|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 3, 2017 15:00:05 GMT
and the argument from the court is that sending the child to America for treatment that is likely to not work is not rational. The problem is that "rational" is subjective in this case--that's why they had the trial, after all. The reason people try long shots is that they do sometimes come in. I think this is a case of risk tolerance. Grabbing at straws? Quite possibly, or even likely, but someone wins the lotto every day. And this result is different from turning off the life support in the hospital how? The kid is going to die either way. In one way, the parents have at least a chance for a bit of closure, the opportunity for acceptance, and, if nothing else, the illusion that they had some sort of control over what happened to their baby, instead of being essentially locked out of the decision making process by law and (for lack of a better word) fate. It's all about odds. He might die at home, he might die in transit, he might die in the hospital. It's making the best of a tragic situation. Taking this path (the non-US treatment path) death seems inevitable. Coldly (and somewhat cruelly) put, the kid may be considered already dead, and will never know there was any other way to live. That's essentially what the court decided when they ordered cessation of life support. The parents and family, however, will have to live with these events for the rest of their lives, and their mental health must be considered as well, especially since the kid's welfare will no longer be an issue. The alternate, US-transport/treatment path means he might die in transit to the US, or in the US under treatment, or...he might live after treatment. Experimental long shot treatments do, on occasion, work. Unfortunately, we can't tell until we try. Medical science is not an exact science, at least in this case. If it were, it wouldn't be "experimental". Yes, and even if he lives, how long would he have? Would he be in agony all the time? Is the brain damage severe enough to be considered being in a persistent vegetative state? I don't think anyone can answer these questions without caveats. In any case, the genuine costs in this case aren't money. The cost will be in pain and suffering of the child and the family. Seems like a lot of these questions are the same as the "Right To Try" movement. In the US, this movement is to permit terminally ill patients to use any drug or treatment that has passed Phase 1 FDA trials (the drug won't kill you) but not Phase 2 FDA trials (the drug actually does what it's supposed to) if they believe it might help their condition. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 3, 2017 15:14:43 GMT
Well there you go again, assuming an individual and their family can make a better health decision then a government bureaucrat.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 3, 2017 15:29:01 GMT
Well there you go again, assuming an individual and their family can make a better health decision then a government bureaucrat. you misspelled doctor. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 3, 2017 16:04:31 GMT
Well there you go again, assuming an individual and their family can make a better health decision then a government bureaucrat. you misspelled doctor. You misread bureaucrat. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2017 0:42:28 GMT
the bureaucrat isn't the one making the decision. the bureaucrat is just saying the doctor has the knowledge to make the decision. or are you saying since the UK has soshulized medicine, there are no doctors there, only bureaucrats? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 4, 2017 0:49:29 GMT
You can call it anything you want. I'll just call it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2017 0:57:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 4, 2017 1:18:08 GMT
It's not a simple situation. I don't expect liberals to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2017 1:35:10 GMT
It's not a simple situation. I don't expect liberals to understand. no, it's not. I don't expect conservatives to do anything but choose sides against the government. but then, that's a given. and now that we've established you hate liberals, and they figure to give back what they get... |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 4, 2017 1:48:26 GMT
I don't hate liberals, just what they stand for.
And my view of government is more libertarian then conservative. The less the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2017 4:02:23 GMT
I don't hate liberals, just what they stand for. And my view of government is more libertarian then conservative. The less the better. ah, yes, libertarianism: the theory that if you eliminate the laws people are breaking, they will stop breaking them. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 4, 2017 4:57:03 GMT
I don't hate liberals, just what they stand for. And my view of government is more libertarian then conservative. The less the better. ah, yes, libertarianism: the theory that if you eliminate the laws people are breaking, they will stop breaking them. Libertarians theory; no laws, no lawbreakers. Liberal's theory; lots of laws, but we only have to follow the ones we like. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 4, 2017 6:39:11 GMT
That wont happen.
The NHS will NOT sign off on a patient just like that.
Even if it is transported to uSA, its still "Partially" their responsibility...
Then there is the part "Make them ready for transport" in that in the signing off to someone elses care, they have to make that patient stable to be transported.
In the eyes of the NHS, if any of the machines its currently dependant on, are switched off, for any reason, then that patent dies.
Catch 22...
They cant take the equipment with the patent, and they cant transfer it to other equipment.
