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

[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?

Well, the view of another doctor who thinks he can help. Comfortable dead kid vs tiny glimmer of hope? What would you do?

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?

[Burney]

Well, the view of another doctor who thinks he can help. Comfortable dead kid vs tiny glimmer of hope? What would you do?

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?

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.

[IUFG]

... because they know a fúck sight better than we do.

except Rich. of course.

[Burney]

except Rich. of course.

God, yes! I wouldn't trust r to diagnose a missing leg.

[Sir C]

God, yes! I wouldn't trust r to diagnose a missing leg.

I'm still bitter about his failure to diagnose my shoulder issues at the beginning, when treatment would have been simple and guaranteed to work.

It's like he wants me to be permanently disabled.

[Burney]

I'm still bitter about his failure to diagnose my shoulder issues at the beginning, when treatment would have been simple and guaranteed to work.

It's like he wants me to be permanently disabled.

You should sue him. I'm sure he's probably liable somehow.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[Mo Britain less Europe]

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).

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.