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

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Shame they are not inclined to do the same to criminals.

[Burney]

Shame they are not inclined to do the same to criminals.

Literally nothing to do with the British state. The boy was always going to die. The doctors sought to spare him from suffering unnecessary and hopeless treatments that have never have had a chance of succeeding. His parents - understandably - didn't want to face that reality and sentimental idiots have helped sustained their sad fantasies. The courts did absolutely everything to ensure that every avenue was explored and that every ethical argument was carefully considered before coming to the right decision.

The tragedy is that people think you can keep a sick child alive simply by force of will. You can't. Sick kids die and all the campaigns and court cases in the world won't change that.

[Pokster]

Shame they are not inclined to do the same to criminals.

He was on life support..... he is suffering and, understandably, his parents do not want to make the horrible decision to see their son die. The illness he has does not have a cure and it is slowly killing him (who knows if he is feeling pain). It was the correct thing to do imo

[Peter]

Literally nothing to do with the British state. The boy was always going to die. The doctors sought to spare him from suffering unnecessary and hopeless treatments that have never have had a chance of succeeding. His parents - understandably - didn't want to face that reality and sentimental idiots have helped sustained their sad fantasies. The courts did absolutely everything to ensure that every avenue was explored and that every ethical argument was carefully considered before coming to the right decision.

The tragedy is that people think you can keep a sick child alive simply by force of will. You can't. Sick kids die and all the campaigns and court cases in the world won't change that.

I heard that the Doctor in the states hadn't examined the child.

Could someone not have organised for the bloke to pop over and have a quick look? Might have been a bloody start.

With respect, you don't know whether any treatments had a chance of success or not. You are going on the opinion of the british doctors.

[Sir C]

I heard that the Doctor in the states hadn't examined the child.

Could someone not have organised for the bloke to pop over and have a quick look? Might have been a bloody start.

With respect, you don't know whether any treatments had a chance of success or not. You are going on the opinion of the british doctors.

Apparently the treatment on offer from the chap in the US has never been tried on a human being or an animal. One wonders if a little more research might be appropriate.

[Burney]

I heard that the Doctor in the states hadn't examined the child.

Could someone not have organised for the bloke to pop over and have a quick look? Might have been a bloody start.

With respect, you don't know whether any treatments had a chance of success or not. You are going on the opinion of the british doctors.

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?

[Burney]

Apparently the treatment on offer from the chap in the US has never been tried on a human being or an animal. One wonders if a little more research might be appropriate.

It had shown very limited experimental success in treating a completely different disorder. The idea that the parents were being denied a wonder cure by the evil NHS is simply bóllocks.

[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?

[Peter]

It had shown very limited experimental success in treating a completely different disorder. The idea that the parents were being denied a wonder cure by the evil NHS is simply bóllocks.

They have been denied the right to try it by doctors who believe they know best. Its not a straightforward issue and I don't think there is much evil on either side.

[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.

[redgunamo]

I heard that the Doctor in the states hadn't examined the child.

Could someone not have organised for the bloke to pop over and have a quick look? Might have been a bloody start.

With respect, you don't know whether any treatments had a chance of success or not. You are going on the opinion of the british doctors.

Isn't the key question: Who is to pay for all this.

I don't know, was it the NHS?

[Burney]

Isn't the key question: Who is to pay for all this.

I don't know, was it the NHS?

At one point, the Donald was offering to do so. The issue wasn't money, but patient welfare.

[Peter]

At one point, the Donald was offering to do so. The issue wasn't money, but patient welfare.

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

[redgunamo]

At one point, the Donald was offering to do so. The issue wasn't money, but patient welfare.

Alright. But was it an NHS-thing? Naturally they'd have different priorities than the Donald, wouldn't they.

[Burney]

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

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.

[Burney]

Alright. But was it an NHS-thing? Naturally they'd have different priorities than the Donald, wouldn't they.


Only in the sense that the NHS are the ones responsible for the child's care and welfare.

[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).

[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.

[Burney]

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).

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.

[Burney]

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?

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.

[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.

[Burney]

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.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

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.

[Pokster]

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.

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)

[Burney]

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.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

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.

[Burney]

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.

[IUFG]

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.

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.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171195] 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.

[QUOTE]

You started by saying this was nothing whatsoever to do with the state. Now the child is in their care. And he died.

[Peter]

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.

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.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171195] 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.

[QUOTE]

You started by saying this was nothing whatsoever to do with the state. Now the child is in their care. And he died.

I started by refuting Mo's claim that the state killed him. In fact, no-one killed him and the courts (i.e. not the state) made the final decision.

[Burney]

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.


The scientific method as I've described it is the reason we are where we are today. It keeps us reasonably safe from poison, unwanted side effects and quackery. It is the means by which we sort anecdote and coincidence from fact.

[Ash]

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

He/She is busy regenerating at the moment, I gather.

[Burney]

He/She is busy regenerating at the moment, I gather.

:hehe: wd a.

Although obviously you're going to hell for making jokes about a dying baby.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171203][QUOTE=Burney;4171195] 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.



