Shame they are not inclined to do the same to criminals.
Shame they are not inclined to do the same to criminals.
Literally nothing to do with the British state. The boy was always going to die. The doctors sought to spare him from suffering unnecessary and hopeless treatments that have never have had a chance of succeeding. His parents - understandably - didn't want to face that reality and sentimental idiots have helped sustained their sad fantasies. The courts did absolutely everything to ensure that every avenue was explored and that every ethical argument was carefully considered before coming to the right decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
The tragedy is that people think you can keep a sick child alive simply by force of will. You can't. Sick kids die and all the campaigns and court cases in the world won't change that.
He was on life support..... he is suffering and, understandably, his parents do not want to make the horrible decision to see their son die. The illness he has does not have a cure and it is slowly killing him (who knows if he is feeling pain). It was the correct thing to do imoQuote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
I heard that the Doctor in the states hadn't examined the child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Could someone not have organised for the bloke to pop over and have a quick look? Might have been a bloody start.
With respect, you don't know whether any treatments had a chance of success or not. You are going on the opinion of the british doctors.
Apparently the treatment on offer from the chap in the US has never been tried on a human being or an animal. One wonders if a little more research might be appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Yes. I am going on the opinion of some of the leading doctors in the UK. What the fûck are you going on? A hunch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It had shown very limited experimental success in treating a completely different disorder. The idea that the parents were being denied a wonder cure by the evil NHS is simply bóllocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Well, the view of another doctor who thinks he can help. Comfortable dead kid vs tiny glimmer of hope? What would you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
It isn't me sitting here saying the other treatment didn't have a chance of success. Of course, now we will never know.
I cant help but wonder how this squares with your view of the NHS last week. Careful consideration, due process and a dead kid. So quality care and decision making can have a poor health outcome?
They have been denied the right to try it by doctors who believe they know best. Its not a straightforward issue and I don't think there is much evil on either side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I don't think much of the NHS as you know, but this has little to do with last week's stats. The child's health outcome was never going to be anything but bad. His doctors have a duty not to 'strive officiously to keep alive' and are also required to undertake triage based on the likelihood of survival. We entrust them with these decisions because they know a fúck sight better than we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The doctor at no point said his treatment would help. He said it had shown some limited signs of success on a purely experimental basis in a related, but significantly different disorder. One can understand why the parents would clutch at such a straw, but equally understand why clinicians and physicians required to make a dispassionate decision weighing the likely benefits against the chances of unnecessary distress to the child would come down against it.