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

[Rog]

1 hour ago, gerrydandridge said:

Its not about me being thick or paranoid, its a point of fact.. they would be in total control if they were not coerced into registering the child's birth. the resident legal expert can tell you that registering anything gives legal title to the "loving government"..

Your current debate is futile, until you understand what has caused this issue in the first place, mum and dad have little say, the state will always make the call when it comes to their property...

Oh FFS, I seldom resort to profanities but in your case I'm prepared to make an exception.

IMO this is a serious and angst ridden thread and out of respect for ALL parties why not at least TRY to behave accordingly.

[the stinking enigma]

Stop being so melodramatic rog. 

[Chinahand]

You can read the Judge’s reasoning here. I would ask those paranoidally going on about state murder to read it. 

57. Most striking is the indisputable fact that Alfie’s brain has been
devastated by progressive degeneration. The MRI scans, as interpreted, are
compelling. The thalami, which regulate the pathways of the brain, have entirely
disappeared. This, I remind myself, controls the stimuli to the most basic sensory
functions. Alfie has lost the capacity to hear, see, smell or respond to touch, other
than reflexively. 

60. I do not
exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical
option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and
one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his
convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be
excluded. 

62. Properly analysed,
Alfie’s need now is for good quality palliative care. By this I mean care which will
keep him as comfortable as possible at the last stage of his life. He requires peace,
quiet and privacy in order that he may conclude his life, as he has lived it, with
dignity. 

63. The plans to take him to Italy have to be evaluated against this analysis of his needs.
There are obvious challenges. Away from the intensive care provided by Alder Hey
PICU, Alfie is inevitably more vulnerable, not least to infection. The maintenance
of his anticonvulsant regime, which is, in itself, of limited effect, risks being
compromised in travel. The journey, self-evidently will be burdensome. Nobody
would wish Alfie to die in transit.

64. All of this might be worth risking if there were any prospect of treatment, there is
none. For this reason the alternative advanced by the father is irreconcilable with
Alfie’s best interests. F continues to struggle to accept that it is palliation not
treatment that is all that can now be offered to his son. 

 

[Rog]

1 minute ago, the stinking enigma said:

Stop being so melodramatic rog. 

He annoyed me.

[woolley]

1 hour ago, gerrydandridge said:

Its not about me being thick or paranoid, its a point of fact.. they would be in total control if they were not coerced into registering the child's birth. the resident legal expert can tell you that registering anything gives legal title to the "loving government"..

Your current debate is futile, until you understand what has caused this issue in the first place, mum and dad have little say, the state will always make the call when it comes to their property...

This is ridiculous. A person is not "property" of the state or the parents.

[paul's got wright]

19 hours ago, homarus said:

Almost 2 days now, they expected him to die in a couple of hours ,it's a fucking disgrace!

 I think the more serious question is , since when did the state claim  ownership of children above the Parents  ?

Fair question given the situation x

[dilligaf]

9 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

Fair question given the situation x

No it is not. It is ignorance.

[paul's got wright]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

This is ridiculous. A person is not "property" of the state or the parents.

Indeed

[paul's got wright]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

This is ridiculous. A person is not "property" of the state or the parents.

Exactly

[paul's got wright]

21 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

No it is not. It is ignorance.

That is your opinion

[homarus]

3 hours ago, Chinahand said:

You can read the Judge’s reasoning here. I would ask those paranoidally going on about state murder to read it. 

57. Most striking is the indisputable fact that Alfie’s brain has been
devastated by progressive degeneration. The MRI scans, as interpreted, are
compelling. The thalami, which regulate the pathways of the brain, have entirely
disappeared. This, I remind myself, controls the stimuli to the most basic sensory
functions. Alfie has lost the capacity to hear, see, smell or respond to touch, other
than reflexively. 

60. I do not
exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical
option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and
one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the
possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his
convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be
excluded. 

62. Properly analysed,
Alfie’s need now is for good quality palliative care. By this I mean care which will
keep him as comfortable as possible at the last stage of his life. He requires peace,
quiet and privacy in order that he may conclude his life, as he has lived it, with
dignity. 

