous argument.

The family has the right to take the kid and bring him to Italy or his house, or an experimental treatment in Timbuktu.

From the moment doctors said they are not treating him anymore and given their final opinion, the decisions should be all on the family, it doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect the government, at this point it is just pointless ideological discussion.

In the UK Medical Professionals and the Government have a duty of care to the patient if it is a child. The reasoning is that Parents are not experienced enough or have the knowledge necessary to make decisions in the child's best interest. The first route of any treatment of a child is to approach the parents, explain clearly the situation and offer them the avenues to move forward. In this case Alfie is going to die. If he is removed the machines, he will die. He can never recover from the damage done to his brain. The Italian doctors who have offered to look after him have stated there is no chance for this child to recover, the the only thing they can offer is indefinite time on a life support machine.

We cannot tell with 100% that Alfie is in pain or not, what we can say is that there is no chance of survival for this child and it is cruel to the child and the parents to keep the child alive. If it were a case the child could survive, I would agree with you, but in this case these is no hope.

The family do not have the right to move the child under British law. They have to seek approval from doctors, which they didn't get because of the fate of the child and the risks involved in transportation. If the child can still feel pain, this move will hurt. If it can't then all your are doing is prolonging the inevitable. There is no good outcome to this and pretending there is, is just cruel.

Barry Sandwich · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
It has been well established that the family have raised enough money to pay for themselves.

True, but it has also been established the medical opinion is the journey could inflict unecessary pain and suffering on the child.

But y'know, fairies, miracles and the exploitation of a tragedy for political and religious ideological grandstanding.

Deaf Spacker · Apr 25, 2018

Mr Diamond said there were "tensions" but that there was no "hostility" against the NHS. Lord Justice McFarlane told counsel: "Your client purported to take out a private prosecution to have three named doctors charged with the criminal offence of conspiracy to murder. "Those summonses were served on the doctors and I hear you say that there is no hostility to the NHS." Mr Diamond replied: "There is no hostility but within that process there are tensions." Lord Justice Coulson said: "There are rather more than tensions." He said the accusation related to "the most serious possible offence". The judge went on: "That simply doesn't square with there being no hostility to the NHS. As my children would say 'end of"'.

I like this guy.

Tito · Apr 25, 2018

Barry Sandwich said:
True, but it has also been established the medical opinion is the journey could inflict unecessary pain and suffering on the child.

No it haven't, from the moment they decide to stop treatment, any opinion is just that, an opinion. No one knows if Alfie is capable of suffering or being in pain anymore.

The only thing we know with certainty, is that Alfie is alive.

The moment you decide to stop medical treatment, is the moment your opinion turns into just an opinion, they HAVE to let the family decide what to do, end of story.

If you decide to stop treatment, then the parents HAVE the HUMAN RIGHT to decide if they want to continue treatment elsewhere, or consult a witch doctor, go with a Babalao, try to get a miracle in the Vatican, shower him with water from Lourdes, or whatever; the moment government decides to stop treatment is the moment the government HAS to step out of the question and let the family decide. End of story.

It doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect the hospital, it doesn't affect the government.

Blue Lou · Apr 25, 2018

A change in tact from the father's barrister: ""Mr Thomas Evans does not seek treatment. He seeks palliative care in line with his Catholic faith principles"

Barry Sandwich · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
The only thing we know with certainty, is that Alfie is alive.

The moment you decide to stop medical treatment, is the moment your opinion turns into just an opinion, they HAVE to let the family decide what to do, end of story.

If you decide to stop treatment, then the parents HAVE the HUMAN RIGHT to decide if they want to continue treatment elsewhere, or consult a witch doctor, go with a Babalao, try to get a miracle in the Vatican, shower him with water from Lourdes, or whatever; the moment government decides to stop treatment is the moment the government HAS to step out of the question and let the family decide. End of story.

End of a story riddled with plot holes, poor logic, hyperbole and fantasy.

If the family decide to tie him to a load of rockets and fire him at the Sun to win favour from Apollo and Helios it should be allowed because the FAMILY have a HUMAN RIGHT.

LabouredSubterfuge · Apr 25, 2018

Deaf Spacker said:
I like this guy.

Pretty cool how the kid's dad once stabbed a teenager whose life was actually saved at Alder Hey.

He really comes across well I reckon. Certainly well adjusted and the kind of person that should be in charge of any child ever.

Staticneuron · Apr 25, 2018

dennett316 said:
Even if he's not in pain, there comes a point where just keeping a body alive mechanically for the sake of it becomes cruel for all involved. This is about the parent's welfare as well, and right now they are making an inflammatory situation worse, having doctors fearing retaliation by a baying mob, other sick children and families are being disturbed. And for what? Ultimately, they are harming themselves by ignoring all rational help and advice and creating this fantasy that their child has a chance, but these evil doctors and nurses are actively trying to kill him off. It's not healthy for them, and they are robbing their child of his dignity with this circus that they've created.
Just because they're his parents doesn't mean they're capable of or even willing to make the best call for their child. His life has already ended, he mechanically exists. That's not life.

Like I said before.

Staticneuron said:
While I don't believe in these people storming the hospital or causing trouble.

but for the rest of your statement...

