|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2017 15:04:43 GMT
This isn't the way I've read the story. The parents are not demanding that the doctors do anything. All they are asking is to be able to take THEIR child to a specialist here in America that says there may be a slim chance that he can help. They aren't being fooled. They know it's a long shot. They are not asking someone else to pay for it, just the chance to try. This is a very sad and tragic situation, but this so called Human Rights court is making it far worse by sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. It's no wonder Great Britain decided to pull out from under these idols. yes, the parents ARE. they are demanding that the doctors prepare him for medical transport by air ambulance from the UK to the US, where he will go an experimental procedure which the providing doctor already says most likely will only make him able to communicate how unhappy he is with his condition. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 1, 2017 15:34:37 GMT
This isn't the way I've read the story. The parents are not demanding that the doctors do anything. All they are asking is to be able to take THEIR child to a specialist here in America that says there may be a slim chance that he can help. They aren't being fooled. They know it's a long shot. They are not asking someone else to pay for it, just the chance to try. This is a very sad and tragic situation, but this so called Human Rights court is making it far worse by sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. It's no wonder Great Britain decided to pull out from under these idols. yes, the parents ARE. they are demanding that the doctors prepare him for medical transport by air ambulance from the UK to the US, where he will go an experimental procedure which the providing doctor already says most likely will only make him able to communicate how unhappy he is with his condition. And they are willing and able to pay for that service. So why does the court say, no, he must die? If it was my child, I don't know what I would do, but it should be MY choice to make, not some bureaucratic government agency. When I went through the lymphoma cancer thing a number of years ago, I had one doctor that wanted to burn half my throat out with radiation treatments. There would have been some very serious life-long side effects. He got very insulted, to the point of telling me not to come back, when I told him I wanted to get a second opinion. I went to a very well renowned university hospital and was told that radiation had very little effect on the type of cancer I had and they recommended I not have radiation treatment. I'm sure glad I didn't have some government know-it-all agency forbidding me from getting further treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 1, 2017 17:08:56 GMT
Just some more hypothetical questions:
Suppose these parents wanted to take their child to Lourdes, or to Mecca, or to some other religious shrine, so that they might pray for divine intervention. Heck, even taking the kid to the hospital chapel...
Should they be allowed?
If not, why not? Wouldn't that be infringing on their religious freedom?
If so, then how is this different from allowing the treatment in the US?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 1, 2017 17:19:06 GMT
Just some more hypothetical questions: Suppose these parents wanted to take their child to Lourdes, or to Mecca, or to some other religious shrine, so that they might pray for divine intervention. Heck, even taking the kid to the hospital chapel... Should they be allowed? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be infringing on their religious freedom? If so, then how is this different from allowing the treatment in the US? I doubt they would be allowed to do either of those as well, the closest thing I can think of in case law is parents of a child who are Jehovahs Witneses that tried denying the child a blood transfusion. The courts ruled against them and ordered a transfusion. Moving him to the chapel, f it's against the Doctors orders who say he can't be moved then they probably would have committed an assault. The parents have religious freedom but the child has a right to their human rights outside the beliefs of the parents. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 1, 2017 17:47:57 GMT
Just some more hypothetical questions: Suppose these parents wanted to take their child to Lourdes, or to Mecca, or to some other religious shrine, so that they might pray for divine intervention. Heck, even taking the kid to the hospital chapel... Should they be allowed? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be infringing on their religious freedom? If so, then how is this different from allowing the treatment in the US? I doubt they would be allowed to do either of those as well, the closest thing I can think of in case law is parents of a child who are Jehovahs Witneses that tried denying the child a blood transfusion. The courts ruled against them and ordered a transfusion. Moving him to the chapel, f it's against the Doctors orders who say he can't be moved then they probably would have committed an assault. The parents have religious freedom but the child has a right to their human rights outside the beliefs of the parents. It's one thing preventing parents from denying treatment, and quite another preventing them from seeking it. I fined it hard to believe, and actually quite disgusting, that anyone in a supposedly civilized society can condone this kind of action by a government. It's sure not who I am nor what I want to be. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2017 18:20:53 GMT
