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.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
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.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
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.
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?
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).