63. The plans to take him to Italy have to be evaluated against this analysis of his needs.
There are obvious challenges. Away from the intensive care provided by Alder Hey
PICU, Alfie is inevitably more vulnerable, not least to infection. The maintenance
of his anticonvulsant regime, which is, in itself, of limited effect, risks being
compromised in travel. The journey, self-evidently will be burdensome. Nobody
would wish Alfie to die in transit.

64. All of this might be worth risking if there were any prospect of treatment, there is
none. For this reason the alternative advanced by the father is irreconcilable with
Alfie’s best interests. F continues to struggle to accept that it is palliation not
treatment that is all that can now be offered to his son. 

 

The last 2 lines cut straight through all the waffle and bullshit.

 Won't let the parents take him to Italy because he "might"" catch an infection , even though he would be with trained medical staff ,but happy for him to die comfortably in Alder Hey.

He's given his informed  opinion and that's all it is ,now let the parents choose!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[paul's got wright]

14 hours ago, homarus said:

 A question asked like a true socialist but never mind .

  But in answer to your question , I'd imagine by virtue of the fact that they are the childs parents and legal guardians and would have the right to seek a second opinion  ? Which by the way is ready and waiting for them !

 

 

Well said. Why are some people so flaky when it comes to flesh an blood. Its a tragic situation x

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

That is your opinion

It is a lot of people's opinion but only because most, me included, had only the media's version to go on until China posted the above. 

It is perfectly understandable that the parents will have outbursts as they come to terms with the inevitable and I don't criticise them at all for that. In fact when the father called of the baying masses yesterday, I thought that was very brave and an indication of acceptance of the true situation.

This case has caught the atterntion of the media  and the imagination of the public but most realise this sort of tragedy is being played out every single day all over the British Isles and beyond but you don't get to hear about them. Social media has a lot to answer for but I still think it is better with it than without.

[John Wright]

I’ve read the various published judgments.

First, the state, through the courts, does not claim ownership of the child.

Second, whether the child had been registered at birth or not would make no difference in terms of treatment and the need for the Hospital Trust to seeks directions

Third, evidence was given to the courts by independent experts instructed by both the hospital and the parents. In the end, as set out in the judgment quoted by chinahand, all experts agreed that the disease was irreversible, incurable, progressive and that he has no ability to see, hear, feel, other than pain sensation. 

Fourth, he still has reflexive reaction, so can breathe unaided for a short period.

Fifth, he can’t be cured, even the Vatican, it’s hospital and doctors agree that. If he is moved there he will be placed on a ventilator and nothing will change medically.

Sixth, the doctors say that the only realistic option is to allow him to receive palliative care, pain relief, and to be allowed to die peacefully.

Seventh, the parents, and supporters, and founders, who appear to include USA religious pro lifers, want to keep him alive, but knowing that he is life limited and will never recover.

Eighth, the final passage in the quoted judgment doesn’t say what Homarus, or anyone else supporting his view, suggests, either on its own, in isolation, or taken in context as a whole.

The judge reviews all the evidence, draws conclusions, which as the medical evidence was agreed is not surprising, that he won’t recover, is insensate and that moving him to the Vatican hospital won’t change anything.

He then examines the correct statutory legal test, what is in his best interests? To have ongoing invasive treatment so  life prolonged is  until the inevitable occurs or to allow palliative Care so he dies naturally.

Its a shame this situation has arisen, that attitudes have become so hardened, that millions have been spent, between the two sides, on legal costs. That money could have been better used on allowing him Home to die with his parents with round the clock nursing care and Support.

The question Society has to answer is simple, where is the line, in terms of the interests of the patient, between prolonging life at all costs, irrespective of benefit or financial implications, just because we can,  and accepting that nothing more can be done and allowing the natural course of the disease to take its course.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

The question Society has to answer is simple, where is the line, in terms of the interests of the patient, between prolonging life at all costs, irrespective of benefit or financial implications,

A question that has to be sorted once and for all hopefully in the not too distant future. Religious nutters  (and to make it clear...I don't mean all people with faith) have always fought such common sense tooth and nail.