Just some more hypothetical questions: Suppose these parents wanted to take their child to Lourdes, or to Mecca, or to some other religious shrine, so that they might pray for divine intervention. Heck, even taking the kid to the hospital chapel... Should they be allowed? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be infringing on their religious freedom? If so, then how is this different from allowing the treatment in the US? suppose the parents wanted to paint the child with turpentine, or wanted to feed him radioactive material, or wanted to unplug him and take him home and treat him like he wasn't deathly sick, or beat the sick out of him with broomsticks... should they be allowed? how your religious experience theory differs, is they want to take him on a flight he may not survive, to receive an experimental therapy that the doctor who originally offered it says that the best outcome they can expect is that he may wake up before he dies. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2017 18:28:18 GMT
yes, the parents ARE. they are demanding that the doctors prepare him for medical transport by air ambulance from the UK to the US, where he will go an experimental procedure which the providing doctor already says most likely will only make him able to communicate how unhappy he is with his condition. And they are willing and able to pay for that service. So why does the court say, no, he must die? If it was my child, I don't know what I would do, but it should be MY choice to make, not some bureaucratic government agency. When I went through the lymphoma cancer thing a number of years ago, I had one doctor that wanted to burn half my throat out with radiation treatments. There would have been some very serious life-long side effects. He got very insulted, to the point of telling me not to come back, when I told him I wanted to get a second opinion. I went to a very well renowned university hospital and was told that radiation had very little effect on the type of cancer I had and they recommended I not have radiation treatment. I'm sure glad I didn't have some government know-it-all agency forbidding me from getting further treatment. and you cannot see the difference between you making the conscious personal choice to check all your available options, and selecting the one you felt gave you the best chance of recovery, and a family demanding to take a child who is dying, subject him to a transoceanic flight, and administer an experimental therapy that the doctor who originally offered it says that now that he has seen the progression of the patient's condition has no expectation that it will work? and this is not a government know it all agency forbidding it - this is a court ruling that the doctors know the patient's condition and prospects better than the parents. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 1, 2017 18:50:18 GMT
And they are willing and able to pay for that service. So why does the court say, no, he must die? If it was my child, I don't know what I would do, but it should be MY choice to make, not some bureaucratic government agency. When I went through the lymphoma cancer thing a number of years ago, I had one doctor that wanted to burn half my throat out with radiation treatments. There would have been some very serious life-long side effects. He got very insulted, to the point of telling me not to come back, when I told him I wanted to get a second opinion. I went to a very well renowned university hospital and was told that radiation had very little effect on the type of cancer I had and they recommended I not have radiation treatment. I'm sure glad I didn't have some government know-it-all agency forbidding me from getting further treatment. and you cannot see the difference between you making the conscious personal choice to check all your available options, and selecting the one you felt gave you the best chance of recovery, and a family demanding to take a child who is dying, subject him to a transoceanic flight, and administer an experimental therapy that the doctor who originally offered it says that now that he has seen the progression of the patient's condition has no expectation that it will work? and this is not a government know it all agency forbidding it - this is a court ruling that the doctors know the patient's condition and prospects better than the parents. Yes, I can see the difference between taking him on a flight as a last ditch effort and beating him with broom sticks not that that's any kind of valid comparison. The difference I do see it this is way outside my value system for what power a government should have. Your value system may vary. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2017 19:02:53 GMT
and you cannot see the difference between you making the conscious personal choice to check all your available options, and selecting the one you felt gave you the best chance of recovery, and a family demanding to take a child who is dying, subject him to a transoceanic flight, and administer an experimental therapy that the doctor who originally offered it says that now that he has seen the progression of the patient's condition has no expectation that it will work? and this is not a government know it all agency forbidding it - this is a court ruling that the doctors know the patient's condition and prospects better than the parents. Yes, I can see the difference between taking him on a flight as a last ditch effort and beating him with broom sticks not that that's any kind of valid comparison. The difference I do see it this is way outside my value system for what power a government should have. Your value system may vary. the only difference being that trying to beat the sick out of him with broomsticks is so obviously not going to work that almost nobody would think to allow it. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 2, 2017 9:48:41 GMT
This isn't the way I've read the story. The parents are not demanding that the doctors do anything. All they are asking is to be able to take THEIR child to a specialist here in America that says there may be a slim chance that he can help. They aren't being fooled. They know it's a long shot. They are not asking someone else to pay for it, just the chance to try. This is a very sad and tragic situation, but this so called Human Rights court is making it far worse by sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. It's no wonder Great Britain decided to pull out from under these idols. They went there because it has already passed through the highest court in England who have ruled that the Medical profession "Knows best", and that wasnt a thing "We know better than you" USA vs UK, that was the best consultants that could be found globally. The rule is that by doing so they may expose the child to serious harm. The rule is also borne of not one company who has the ability to transfer humans in need of specialist care is willing to take the risk of doing that transfer anyway, a cross-pond flight of maybe 8 hrs, with a specialist crew of medical staff on board, and how many backups to life support systems can you carry... The insurance for that is "impossible". The transfer from hospital to flight is going to be "Bloody difficult" to say the least?.. This has never been a thing of cost, money dont matter, its the risk to the child, and if it does in transit, who will take that responsibility?. If it does not survive that procedure in USA, "Who is to blame". Again the call of when you pull the plug on life support is not one I would ever want to have to call. But just when is a person beyond possible help?. The courts have decided to make that call, in that in this case, with guidance being followed "to the letter", they have ruled on the side of medical profession who say they child is beyond help. The European courts?. I blame them squarely. But not maybe for the reasons you suggest... I blame them for agreeing to take the case, for allowing "False hope" for the parents, they could have just said no we wont be making any decision that disagrees with the UK courts so dont waste time and money trying. The only people winning at this moment are the sharks of lawyers who are "pretending" hope for the parents whilst taking their cut.. of course they want this to continue on, when the child passes, they stop getting paid. And thats a cold clinical view of the world I wish I hadnt got, but from this desk, its how I see the world of medical legality these days. Or am I just a grumpy old git again?.. Maybe I have been out in the sun too long.?...  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 2, 2017 10:02:37 GMT
Just some more hypothetical questions: Suppose these parents wanted to take their child to Lourdes, or to Mecca, or to some other religious shrine, so that they might pray for divine intervention. Heck, even taking the kid to the hospital chapel... Should they be allowed? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be infringing on their religious freedom? If so, then how is this different from allowing the treatment in the US? Who provides the medical care?. This is a terminally ill child, who to the best of human knowledge at this time and the predictable future has days numbered in low digits anyway, all any treatment will do is prolong the life of that child very short term. If you were to demand you take a trip to Lourdes, as is your right to do so, who will be providing the medical care?. If its the NHS and they say "We dont have the funding, the time, the ability, or the spare capacity to release medical staff needed elsewhere anyway", when do you [the parent of the child not anyone here in this discussion..]get told to stop stomping your foot and think of others not just yourself?. If you could ever find a medical transport facility that could do that, do they have the right equipment?. And on what basis?. If the child dies in transport.... "Blames-R-Us" legal proceedings?.. How is this different from US?.. I dunno, if you have a terminally ill person with "Just days" left to live, plugged into a control consul that could diagnose the whole of the USS Enterprise, on life support, almost zero brain activity, and "Very fragile", van you tell me how the USA would go about a day at the zoo for that person for instance?.. Has anyone asked the Kid if he is agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, ?.. Would he prefer a day at the circus or a day at Lourdes?. My suggestion is that over here, unless you can find a "Higher authority" {bupa?.} than the NHS, they wont sign over his personal care to Timmy with a van and an Amstrad cpc464. However, if you can provide medical proof that he will be in the best of care.... In this case, that has yet to be proven. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 2, 2017 10:11:24 GMT
I doubt they would be allowed to do either of those as well, the closest thing I can think of in case law is parents of a child who are Jehovahs Witneses that tried denying the child a blood transfusion. The courts ruled against them and ordered a transfusion. Moving him to the chapel, f it's against the Doctors orders who say he can't be moved then they probably would have committed an assault. The parents have religious freedom but the child has a right to their human rights outside the beliefs of the parents. It's one thing preventing parents from denying treatment, and quite another preventing them from seeking it. I fined it hard to believe, and actually quite disgusting, that anyone in a supposedly civilized society can condone this kind of action by a government. It's sure not who I am nor what I want to be. Consider, maybe walk this path for a while, the parents have been given all the best medical advice you can get, to the highest level. They have chosen to ignore that advice and "Demand" not just the second opinion but the tree dozenth opinion this month alone. They have not yet found an opinion that "suits" their demands. Consider, I wish I could walk again without a stick. Unless you replace he whole of my spine and repair the nerve damage within, "That aint happening".. Yet many moths later I am still demanding you "Find a bloody way". Consider I have a child with that condition. The child may or may not have resigned themselves to the condition, yet I the parent am still demanding. At what point am I forced to recognise that medical science can not help any more... At what point do the courts step in and put a hush on my continual demanding that better treatment "Be invented on the spot" to help?. This case is borne of the parents legally challenging the medical profession, "Because, you know, we know better". The courts have ruled against them continually legally pursuing the medical profession. The right of the child supersedes the right of the parent to sue anyone who doesnt agree. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 2, 2017 10:42:17 GMT
The difference I do see it this is way outside my value system for what power a government should have. Your value system may vary. This is "The highest court in the land" making a final decision on a legal case of two sides arguing and making a decision. A Final decision. This is more about ending the continual legal bickering than it is making a decision against a person singular. At some point the Govt. HAS to make a decision.. that have been forced into the position being they are the highest court available. Both sides have agreed, willingly, to accept the ruling.. whatever way it goes.. otherwise the case would not have been held. This isnt a criminal case, this is two sides arguing who have accepted that the court should make a rule. Or, well, it was until the side that "lost" decided to cry foul?.. which is a bit like world politics everywhere at the moment, its not winning or loosing, its how much noise you can make by demanding you didnt loose in the first place. The latest one in my own world is that I "Will" succumb to using a smaller "General waste" bin because the bigger one are too heavy for the workmen to handle... Wheelie bin?.. And thats too heavy for them?... what next, the lorry is to heavy to steer?.. And no they will not supply TWO half sized bins, I have to pay extra on top of the charge to have trash taken away for them to take the same amount they were taking last year, and the price for halving my collection has risen anyway, so I am paying more for less. And the gobmint have rules I WILL pay for that or face jail. I have opted to attempt to deal with my own trash and not pay the charge. Oh No. You WILL pay the charge or face prosecution.... Hows that working?.. thats a separate discussion right there, but, back to the Gobmint and how much power does it have. It has "The final say". We elect these people to make that decision "For the good of the many", not the good of the few... Therefore, we must agree that they have "The final say", or go find an isolated island and apply for your own kingdom kind of thing... And if you did, who pays for the healthcare now?. Your own moral code may vary, but keeping a person artificially alive where there is no hope of a cure, in pan, suffering, and possible no brain activity, because they have already crap down themselves, just because the relatives cant say goodbye, is cruelty. To do so at a HUMONGOUS cost to the health service that could have paid for two dozen replacement hips, other joints, life saving cures for cysts that cause blindness, and other health services... how can the demands to prolonging of life for a "Palliative