Until proven, with peer-reviewed data, double-blind testing and all the rest, such a treatment has EXACTLY the same status as prayer and homeopathy, yes. That's how science works.Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
Until proven, with peer-reviewed data, double-blind testing and all the rest, such a treatment has EXACTLY the same status as prayer and homeopathy, yes. That's how science works.
Ah, ok, I had been trying to be fair. It's clear you don't have a clue of the scientific or moral issues involved.
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 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.
strategic health authorities and NHS trusts make life decisions every single ****ing day as to whether or not to allow a patient to undergo surgery, other treatments, etc. based entirely on available resources. Little in the way of compassion is involved in the decision tree (being a parent / responsibility for young kids is the main 'compassion' point). The Gard case went beyond that in so far as money was not the issue. The MDT involved in this case obviously felt any treatment would not increase the kid's quality of life
like I said, happens every day.
sad all the same.
“Other clubs never came into my thoughts once I knew Arsenal wanted to sign me.”
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)
Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar
No, it is how it is supposed to work. Or at least how medical science is supposed to work. Plenty of other factors get in the way. You are coming a little close to suggesting that something only works once science says it does.
Does marijuana have any positive health benefits? Did it have these fifty years ago when it was an evil drug, frying your brain?
Scientists are just as human as the rest of us, just not as good looking. ****s.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote