Alfie's Army

[Anny Road]

I'm certainly not going to argue that the baby will be cured. The medical case is compelling from the few minutes I've invested scanning the various threads above. No need to try to make that case as it is already more than made. 

 

Even so, if the parents have another medical team who are willing to take the baby on, at their expense, and the new medical team says it is in the baby's best interest to do that - and to be clear, let's say they aren't offering a cure, because there is none, but instead they are offering extended palliative care, and in their judgment that is in the baby's best interest, and it is also what the parents would like, then why can't that be allowed? 

 

However badly the argument is made by the 'mob' that is essentially it. I can see the logic. Dont agree with it but.

[Lee909]

I'm certainly not going to argue that the baby will be cured. The medical case is compelling from the few minutes I've invested scanning the various threads above. No need to try to make that case as it is already more than made. 

 

Even so, if the parents have another medical team who are willing to take the baby on, at their expense, and the new medical team says it is in the baby's best interest to do that - and to be clear, let's say they aren't offering a cure, because there is none, but instead they are offering extended palliative care, and in their judgment that is in the baby's best interest, and it is also what the parents would like, then why can't that be allowed? 

 

 

I am guessing the argument from the medical team this side will be that they are just prolonging the suffering of the child because the parents are not ready to let him go(when will you ever be) or that the parents religious beliefs will push them to keep him on life support till his body completely fails under the argument of the sanctity of life

[Moo]

I'm certainly not going to argue that the baby will be cured. The medical case is compelling from the few minutes I've invested scanning the various threads above. No need to try to make that case as it is already more than made.

 

Even so, if the parents have another medical team who are willing to take the baby on, at their expense, and the new medical team says it is in the baby's best interest to do that - and to be clear, let's say they aren't offering a cure, because there is none, but instead they are offering extended palliative care, and in their judgment that is in the baby's best interest, and it is also what the parents would like, then why can't that be allowed?

Define the child's "best interests"? God's will?

[Anny Road]

I am guessing the argument from the medical team this side will be that they are just prolonging the suffering of the child because the parents are not ready to let him go(when will you ever be) or that the parents religious beliefs will push them to keep him on life support till his body completely fails under the argument of the sanctity of life

That is the crux of the issue. It is not the parents descion to make in law.

[Charles Penrose]

Objectively speaking, fuck the parents best interests and focus on the child. It’s doing him no good and he shouldn’t be kept alive as a shell of a human being just because they can’t let him go.

 

Where do you draw the line, thirty years of care just waiting for an infection to take hold? Normally these things play out with family accepting the word of caring, considered opinion but when they don’t see sense I’m glad the law falls down on the side of Doctors.

[TheHowieLama]

This is quite wrong. Any legal proceedings involving children must consider the child's welfare as it's paramount concern

 

Not legally

[Champ]

Secret Barrister slaps down Liz. It's brutal.https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/989195011043528704?s=19

Ouch!

[Champ]

Not legally

Yep. Legally

[Rico1304]

Ouch!

She’s brutal.

[TheHowieLama]

Yep. Legally

 

Who becomes the advocate -- the state?

[Champ]

Who becomes the advocate -- the state?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/1

[G Richards]

Define the child's "best interests"? God's will?

 

 

In the scenario I set forth the medical team does that. 

 

Medical team A says it's not in the child's best interests. 

Medical team B disagrees, so they take it forward, at their expense. 

[Elite]

From my observation, this Alfie case is like an intelligence test. If you agree with the courts and doctors you are intelligent, if you are part of the 'Mob' you are essentially as thick as fuck.

[Fabio]

I'd be all for giving the shop in BG grief.

 

The meal deal offer is wank and they completely overcharge for it.

 

Plus, you can only get Pepsi/Tango/other cheap shite that you know costs about 50p elsewhere.

 

Coffee Republic's alright like.

Yeah the WRVS can get burned down like

[G Richards]

"Objectively speaking, fuck the parents best interests and focus on the child."

 

This is not aimed at the person who wrote this statement, so I didn't quote in the usual way, but I see a massive irony in applying this thinking to the pro-life/pro-choice debate. 

 

​Interestingly, the much-maligned religious loons want to do exactly this, and focus on the best interest of the child. 

​The intelligent people, (to use Elite's word above) want to exclusively focus on the wishes of the parent. 

 

Move the timeline along a little, and it all changes. Strange business.

[Oh Buoy]

Unfortunately there are no rights for a child -- they are in the parents care.

 

 

So -- time for a rethink on patient rights

What? Where the hell did you pull this from?

[Anubis]

Who becomes the advocate -- the state?

In British law we appoint a Guardian ad Litem to look after the child's interest.

[Fabio]

In the scenario I set forth the medical team does that.

 

Medical team A says it's not in the child's best interests.

Medical team B disagrees, so they take it forward, at their expense.

Which is fair enough, providing they have the evidence and resources to show improvements could happen

 

But all they've suggested is a tracheostomy, which dramatically increases the likelihood of infection and aspiration

 

If anything they're more eager to kill him

 

Der merderers

[moof]

Bloke who looks and acts like a feral inbred scumbag is in fact a feral inbred scumbag. Well I never.

Yeah, it’s been pretty obvious for a while, even to a casual observer, that the lad is a complete cunt.

[moof]

"Objectively speaking, fuck the parents best interests and focus on the child."

 

This is not aimed at the person who wrote this statement, so I didn't quote in the usual way, but I see a massive irony in applying this thinking to the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

 

​Interestingly, the much-maligned religious loons want to do exactly this, and focus on the best interest of the child.

​The intelligent people, (to use Elite's word above) want to exclusively focus on the wishes of the parent.

 

Move the timeline along a little, and it all changes. Strange business.

Wait... what?

[Moo]

In the scenario I set forth the medical team does that.

 

Medical team A says it's not in the child's best interests.

Medical team B disagrees, so they take it forward, at their expense.

But if medical team B takes into account other, non-physical, factors would you still argue it should be allowed? If they belive the child's "best interests" includes the sanctity of life would that be okay?

[Moo]

"Objectively speaking, fuck the parents best interests and focus on the child."

 

This is not aimed at the person who wrote this statement, so I didn't quote in the usual way, but I see a massive irony in applying this thinking to the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

 

​Interestingly, the much-maligned religious loons want to do exactly this, and focus on the best interest of the child.

​The intelligent people, (to use Elite's word above) want to exclusively focus on the wishes of the parent.

 

Move the timeline along a little, and it all changes. Strange business.

I don't think you can compare the two. And I don't think doctors, in general, would compare the two.

The timeline is all important and shouldn't really be 'dismissed' as a minor point, though I don't know if you intended it to sound dismissive.

[G Richards]

But if medical team B takes into account other, non-physical, factors would you still argue it should be allowed? If they belive the child's "best interests" includes the sanctity of life would that be okay?

 

Medical team B could be Everton fans for all I care. If their qualified medical opinion is that there is more care they can give, and they would like to do it, at their expense, I don't see the problem. 

[Oh Buoy]

Open letter from Alder Hey:

 

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/alder-hey-write-powerful-open-14577681

[Moo]

Medical team B could be Everton fans for all I care. If their qualified medical opinion is that their is more care they can give, and they would like to do it, at their expense, I don't see the problem.

Even if they didn't dispute that keeping the child alive artificially may cause it more physical pain and suffering?