care" terminally ill single case cost more than running the A&E department for a month?. How can the legal case of who is right in this care cost more to society that the whole of the budget for the hospital for a year?. My Moral code says yes, provide care, but have a care that when you can no longer help, say so, and let it be. The worst part of being a doctor, straight from the mouth of a doctor, is that "you cant save them all". Having been the first first aider on a multiple vehicle crash one time, I feel that pain, who should I run to first?.. Thankfully I wasnt on my own for long, but, unfortunately, we didnt save all the people that day. If maybe we had had another two dozen people, maybe the ambulances could have been closer than half an hour away, if the air ambulance had not been on another call that day... if wishes were fishes. You cant save all the people all the time. I know that is not easy to read, it aint even easy to write, it haunts me forever, "If Only".... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 2, 2017 14:09:29 GMT
The difference I do see it this is way outside my value system for what power a government should have. Your value system may vary. This is "The highest court in the land" making a final decision on a legal case of two sides arguing and making a decision. A Final decision. This is more about ending the continual legal bickering than it is making a decision against a person singular. At some point the Govt. HAS to make a decision.. that have been forced into the position being they are the highest court available. Both sides have agreed, willingly, to accept the ruling.. whatever way it goes.. otherwise the case would not have been held. This isnt a criminal case, this is two sides arguing who have accepted that the court should make a rule. Or, well, it was until the side that "lost" decided to cry foul?.. which is a bit like world politics everywhere at the moment, its not winning or loosing, its how much noise you can make by demanding you didnt loose in the first place. The latest one in my own world is that I "Will" succumb to using a smaller "General waste" bin because the bigger one are too heavy for the workmen to handle... Wheelie bin?.. And thats too heavy for them?... what next, the lorry is to heavy to steer?.. And no they will not supply TWO half sized bins, I have to pay extra on top of the charge to have trash taken away for them to take the same amount they were taking last year, and the price for halving my collection has risen anyway, so I am paying more for less. And the gobmint have rules I WILL pay for that or face jail. I have opted to attempt to deal with my own trash and not pay the charge. Oh No. You WILL pay the charge or face prosecution.... Hows that working?.. thats a separate discussion right there, but, back to the Gobmint and how much power does it have. It has "The final say". We elect these people to make that decision "For the good of the many", not the good of the few... Therefore, we must agree that they have "The final say", or go find an isolated island and apply for your own kingdom kind of thing... And if you did, who pays for the healthcare now?. Your own moral code may vary, but keeping a person artificially alive where there is no hope of a cure, in pan, suffering, and possible no brain activity, because they have already crap down themselves, just because the relatives cant say goodbye, is cruelty. To do so at a HUMONGOUS cost to the health service that could have paid for two dozen replacement hips, other joints, life saving cures for cysts that cause blindness, and other health services... how can the demands to prolonging of life for a "Palliative care" terminally ill single case cost more than running the A&E department for a month?. How can the legal case of who is right in this care cost more to society that the whole of the budget for the hospital for a year?. My Moral code says yes, provide care, but have a care that when you can no longer help, say so, and let it be. The worst part of being a doctor, straight from the mouth of a doctor, is that "you cant save them all". Having been the first first aider on a multiple vehicle crash one time, I feel that pain, who should I run to first?.. Thankfully I wasnt on my own for long, but, unfortunately, we didnt save all the people that day. If maybe we had had another two dozen people, maybe the ambulances could have been closer than half an hour away, if the air ambulance had not been on another call that day... if wishes were fishes. You cant save all the people all the time. I know that is not easy to read, it aint even easy to write, it haunts me forever, "If Only".... and when you tell the parents of another child "we could have saved your child, but our pediatric respirator is currently tied up keeping a dead kid breathing" or "we could have transferred your spouse to a hospital that could have saved her, but our air ambulance was taking a dead kid to America for an experimental treatment that won't work" the biggest case of medical futility I am following is having another hearing this week. my friends have looked over the filing the parents' lawyer is submitting. it is EXACTLY the same as all previous filings. I've lost track of how many years the citizens of New Jersey have now spent paying to keep a dead Californian teenager undead, because no judges have the backbone to say "there are standard tests that are done to determine whether or not there is brain function. if you want to prove the child is not dead, we will assign a doctor to perform those tests. if you don't want to prove the child is not dead, we will accept the results of the seven times the tests were performed when this whole waste of time started." |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 2, 2017 14:56:07 GMT
