They are basing this judgement on the fact that were it to work others would demand it and the NHS would have to admit it cannot afford it. If he dies without the treatment, problem solved.
You are basing this clinical judgment on the fact that it's an experimental procedure with very little data and that what data there is suggests no likely effect on the condition in question. No reputable clinician could possibly justify distress to a dying child based on the existence of a treatment whose data suggests no likely effect better than placebo.
Sure, if the parents had got this doctor over earlier, then great. He could have made whatever recommendations he liked and the NHS staff could have assessed them on their merits and acted according to the child's best interests. However, it is not the role of the NHS to start flying in quacks from around the world to experiment on dying children.
That's pretty rich from someone who suggests homeopathy is in any way a valid form of complementary medicine (as opposed to the horseshīt it demonstrably is) and that the NHS is happy to let save-able kids die just to save them a bit of hassle and a few quid.
Nope. You are suggesting that. All I did was to say, check it for yourself, that the NHS is happy to condone homeopathy when it chooses to.
I stand by the second part of your statement because that is the effect whether it is their intent or not. The kid will die and the NHS will save itself hassle and a few quid.
The money arguement doesn't work, the NHS already refuse some drugs if they see them as being too expensive for the treatment concerned.
Doesn't the poor lad need help liviung at the moment? The treatment that they were originally offering wouldn't cure him it would just let him live longer (if it even works)
The existence of homeopathy anywhere near the NHS is a national disgrace and due almost entirely to that renowned gobshīte the Prince of Wales. I would agree that their readiness to countenance such nonsense does undermine their reputation for making dispassionate judgments based on hard, clinical data. However, that is not the fault of the individuals involved in this decision, most of whom I don't imagine like homeopathy any more than I do.
Intent and effect are two very different things. The intent was to achieve the best possible level of care for this child given his condition. The effect is that the NHS has had to go to court at great public expense to defend its its primacy in such decision-making. The fight was over an important and compassionate principle and was - I would suggest - a lot more hassle and more expensive than letting the poor child be used as a guinea pig.
The outcome is that the boy will die. The boy was always going to die, though.
No compassion was involved. Only an infringement of the ultimate civil liberty, the right to try and save your life by whatever means possible. The intent was to stop the child from having potential life-saving treatment. If this line was taken with every new treatment we'd still be chewing leaves every time we had a headache.
You do not know if the boy would have lived or died with the experimental treatment. You cannot know, neither can I. It might have worked or it might have helped to improve the treatment for others, that is how science works.
A child incapable of expressing an informed preference is in the care of the state, not of anyone else. His parents are not and never were empowered to override the NHS's clinical decision in this matter.
Modern science does not work by chucking early-stage, wholly unproven treatments at desperately sick babies on the vague off-chance they might work. That would be both bad science and monstrously unethical.
Your suggestion that there was no compassion involved in this decision is, I'm afraid, absurd. Compassion was absolutely at the heart of this decision.