It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Bicent
If the Italian state had not offered an alternative it would have been different because I accept the decision of UK doctors deciding 'they' wished to stop life support, fair enough, that is their medical opinion.
But there was a legally approved alternative available which had the child been in that country could have been chosen.
It all boils down to ethics then, the subjective opinion of the judge was that Italian doctors = unethical, and UK doctors = ethical.
The blind faith in the judges decision to deny freedom of movement to another EU state's healthcare system is what troubles me most.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
The decision was about was it in his best interest to remain on life support. The where is completely irrelevant.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
You are in the medical profession. You know the effect that not taking in protein can have on cell repair.
Starving him may not kill him as direct causation. It certainly didn't help.
originally posted by: ArMaP
I haven't read all the posts, so if this was already posted please point me to the answers, but my questions are:
1 - What did the court ruled? Is there a transcript of the ruling or are people just talking with no facts to support their positions?
2 - Do we have an official confirmation from the Italian hospital that they would be able to provide better treatment?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I don't think anyone is happy about this situation, or how it all worked out.
Then don't defend it.
This action will likely be what keeps single payer out of the US in the foreseeable future. Its really been an eye opener for many Americans who laughed off the death panel fear stoking as absurd.
Its obviously not absurd.
originally posted by: notsure1 Wow . I am sure most of you are aware of baby Alfie Evans in the UK. The UK has basically decided to let this kid die because he has a degenerative neurological condition that doctors say is incurable. Now the family who desperately want to keep their son alive has been offered free care at the Vatican hospital where they will try experimental treatments . For some reason the UK government has decided to not let him go even though it will be no cost to them whatsoever. Well now the hospital who has decided to murder this child (they are not even feeding him) is upset at all the hatemail and phone calls from around the world . Not only upset but they have the police monitoring social media accounts looking for anyone speaking out against this and threatening legal action.I do not understand why the UK would not let this family take their son somewhere else for treatment. You guys across the pond have no rights left . No gun rights ,no freedom of speech ,not even the freedom to get your own child the care you think he needs.. The drs and the Government get the final say over your childs care ? Not even the freedom to bitch about the care hes not getting without being arrested.thefreethoughtproject.com... Hey America you should be more civilized like us and give up your guns. Now excuse me while we go murder this child...
Despite the fact that this will come at no cost to the UK government or the hospital, they are legally forcing the family to stay in the UK, where they will be denied medical care because the government decided that it was not worth the effort to keep the boy alive. Even worse, the hospital has not been feeding the child while he is under their care, which is now court mandated.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
originally posted by: ScepticScot
The decision was about was it in his best interest to remain on life support. The where is completely irrelevant.
Yes, the subjective ethical opinion of a judge, the Italian doctors supported continuing care in a legally recognised EU healthcare system. Are you saying the Italian doctors are wrong and the UK doctors are right?
Italian doctors visited and came to a different conclusion about 'best for the child' and offered continuing care.
It is my opinion that the judge overstepped the mark by denying freedom of movement to another EU health service.
I know you disagree but you cannot say you are right and I'm wrong, as I cannot say you are wrong and I am right, we just disagree, and it seems we will have to agree to disagree.
2 - 'Better' treatment was not on offer, just continuing care.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
If the decision is that continuing care is wrong for him then allowing it to be continued outside the UK would have been a shameful cop out.
originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
Thanks.
2 - 'Better' treatment was not on offer, just continuing care.
If it was continuing care, what could be gained from having it on a different hospital? Would the moving of the child to another hospital be positive, neutral or negative to him?
originally posted by: SATURN66
a reply to: SATURN66
can the moderate please end this thread as people seam to be ussing this poor child to air and score political points and this should not be allowed infact them using it to get political points acroos is quite sickning and its shows poor repect for a child who lost his life so early...
Sadly, and historically proven many, many times, this is the end result of a country banning people from being able to defend themselves with the same weapons that government has, like hand guns and firearms
originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: ArMaP
I don’t think that is the point, the point in this story I think is a government made a decision for parents.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
That is irrelevant, the principle to me is that another EU health service was offering legally approved continuing care and a judge refused freedom of movement.
We can argue the ethics of keeping the child alive all day, but the principle to me is that continuing care was offered by an EU nation and that was denied by a judge.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
originally posted by: ScepticScot
If the decision is that continuing care is wrong for him then allowing it to be continued outside the UK would have been a shameful cop out.
I disagree. I accept the UK doctors decided that 'they' no longer wished to continue care, and have no problem with that. What I object to is a judge refusing to allow another EU nation provide continuing care which it's doctor's were offering.
I'll say it again, if the parents were seeking help from witch doctors in Papua New Guinea I'd agree with the refusal, but no, it was another EU state offering legal, EU approved care, so on that principle I can never accept the denial of freedom of movement.