I hadn't heard that the hospital only had one child respirator or that there was only one aircraft available. If that's true, it makes this case even more tragic. Or maybe I'm just tired of hearing idiotic comparisons that don't fit the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 2, 2017 16:09:28 GMT
I hadn't heard that the hospital only had one child respirator or that there was only one aircraft available. If that's true, it makes this case even more tragic. Or maybe I'm just tired of hearing idiotic comparisons that don't fit the discussion. I'm not familiar with that hospital so I don't know how many patients they can handle in what departments. another recent brain death case had the parents flying their dead child to a third world country to be kept undead, until the charity hospital they were camped out at kicked him out to make room for children who COULD be helped. I would love it if healthcare facilities could have infinite resources and never run out of beds, equipment, or doctors; but the reality is that the doctors agree that there is no curing this kid from his genetic disorder, and no amount of railing against the government will change that. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 3, 2017 8:20:36 GMT
I hadn't heard that the hospital only had one child respirator or that there was only one aircraft available. If that's true, it makes this case even more tragic. Or maybe I'm just tired of hearing idiotic comparisons that don't fit the discussion. Then read this from "Devils advocate" polar opposite of your stance. Is it Tragic?.. yes it was, a few months ago, when that child was placed under palliative care because no one could do anything. Is it still tragic?.. for how long?. On the case of Medical Transport. In this country we have a few Search and Rescue birds, mostly helicopters. We do not own one single medical transport plane, as in owned by the NHS... There is a service owned and run by IAS I believe who does most of the NHS work. The Air Ambulances are all connected to Charitable Trusts to pay for the vast running costs. There are a few research bits going on that are attempting to work out the hornets nest of hospital to hospital transfer by air rather than road.... It has always been road transport between hospitals in thic country up until recent. Manchester Royal doesnt even have a heli-pad, as well as many other main hospitals, they have to land at a close-by airport and road transport in. When I was in the Rangers and rescue service, we transported patients off the hills by air, because it was early days of 4x4 "back then" and we hadnt found one that didnt sink into the peat bogs, but even those were transferred to land transport to go to a hospital. Yes the flight time across one city is much faster by air... However, landing that a few dozen miles from the hospital and needing an ambulance to do the road transfer?.. that takes time. Building a helipad?.. ON the hospital roof?.. That takes Budget... And the budget for that just got lost to a medical legal case of keeping a kid "Undead" You see where all this is going?. As yet, its a question of from where to where when its medical transfer, if its from remote locations, Air Ambulance. If its between Urban parts, its still faster from A to B by road than it is A to B but through C being an airport. Therefore, most of the air traffic we have for medical needs, is Search and Rescue only. And even they are paid for by Charity. From my own point of view. I worked for the peak park mountain rescue. We had a lot of medical equipment available... First Aid. If it were that some single person needed all that to keep them alive, then that is what it was for. But what if we were asked to provide "Continuing care" for someone who would never get better?.. How long could the staff of our Ranger service continue doing that without it damaging our ability to do our main work of providing a safety service?. We did not have the budget to do so, nor did we have the medical training to provide anything BUT first aid, and on the occasions when Air Ambulance was "Busy elsewhere", we were luck enough to be able to summon my old mob, the RAF, to send the next one up the line down to help. Even still, we didnt manage to save all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 3, 2017 14:03:26 GMT
I think it is about once a month the ambulance service (private company) calls on the fire department to transport a patient in our ambulance, because all of theirs are busy. they could solve this by buying another ambulance and hiring three more crews to keep it staffed, but for some reason they don't want to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 3, 2017 14:06:08 GMT
I'm sorry, SD, but the cost and availability of medical transport in this case seems to be irrelevant.
