Well done to the Biriths state for upholding its right to kill innocent individuals

[Peter]

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.

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.

Of course. No issue with doctors following procedure. Its their duty.

The problem is that the parents, quite understandably, were desperate to try anything and don't give a **** about procedure. The key point seems to be who has the right to decide whether to move the kid or not. That is tricky.

[Peter]

The court put him on the spot last week and asked him if he'd be willing to come over and make an assessment. He was rather taken aback, but reluctantly agreed to. However, before he did, the latest scans showed the child's situation to be hopeless.

At the very least, that could have been done ****ing ages ago.

[redgunamo]

Why couldn't the Doctor come to the kid and at least have a look?

That's what I mean; obviously the NHS, not to mention the British courts, can't allow every quack wanting to make a name for himself have a poke and a prod at that poor kid.

[Peter]

That's what I mean; obviously the NHS, not to mention the British courts, can't allow every quack wanting to make a name for himself have a poke and a prod at that poor kid.

If a chap is willing to hop on a plane......surely its worth a punt, even if it is just to close off a false hope.

You stick big Per up front for the last few minutes if you have to.

[Burney]

Of course. No issue with doctors following procedure. Its their duty.

The problem is that the parents, quite understandably, were desperate to try anything and don't give a **** about procedure. The key point seems to be who has the right to decide whether to move the kid or not. That is tricky.

But it's not just procedure, it's clinical judgement. Do you really think that if the people caring for him sincerely believed there was any chance of a cure or significant improvement that they'd have blocked him going to the states? Of course not. They would've looked incredibly closely at the treatment and the kid's condition and come to the conclusion that the situation was hopeless and that moving the kid would've caused undue distress. That is a clinical decision that we, as a society, employ them to make on our behalf.

The parents are not qualified to make that judgement based purely on being his parents. Otherwise, we would allow Jehovah's Witnesses to deny their children blood transfusions and other treatments based on their beliefs. We do not allow such things because the Health Service has the ultimate say on child welfare for the simple reason that parents do not always know best.

[redgunamo]

If a chap is willing to hop on a plane......surely its worth a punt, even if it is just to close off a false hope.

You stick big Per up front for the last few minutes if you have to.

Of course, but you can understand the NHS not wishing to pay for it. Where would it all end? Thin end of the wedge and a' that.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

The parents had found the money for the treatment. The treatment had a possibility of working, however slim. It should not up to the NHS or the state to decide to block this.

[Burney]

The parents had found the money for the treatment. The treatment had a possibility of working, however slim. It should not up to the NHS or the state to decide to block this.

And if the parents had decided that exorcism or homeopathic treatments were what was required, would it still be up to them to decide? Of course not. The parents do not know what they're talking about and are motivated by desperation and grief. They cannot make a dispassionate decision.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Actually, yes, unless physical harm is involved. Homeopathic treatment is often give hand in hand with conventional medicine these days and I assume, whatever your religious view, you don't object to praying?

But I imagine you're not suggesting this treatment, being developed by qualified doctors in the US, falls into these categories?

[Peter]

But it's not just procedure, it's clinical judgement. Do you really think that if the people caring for him sincerely believed there was any chance of a cure or significant improvement that they'd have blocked him going to the states? Of course not. They would've looked incredibly closely at the treatment and the kid's condition and come to the conclusion that the situation was hopeless and that moving the kid would've caused undue distress. That is a clinical decision that we, as a society, employ them to make on our behalf.

The parents are not qualified to make that judgement based purely on being his parents. Otherwise, we would allow Jehovah's Witnesses to deny their children blood transfusions and other treatments based on their beliefs. We do not allow such things because the Health Service has the ultimate say on child welfare for the simple reason that parents do not always know best.

Yes, I understand it is down to clinical judgement. However, when you are talking about an experimental procedure with very little data, what are they basing this clinical judgement on?

We are talking about the difference between acceptance and clutching at straws. If the kid is dying anyway he doesn't have a lot to lose. I would have got the bloke over sharpish (economy).