Money is not the issue there, its the change of equipment issue, in that they cant put that patent on any kind of "Mobile" life support system without causing irreparable harm, thus degrading the patents condition....
Money IS the issue if they sort of ask that the equipment be taken with the patient.
On the send him home, they cant do that, because turning off the equipment is an immediate corpse.
The patient is only just "Undead" because of the equipment he is on, he will not survive any kind of transport even from one room to the next in that hospital.
No way.
because of the following...
The child is too young to communicate in any legible form, and too ill to communicate its pain level, as it is not concious.
The brain damage is enough to make it impossible to survive without life support.
The child in all possible conditions that have been explored will NOT survive the transport, and the transport in all likelihood may degenerate its condition in any possible outcome even if it did survive.
Its not the treatment under question, its all abut the transport.
The only way I can possibly think of this in my own experience is the request to transport a statue from A to B for repair.]That statue was in a bad state, and almost rubble anyway, the possibilities at that time of transport were "Null"
It was refused transport because we couldnt deal with it.
Eventually it was repaired on site.
We have reviewed the case now, 30 yrs later, with modern equipment?..
Build a packing case around that statue that has been carefully wrapped in plastic...
Throw in a bucket of fast acting expanding foam, and seal the top, wait until the foam expands up to the top and pushes through the expansion hole you left...
Now you can transport the statue in its own custom built cradle.
But...
At that time, there was no way we could have done that. Expanding foam was unknown to the transport trade.
That child can not be transported in expanding foam, all other forms of transport will be rough, how do you transport something that delicate?..
If that plane hits turbulence?.. one jolt that bad and game over?.. who would take the risk?.
In my own full experience of transport of some very delicate items, bone china statues and urns etc, the art of transport is preparation, and risk assessment, and always warn the client to be insured, because even with the n=best of care, one small incident with an uninsured twonka and it could be game over, we cant fully expect the unexpected.
My own personal pride can say at this time I have never lost one item.
Complete 30 yr history and the worst I have had is a few dents and scratches from low speed manoeuvring, to the wagon, other than that, not a single damaged item of cargo that wasnt like that when I collected it?..
But as for being the driver of that child?..
I am not available as the driver for any reason, I wont take that kind of risk.
And I wouldnt expect anyone else to do that either.
That patient is too delicate for transport.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2017 10:02:44 GMT
ah, yes, libertarianism: the theory that if you eliminate the laws people are breaking, they will stop breaking them. Libertarians theory; no laws, no lawbreakers. Liberal's theory; lots of laws, but we only have to follow the ones we like. bullspit. liberals' theory: if somebody does bad things make a law that gives you the ability to use force to stop them if they won't stop on their own. now ask yourself why there are so many laws. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2017 10:07:31 GMT
That wont happen. The NHS will NOT sign off on a patient just like that. Even if it is transported to uSA, its still "Partially" their responsibility... Then there is the part "Make them ready for transport" in that in the signing off to someone elses care, they have to make that patient stable to be transported. In the eyes of the NHS, if any of the machines its currently dependant on, are switched off, for any reason, then that patent dies. Catch 22... They cant take the equipment with the patent, and they cant transfer it to other equipment. Money is not the issue there, its the change of equipment issue, in that they cant put that patent on any kind of "Mobile" life support system without causing irreparable harm, thus degrading the patents condition.... Money IS the issue if they sort of ask that the equipment be taken with the patient. On the send him home, they cant do that, because turning off the equipment is an immediate corpse. The patient is only just "Undead" because of the equipment he is on, he will not survive any kind of transport even from one room to the next in that hospital. No way. because of the following... The child is too young to communicate in any legible form, and too ill to communicate its pain level, as it is not concious. The brain damage is enough to make it impossible to survive without life support. The child in all possible conditions that have been explored will NOT survive the transport, and the transport in all likelihood may degenerate its condition in any possible outcome even if it did survive. Its not the treatment under question, its all abut the transport. The only way I can possibly think of this in my own experience is the request to transport a statue from A to B for repair.]That statue was in a bad state, and almost rubble anyway, the possibilities at that time of transport were "Null" It was refused transport because we couldnt deal with it. Eventually it was repaired on site. We have reviewed the case now, 30 yrs later, with modern equipment?.. Build a packing case around that statue that has been carefully wrapped in plastic... Throw in a bucket of fast acting expanding foam, and seal the top, wait until the foam expands up to the top and pushes through the expansion hole you left... Now you can transport the statue in its own custom built cradle. But... At that time, there was no way we could have done that. Expanding foam was unknown to the transport trade. That child can not be transported in expanding foam, all other forms of transport will be rough, how do you transport something that delicate?.. If that plane hits turbulence?.. one jolt that bad and game over?.. who would take the risk?. In my own full experience of transport of some very delicate items, bone china statues and urns etc, the art of transport is preparation, and risk assessment, and always warn the client to be insured, because even with the n=best of care, one small incident with an uninsured twonka and it could be game over, we cant fully expect the unexpected. My own personal pride can say at this time I have never lost one item. Complete 30 yr history and the worst I have had is a few dents and scratches from low speed manoeuvring, to the wagon, other than that, not a single damaged item of cargo that wasnt like that when I collected it?.. But as for being the driver of that child?.. I am not available as the driver for any reason, I wont take that kind of risk. And I wouldnt expect anyone else to do that either. That patient is too delicate for transport. It is too late. they have made up their mind it is the bad government picking on the poor parents by killing their baby, and so it is useless to try to distract them with the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 4, 2017 10:53:08 GMT
This I know, but aint we on here supposed to take fact and highlight it?.