I started by refuting Mo's claim that the state killed him. In fact, no-one killed him and the courts (i.e. not the state) made the final decision.

Of course they didn't kill him. They just let him die. The state, that is.

[Peter]

The scientific method as I've described it is the reason we are where we are today. It keeps us reasonably safe from poison, unwanted side effects and quackery. It is the means by which we sort anecdote and coincidence from fact.

Observed fact. And the point about coincidence is interesting. Science doesn't set out to prove that something 'works'. It sets out to understand how it works. What it doesn't understand it labels coincidence.

Because, as I say, scientists are all ****s. I don't need to understand how nicotine works to know I want a fag.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171209][QUOTE=Peter;4171203]

Of course they didn't kill him. They just let him die. The state, that is.

They conceded - based on huge levels of medical knowledge and a profound understanding of medical ethics - that his death was inevitable and allowed it to happen while ensuring he suffered as little as possible.

A baby bird falls out of the tree. It is clearly badly injured, in shock and too young to survive alone. Its parents cannot save it and it is merely a question of how and when it dies - not if. What is the ethical course of action? :shrug:

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171222][QUOTE=Burney;4171209]

They conceded - based on huge levels of medical knowledge and a profound understanding of medical ethics - that his death was inevitable and allowed it to happen while ensuring he suffered as little as possible.

A baby bird falls out of the tree. It is clearly badly injured, in shock and too young to survive alone. Its parents cannot save it and it is merely a question of how and when it dies - not if. What is the ethical course of action? :shrug:

What if, as you about to stamp on his head, a vet rings and says its a long shot but he might be able to save it? What do you do?

I would try a homeopathic remedy myself ;)

[Pokster]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171231][QUOTE=Peter;4171222]

What if, as you about to stamp on his head, a vet rings and says its a long shot but he might be able to save it? What do you do?

I would try a homeopathic remedy myself ;)

Is the vet going to foot the bill or is he going to ask you to pay for it?

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171249][QUOTE=Burney;4171231]

Is the vet going to foot the bill or is he going to ask you to pay for it?

Asking that question implies it is potentially an option. Case closed.

Unfortunately, its too late and the bird is now dead.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171231][QUOTE=Peter;4171222]

What if, as you about to stamp on his head, a vet rings and says its a long shot but he might be able to save it? What do you do?

I would try a homeopathic remedy myself ;)

I would weigh the options, thinking about whether prolonging the poor thing's suffering was right, given the odds and then stamp on its head.

[Pokster]

[QUOTE=Pokster;4171250][QUOTE=Peter;4171249]

Asking that question implies it is potentially an option. Case closed.

Unfortunately, its too late and the bird is now dead.

But why did you phone the vet? the bird wasn't injured it had just fallen out of its nest... i suspect you tried to kill it and felt guilty you heartless *******

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171256][QUOTE=Pokster;4171250]

But why did you phone the vet? the bird wasn't injured it had just fallen out of its nest... i suspect you tried to kill it and felt guilty you heartless *******

I didn't phone the vet. He just happened to hear about it.

Its that Irish one that does all the weird surgery and makes metal legs for dogs.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171249][QUOTE=Burney;4171231]

I would weigh the options, thinking about whether prolonging the poor thing's suffering was right, given the odds and then stamp on its head.

Murderer!

For shame.....

[Pokster]

[QUOTE=Pokster;4171260][QUOTE=Peter;4171256]

I didn't phone the vet. He just happened to hear about it.

Its that Irish one that does all the weird surgery and makes metal legs for dogs.

Ahhh, so he was doing it for publicity and his next series then... I suspect the bird didn't fall and he had placed it on the ground and just hoped you didn't stamp on its head

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Pokster;4171260][QUOTE=Peter;4171256]

I didn't phone the vet. He just happened to hear about it.

Its that Irish one that does all the weird surgery and makes metal legs for dogs.

He's a right **** that bloke. Always performing outrageous and very possibly cruel surgeries. He'd be struck off if he were a doctor.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171259][QUOTE=Peter;4171249]

Murderer!

For shame.....

Well I could just leave it to get eaten, starve or run over. :shrug:

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4171270][QUOTE=Pokster;4171260]

He's a right **** that bloke. Always performing outrageous and very possibly cruel surgeries. He'd be struck off if he were a doctor.

He has some impressive health outcomes stats though.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4171275][QUOTE=Peter;4171270]

He has some impressive health outcomes stats though.

Pah. I bet he's killing animals with monotonous regularity. He's more Dr Mengele than Dr Doolittle if you ask me.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

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.

What utter rubbish. Corbynista nonsense. The state does not own anyone's life, not even a convict serving a life sentence.

You might be a rabbit who is happy for the men in white coats to play with at will, my life is worth more than any tuppence artist on the NHS might think it. If it was me and my money, I would have my child or myself trying the treatment and anyone trying to stop me would answer with their own lives because no-one has the right to stop me from doing what I think is best for myself or my child if I can afford to pay for it.