Alfie Evans is fatally ill. Should he be allowed to die in peace?

[woody2]

6 minutes ago, homarus said:

Not preaching to anybody  Quilp ,but we all can tell stories of instances where doctors have misdiagnosed and I'm sure you'll know more than one working where you do!

But that's not the issue , the issue is as raised by more than one on here -Who wants  best for baby Alfie his parents or the state who have already decided to put him on a death fast track!

they have had multiple independent medical teams come in and assess him....   

[homarus]

Just popped into my feed now,dont know how much truth is in it?

   

    Alfie Evans UPDATE ‘Alfie is NOT dying’ Doctor blasts Alder Hey Hospital ‘PRISON’ UK News Express.co.uk.html

[quilp]

4 minutes ago, Rog said:

Is this not a case that could be resolved by making the child a ward of court? 

What good would that do Rog? More delay and desperation in the process? What quality of life would this kid have had if he'd attained any age? Right now he's but a pawn for many interested parties. 

[Lxxx]

3 minutes ago, Rog said:

Is this not a case that could be resolved by making the child a ward of court? 

A ward of court is a mechanism used when an adult is unable to conduct their own affairs due to mental incapacity isn't it? In Alfie's case he's officially a child so even if he was 6 and of sound mind he still wouldn't be allowed to make a decision about his own care due to the fact he is a child and as such would not be deemed not old enough to have enough understanding of the situation to make a sound judgement.  

[homarus]

1 minute ago, quilp said:

What good would that do Rog? More delay and desperation in the process? What quality of life would this kid have had if he'd attained any age? Right now he's but a pawn for many interested parties. 

Including the state!

[Rog]

6 minutes ago, quilp said:

What good would that do Rog? More delay and desperation in the process? What quality of life would this kid have had if he'd attained any age? Right now he's but a pawn for many interested parties. 

The decision could / would be taken out of the parents hands. There is no easy way out of this, all that can be hoped for is a least worst solution. There is little doubt that if the child was released in order that the parents could just take him home the parents would hot foot it to Italy.

[Rog]

3 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

A ward of court is a mechanism used when an adult is unable to conduct their own affairs due to mental incapacity isn't it? In Alfie's case he's officially a child so even if he was 6 and of sound mind he still wouldn't be allowed to make a decision about his own care due to the fact he is a child and as such would not be deemed not old enough to have enough understanding of the situation to make a sound judgement.  

AFAIK there is no age restrictions on who can be made a ward of court. I could be wrong but I thought that was how it works.

[Rog]

This may seem cold but there does not seem to any thought given to a child with a devastating and irrecoverable condition taking up a very much needed hospital place that could be much better used for a child that is Ill but with a positive prognosis.

[Lxxx]

 

Just now, Rog said:

AFAIK there is no age restrictions on who can be made a ward of court. I could be wrong but I thought that was how it works.

Me neither but I'm sure the whole rationale behind it is geared towards proving that an individual is no longer able to conduct their own affairs. A one years old child has never and would never be in a position to conduct it's own affairs, brain damage or not. I'm sure a lawyer could justify it technically but it seems like it's a piece of legislation that isn't really appropriate in this instance though I wouldn't have thought.

[Rog]

1 minute ago, Lxxx said:

 

Me neither but I'm sure the whole rationale behind it is geared towards proving that an individual is no longer able to conduct their own affairs. A one years old child has never and would never be in a position to conduct it's own affairs, brain damage or not. I'm sure a lawyer could justify it technically but it seems like it's a piece of legislation that isn't really appropriate in this instance though I wouldn't have thought.

It stands a chance of breaking the logjam being caused by the parents.

[homarus]

1 minute ago, Rog said:

This may seem cold but there does not seem to any thought given to a child with a devastating and irrecoverable condition taking up a very much needed hospital place that could be much better used for a child that is Ill but with a positive prognosis.

Just let him go with his parents then!

   But they can't do that because they've  already dug themselves into a hole!

[Lxxx]

1 minute ago, Rog said:

This may seem cold but there does not seem to any thought given to a child with a devastating and irrecoverable condition taking up a very much needed hospital place that could be much better used for a child that is Ill but with a positive prognosis.

Plenty of parents care for their damaged child every day of the week. It's not an ideal situation of course but they do it with love and because it's their own flesh and blood. I suppose that's all that the parents are asking for. If he doesn't make it much longer due to his condition then that's unfortunately life but what is at the heart of the matter here is that right to do so.

[quilp]

4 minutes ago, Rog said:

The decision could / would be taken out of the parents hands. There is no easy way out of this, all that can be hoped for is a least worst solution. There is little doubt that if the child was released in order that the parents could just take him home the parents would hot foot it to Italy.

The decision has already been taken out of parental control; has been for weeks. The easy way out would have been to allow nature take its course and ensure palliative care in the transition from life to the inevitable demise.

He should be allowed to go home to die, ensuring home is where he stays if he leaves the ward shouldn't be too hard to police. It would solve the problem of that ridiculous shower outside the hospital. 

[Declan]

1 hour ago, homarus said:

But that's not the issue , the issue is as raised by more than one on here -Who wants  best for baby Alfie his parents or the state who have already decided to put him on a death fast track!

They both want the best for him.

The doctors and nurses have been caring for him everyday for over a year, they are taking what they believe to be the most humane course of action for him. They've been keeping him alive for months, when had they not intervened he would have died long ago. They don't want him to continue to suffer.

The parents are very young and are coping with a situation that would destroy people twice their age. They love their son and want the best for him. They'd do anything to save him. Unfortunately, vested interests are advising them badly.

"The state" by which I guess you mean the courts have had to pick apart these two competing and very understandable points of view.

The facts are Alfie has suffered massive brain damage, current medicine doesn't have a means to reverse that. Nobody is offering an alternative treatment. The Italians are offering to keep him alive on a ventilator, not a cure, or a treatment that will lead to partial recovery. That doesn't seem to be much of a life.

[John Wright]

4 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

A ward of court is a mechanism used when an adult is unable to conduct their own affairs due to mental incapacity isn't it? In Alfie's case he's officially a child so even if he was 6 and of sound mind he still wouldn't be allowed to make a decision about his own care due to the fact he is a child and as such would not be deemed not old enough to have enough understanding of the situation to make a sound judgement.  

Wardship doesn’t really exist anymore. 

Years ago this type of situation would have been dealt with by making the child a ward and the court deciding the treatment.

Now, if there is a dispute between medics and family the hospital applies to the court.

The Court will not choose between two valid but opposed treatment plans. BUT if there is no realistic treatment, and the court decides that it is not in the interests of the child,  not the interests of the parents or the state, to be kept alive artificially when there is no hope of recovery, the court may authorise removal of medical care and treatment except palliative Care.

The UK, and Manx, approach puts the interests of the child first. Many other countries place the “rights” of the parents, as if the child were their property, first.

Its an big and complex, medico Legal ethical isssue as to what treatment to give to any incurable patient, adult or child, to prolong a life of a human being which apparently has no sensation, awareness, or quality of life, or allow them to die. It’s another related side of the euthanasia debate.

It has become more prevalent due to medical advances which mean that lives can be saved, where before the patient would have died, but that the life saved can only be maintained by complex assistance with breathing, feeding, and has no cognition.

Its made all the more sad, and emotive, when it’s a child.