I am presuming we are all still at the behind the headline facts here, and are pursuing the actual science as to if and how it may be possible.
I know I have said I am not the one to ask, but who is?.. who is there who has a drivers licence possibly medically trained as well who perhaps drive an ambulance who can fill us in on the actual process and possibilities of transporting a VERY sick kid?.
Perhaps TLW, you could ask one of your lot in the fire-rescue division who may have knowledge of this about the procedure of transporting Bed and Medical equipment needed to prolong the life of a terminally ill patient?..
[side note, life support machine, how heavy is that, and can it be overweight on a truck axle?..]
I fully admit I do not have that knowledge, and for good reason, I had a Bus licence, alongside my HGV licence, but gave up driving buses when I found out that the cargo on a 44 ton HGV is less liable to complain about every single pot hole you hit.
Nor do the whine when you cant get closer than two foot from the kerb and the have to take a step to get on/off...
I have never done any kind of livestock mass transit either.
I have done one or two animal transports for wildlife parks, but they had the keeper with them in the back of the van?..
I have never driven an ambulance fully kitted either..
Delivered a few "New" ones, and trust me, the temptation to light up the roof-rack is seriously "heh heh could I?.. just once?.." but I didnt... shame on me?.. but they were new new, didnt have any medical supplies or gurneys on board, just the vehicle.
So what is the procedure apart from "Very slowly" for a patient in "delicate" condition, and how "delicate" can that be?.
Any idea?.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 4, 2017 11:16:29 GMT
This I know, but aint we on here supposed to take fact and highlight it?. I am presuming we are all still at the behind the headline facts here, and are pursuing the actual science as to if and how it may be possible. I know I have said I am not the one to ask, but who is?.. who is there who has a drivers licence possibly medically trained as well who perhaps drive an ambulance who can fill us in on the actual process and possibilities of transporting a VERY sick kid?. Perhaps TLW, you could ask one of your lot in the fire-rescue division who may have knowledge of this about the procedure of transporting Bed and Medical equipment needed to prolong the life of a terminally ill patient?.. [side note, life support machine, how heavy is that, and can it be overweight on a truck axle?..] I fully admit I do not have that knowledge, and for good reason, I had a Bus licence, alongside my HGV licence, but gave up driving buses when I found out that the cargo on a 44 ton HGV is less liable to complain about every single pot hole you hit. Nor do the whine when you cant get closer than two foot from the kerb and the have to take a step to get on/off... I have never done any kind of livestock mass transit either. I have done one or two animal transports for wildlife parks, but they had the keeper with them in the back of the van?.. I have never driven an ambulance fully kitted either.. Delivered a few "New" ones, and trust me, the temptation to light up the roof-rack is seriously "heh heh could I?.. just once?.." but I didnt... shame on me?.. but they were new new, didnt have any medical supplies or gurneys on board, just the vehicle. So what is the procedure apart from "Very slowly" for a patient in "delicate" condition, and how "delicate" can that be?. Any idea?. all of the ambulances in our area have a ventilator built-in. s the transfer process would be to disconnect the ventilator in the room, and a medic connects an ambu bag, and "rides" the gurney, breathing for the patient (bagging), to the ambulance. there, the patient is connected to the ambulance respirator, or if it doesn't carry one, bagging continues. it is pretty easy to maintain blood oxygen levels on an intubated patient, so it isn't a huge rush to make the transfer between bag and machine. as for the actual transit - the paramedic decides whether they want a nice gentle code 1 or a get us to the ER ASAP code 3. on a code run, it is arses and elbows inside the crew compartment, because you don't stay in one place long enough to be belted in. in ours, there is a rear facing seat at the patient's head, for the airway person, and a side bench that the other medic sits on, unless the ambulance is carrying a second patient, in which case the second is on the bench. if you are doing CPR, the person doing compressions has his heels against the bench, and his forehead against the opposite wall to stay in position. addendum: and then there is "diesel therapy" in which the the driver releases his inner stig. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 5, 2017 9:46:25 GMT
Just to question further, insert Patient "A" here, a madeupium case of extreme "undead" on life support.
