Alfie Evans and prolonging the inevitable

[AUDub 11,184]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

No, it doesn't.  Egregious and obvious is a situation of abuse.  Or where a parent is neglecting a child and withholding food.  Or where a parent is refusing to allow medical care to be administered.  It is not choosing to keep him on life support longer than the doctors in the UK wish to or moving him to a place where that can take place, even if in the minds of the UK doctors it might produce some temporary additional suffering.  

I would argue that it is abusive. Because the proposed interventions (tracheostomy and PEG tube) were not to achieve any other goal other than prolonging his death, they are the very definition of unnecessary surgery, which can’t be anything other than causing harm. In this case numerous second opinions had already been obtained by Alfie’s parents, from specialists from a number of different countries, and they were all in agreement. So at what point to you stop the “one last second opinion?” The judgment stopped a potential unending tour of Europe, just trying “one last thing,” a litany of unnecessary procedures proposed by people who should know better.

I can’t begin to imagine what it would be like to be in the position of Alfie’s parents, but I would think that most of us would leave no stone unturned in trying to find a cure, but, again, emotional compromise is a thing. On occasion this has the effect of losing sight of the real goal, which is to do what is best for the patient. On the surface, it does appear counterintuitive that death could ever be the best option, but when trapped in a prison of a body, unable to think, move, swallow or breath unaided, yet possibly being in pain, death really is the kindest of outcomes.

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

They can make the calculations on such things when it comes to health care dollars and rationing limited health care resources.  They should not get to decide if someone else can spend those resources and money however.

That was not the basis of the judgement. Have you read it?

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I understand what the legal aspects are, I am saying they are wrong.  The law should be changed to explicitly limit the scope of such authority.  The law in question originally came about for exactly the reasons I described - egregious and obvious issues of neglect or abuse.  It was enacted on the heels of a huge child abuse scandal in 1987 and amended after another case of abuse that garnered national attention in 2004.  But stretching it into this realm goes beyond the bounds that any state should have over families.

 I don’t view it as a stretch. Don’t think we’ll be changing each other’s minds on this one. 

[homersapien 11,453]

Now here's an example of state overreach.  (And the same law exists in about 35 other states.)

http://www.pbs.org/video/62-days-og39za/

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

I would argue that it is abusive. Because the proposed interventions (tracheostomy and PEG tube) were not to achieve any other goal other than prolonging his death, they are the very definition of unnecessary surgery, which can’t be anything other than causing harm. In this case numerous second opinions had already been obtained by Alfie’s parents, from specialists from a number of different countries, and they were all in agreement. So at what point to you stop the “one last second opinion?” The judgment stopped a potential unending tour of Europe, just trying “one last thing,” a litany of unnecessary procedures proposed by people who should know better.

I can’t begin to imagine what it would be like to be in the position of Alfie’s parents, but I would think that most of us would leave no stone unturned in trying to find a cure, but, again, emotional compromise is a thing. On occasion this has the effect of losing sight of the real goal, which is to do what is best for the patient. On the surface, it does appear counterintuitive that death could ever be the best option, but when trapped in a prison of a body, unable to think, move, swallow or breath unaided, yet possibly being in pain, death really is the kindest of outcomes.

That was not the basis of the judgement. Have you read it?

 I don’t view it as a stretch. Don’t think we’ll be changing each other’s minds on this one. 

Some people must define " life" very differently. I don't let myself think of this kids artificial existence(if he knows or senses anything at all it's pure hell) as life. This was WAY past the decision making, fact gathering stage. 

[AUDub 11,184]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Now here's an example of state overreach.  (And the same law exists in about 35 other states.)

http://www.pbs.org/video/62-days-og39za/

Texas is interesting in that they have a law, signed by W, allowing a hospital to unilaterally withdraw care.