The parents have already said they have the ability to pay for private transportation. Any half decent lawyer can come up with a way to indemnify all involved beforehand--that's what they do.
So, all your points are invalid, I'm afraid. Someone out there is willing to do the job, apparently, for a fee.
Additionally, if the issue was strictly cost control or resource allocation, I'd think the hospital would be happy to see the kid go. If he's in the US under private care, he's no longer costing them anything at all, is he?
Besides, by all accounts, they're likely not going to have very long until the kid dies, regardless of treatment.
So, it comes back to the moral question of who gets to decide how the kid lives or dies.
Is it better to "let nature take its course" regardless of what the parents think?
Or should the parents have the right to control what happens to their child, and explore every rational path for treatment, regardless of the odds?
The doctor in the US appears to be legitimate, not a quack snake-oil salesman. Even he's discounted the possibility the treatment will help, and acknowledges that this is a long shot. But does that mean it shouldn't be allowed?
Heck, even the parents appear to recognize the likely futility of treatment, and have asked that at least they have the kid transported to his home before killing him. Is even that too much to ask, even if they can hire someone to help?
Serious illnesses often affect more than just the patient, after all. In this case, I can see that both parents (and probably additional family members) have suffered tremendously since the kid was hospitalized. Don't they deserve a little consideration, if nothing else, for their own future mental health, after the child dies? Is an hour or so transporting the kid home too much to ask, given their ability to pay and arrange it themselves?
To be honest, I find it difficult to make a decision because it is unclear from the reports I've seen about the following:
1. What level of pain is the child in? Will the treatment make this worse or better? Is it enough to justify euthanasia, and by what standard?
2. What level of brain damage does the child have? I've not seen any reports that claim brain death, only brain damage. There is a difference, as (all kidding aside) there are people who function in society with brain damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 3, 2017 14:13:30 GMT
I'm sorry, SD, but the cost and availability of medical transport in this case seems to be irrelevant. The parents have already said they have the ability to pay for private transportation. Any half decent lawyer can come up with a way to indemnify all involved beforehand--that's what they do. So, all your points are invalid, I'm afraid. Someone out there is willing to do the job, apparently, for a fee. Additionally, if the issue was strictly cost control or resource allocation, I'd think the hospital would be happy to see the kid go. If he's in the US under private care, he's no longer costing them anything at all, is he? Besides, by all accounts, they're likely not going to have very long until the kid dies, regardless of treatment. So, it comes back to the moral question of who gets to decide how the kid lives or dies. Is it better to "let nature take its course" regardless of what the parents think? Or should the parents have the right to control what happens to their child, and explore every rational path for treatment, regardless of the odds? The doctor in the US appears to be legitimate, not a quack snake-oil salesman. Even he's discounted the possibility the treatment will help, and acknowledges that this is a long shot. But does that mean it shouldn't be allowed? Heck, even the parents appear to recognize the likely futility of treatment, and have asked that at least they have the kid transported to his home before killing him. Is even that too much to ask, even if they can hire someone to help? Serious illnesses often affect more than just the patient, after all. In this case, I can see that both parents (and probably additional family members) have suffered tremendously since the kid was hospitalized. Don't they deserve a little consideration, if nothing else, for their own future mental health, after the child dies? Is an hour or so transporting the kid home too much to ask, given their ability to pay and arrange it themselves? To be honest, I find it difficult to make a decision because it is unclear from the reports I've seen about the following: 1. What level of pain is the child in? Will the treatment make this worse or better? Is it enough to justify euthanasia, and by what standard? 2. What level of brain damage does the child have? I've not seen any reports that claim brain death, only brain damage. There is a difference, as (all kidding aside) there are people who function in society with brain damage. and the argument from the court is that sending the child to America for treatment that is likely to not work is not rational. as for sending the child home to die - we don't know the arguments they made, but it is entirely possible that when the parents say "send him and let him die at home" the doctors testifying to the court said what is most likely to happen is that medics will deliver his corpse, because he is in such delicate condition that he will die in transit. |
|