The life support this kid is on, he isnt breathing for himself, and has to be restarted every now and again when the heart stops, and constant monitoring to know when to start up a pacemaker assist.
Some of his internal organs have stopped, requiring a dialysis machine, and an oxegenator on the blood as the lungs are not to good either.
Add in a drip feed for food as the stomach is sort of not to good, and a catheter for bowels and urine.
Add in various drips to rehydrate the blood and add various drugs.
Just how much of that can be done in an ambulance, and for how long?.
Having been in an ambulance when my back was injured on blue-and-two code but max 20mph because of bad roads jolting me and having to slow down for speed humps, I know that confuses the hell out of other traffic... CAN you overtake an ambulance on emergency doing 20 on a 40 road?.. should you?.. is it legal?..
Me and the boys in the ambulance were having merry hell of a laugh watching other motorists get extremely confused at our [lack of] progress... Tinted glass windows, we had the best view going here.
I predict therefore chaos should this child be required to be transferred by road, even a short distance.
Then you have the transfer to plane ... unless its a herky-bird and they drive that ambulance straight in the back?..
At what point do all those artificial life machines be required to keep that child alive, if they are turned off, at what point does that child "officially" decease, even if it is a swap from one to another.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 5, 2017 13:32:03 GMT
I know we keep going back to this unfortunate child but that's not the argument. Granted, this baby has just a about a zero chance of making it. The argument that I am having is who should be allowed to make decisions on any life/death situation of a person, be it a child or adult, that is unable to make that decision on their own. Is it the family/loved ones of that person or the government. For me, it's an easy answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 5, 2017 15:15:54 GMT
Just to question further, insert Patient "A" here, a madeupium case of extreme "undead" on life support. The life support this kid is on, he isnt breathing for himself, and has to be restarted every now and again when the heart stops, and constant monitoring to know when to start up a pacemaker assist. Some of his internal organs have stopped, requiring a dialysis machine, and an oxegenator on the blood as the lungs are not to good either. Add in a drip feed for food as the stomach is sort of not to good, and a catheter for bowels and urine. Add in various drips to rehydrate the blood and add various drugs. Just how much of that can be done in an ambulance, and for how long?. Having been in an ambulance when my back was injured on blue-and-two code but max 20mph because of bad roads jolting me and having to slow down for speed humps, I know that confuses the hell out of other traffic... CAN you overtake an ambulance on emergency doing 20 on a 40 road?.. should you?.. is it legal?.. Me and the boys in the ambulance were having merry hell of a laugh watching other motorists get extremely confused at our [lack of] progress... Tinted glass windows, we had the best view going here. I predict therefore chaos should this child be required to be transferred by road, even a short distance. Then you have the transfer to plane ... unless its a herky-bird and they drive that ambulance straight in the back?.. At what point do all those artificial life machines be required to keep that child alive, if they are turned off, at what point does that child "officially" decease, even if it is a swap from one to another. the real example is a kid that has been on a respirator and feeding tube for over 3 years, hormones are delivered by needle or in the feeding tube, since they are not being produced, and there is no provable volitional movement, and body temperature is being regulated wholly by external means (adjusting the room thermostat and adding or removing blankets) as far as your ambulance run - that would have been a "nice gentle code 1" here. but I did ask, and if an emergency vehicle is doing slow speed with lights and siren, those ahead of it can pull away, but those behind cannot pass. - something we take pains to be considerate of if we are going slow for some reason. but yes, at what point do you accept that the child is no longer a child, but a very expensive and morbid science experiment?? but yes, at what point do you admit that the |
|