Staticneuron said:
The second part about living versus existing is a personal opinion (I agree mind you) but I also think in this particular situation this should be on the parents. If there was undeniable proof he was in pain then I would side with the hospital. It is uncertain he is in pain, it is uncertain he will die during transport. It is certain they will no longer offer support for him in the current hospital while the second hospital offer support even if it is end-of-life support. This really should be a not be a huge debate except people are actually arguing that this kid should die sooner because of their personal opinion on his condition versus allowing the parents to choose to continue on. The kid is going to die it seems but in the parents point of view they haven't tried everything they could and letting the kid die in this situation gives them an external target to project their grief instead of letting them come to terms on their own.

You are claiming that your view of this situation trumps the parents view. This is what I find wrong about all of this. How would you feel if the situation was reversed and it was your family member? You had a sick family in the hospital and you thought they may be in pain but the doctors think that it is a possibility they don't feel pain (they don't know for sure either) and wanted to keep them alive via machine. Your views are ignored and other random people decide they know whats best for your family member to and calls you a delusional murderer? If you have seen it both ways, a person that is alive but in incredible pain or a person that is comatose and doctors are unable to state if they are in pain, would it make sense for the family to get involved if there is an uncertainty for everything except for death?

Gibson said:
The hospital has a duty of care to the patient, not to the parents. If it's ruled the child is at risk being discharged (and flew to Italy) then I think it's perfectly reasonable the parents are prevented from doing that. I believe the hospital has offered to allow the child to be taken to a hospice/ die at home but of course with the situation the way it is, there's nothing to stop the parents disregarding this and taking him to Italy anyway. Hence the need for the legal preventative measures.

Interesting. So the transportation specifically is the cause for the fight it seems. But the "at risk" part is questionable since we know he is going to die and the current hospital is thinking about turning off life support.

Broken Joystick · Apr 25, 2018

LabouredSubterfuge said:
Pretty cool how the kid's dad once stabbed a teenager whose life was actually saved at Alder Hey.

He really comes across well I reckon. Certainly well adjusted and the kind of person that should be in charge of any child ever.

What

I mean this doesn't change anything relating to the child

But WHAT

Deaf Spacker · Apr 25, 2018

Broken Joystick said:
What

I mean this doesn't change anything relating to the child

But WHAT

Yup, pretty cool /s. He's a scumbag.

Not that Alfie deserves this obviously but this is the kind of person his father is.

DryCreek · Apr 25, 2018

Snack12367 · Apr 25, 2018

Staticneuron said:
Interesting. So the transportation specifically is the cause for the fight it seems. But the "at risk" part is questionable since we know he is going to die and the current hospital is thinking about turning off life support.

By that logic why not get a gun and shoot the kid? Kid's going to die anyway....

Because it would be cruel. The Doctors say so, the Courts supported them and the EU Courts supported them. If there was a reasonable chance the child was alive we would do it, but the brain is dead.

Heshinsi · Apr 25, 2018

The Italians gave him citizenship. Let his parents take him to Italy like they want and let the Italians take over.

Jerm · Apr 25, 2018

Who's at fault if the kid dies in transit?

Cranston · Apr 25, 2018

Here's the basic question:

If a parent has the money, do they have the right to do the wrong thing?

LunaSerena · Apr 25, 2018

While I feel for their parents, the diagnostic is definitive and they are disrupting all the other children that are in treatment in the hospital, their parents and the medical teams.
Your right to protest ends when you start harming others, whether intentionally or unintentional.

As for the transportation part.... Personally, I don't agree with it, since it cause a high risk to the baby and the end result will eventually be the same, Alfie will die whether on Rome or on London. They are trying to hold on - and what parent wouldn't? - but Alfie won't get better, and even worse, they risk harming him or causing him pain in transport.

Heshinsi · Apr 25, 2018

The Real Jeremy said:
Who's at fault if the kid dies in transit?

His parents. They don't want to listen to doctors, so they can't have it both ways. Or have the Italians take full ownership of this since they're handing out citizenships and whatnot.

MouldyK · Apr 25, 2018

Tito said:
It has been well established that the family have raised enough money to pay for themselves.

That's all well and good, but wouldn't this start a trend of people being like "My child can't get treated in this country! Please support us so we can go to X-Country for Y-Treatment!"

Followed by "I never raised enough money to send my child to X-Country! Does no-one care about my child in the world?!"

If they could afford to go without donations, fine, but they have asked for £150,000...how many times will people cough up money to save children who doctors say have 0.0% to save?

It could start a precedent for this sort of thing. Believing your countries healthcare is not enough so pleading with the public to give money on a fool's hope.

The Real Jeremy said:
Who's at fault if the kid dies in transit?

People will blame the hospital for not acting sooner. The parents won't want to admit they are wrong.

LabouredSubterfuge · Apr 25, 2018

Heshinsi said:
His parents. They don't want to listen to doctors, so they can't have it both ways. Or have the Italians take full ownership of this since they're handing out citizenships and whatnot.

They certainly sound like the sort of people that accept fault where it's due.

Alfie Evans case

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

Prophet of Truth