Alfie's Army

[G Richards]

Just realized I’m posting a lot on this thread towards the end here. I was very late to join, as I didn’t even know about the case. Sad business all around. I have no definitive answers or anything like that, I’m simply arguing that if one set of doctors have come to the end of the line, and another medical team want to keep it going, they should be allowed to do so, at their expense.

 

It might be argued that it is futile, as the child will die anyway, and has no quality of life and so on, but perhaps this step is needed to help the whole thing come to a conclusion, as the situation at present is unsatisfactory on any number of levels - the parents want to fight on, (understandably) and (appallingly) an angry mob has been stirred up. In the melee conspiracy theories are flourishing when, in my view, all of this could have been prevented with an alternate conclusion.

[Lee909]

My issue would be if the hospital back down and let him go abroad they open themselves up to all this again in the future.

Every parent not willing to take that decision be that for whatever reason medical or religious, They will know that if they stir up enough trouble for the hospital they will get there own way

 

I do not see why Alder Hey would allow the child the risk of being moved and having a seizure mid transport,continued struggle that he cannot win.

And the prospect of life of nothing till either his body fails,infection sets in or the family finally decide thats it. Why would you leave the child to have more operations like the clinic in Rome is suggesting(opening up the airway) for something that cannot be treated.If the clinic in Rome has something to offer it might be different but they dont. This is being done by them purely on religious grounds with the hospitals links to the Vatican and the religious laywers,the Pope and Italians sticking their nose in with Catholic doctorine over much else.

[Oh Buoy]

Respectfully that doesn’t kill the argument. If everyone agreed it was just “a group of cells” there would obviously be no argument. But in practice we see that people contemplating an abortion agonize over the decision. Respectfully you don’t agonize over the decision if it is indeed just a “group of cells.” Taking it a step further, experience shows that many people who have had an abortion grieve over the decision they made. You don’t grieve over a “group of cells.”

 

I’m the one who introduced the abortion thought, as I see an inconsistency in logic, but the intent in making that comment was not to have a wider debate about abortion. There’s a thread on here somewhere for that, I think.

 

Again, it's an argument of what is defined as a 'child' (in law) and when rights can be applied. It's got nothing to do with those going through the agonising process of abortion and what emotions/perceptions they endure on route. 

 

In Alfie's case, he is a child and he therefore does have rights. 

 

That's the point I'm making here, in that the variables within each case cannot be compared and therefore it's wrong to accuse people of irony.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

And in this case, to use a crude expression, Team A have come to the end of the line. If another medical team is willing to take the case on, I personally don’t have a problem with that being allowed, so long as it is at their expense.

Expense is not an issue.

 

If there were any viable treatment which would help him and wouldn't risk increasing his suffering, Team A would be doing it. Team B have proposed nothing of the sort.

[Rico1304]

Just realized I’m posting a lot on this thread towards the end here. I was very late to join, as I didn’t even know about the case. Sad business all around. I have no definitive answers or anything like that, I’m simply arguing that if one set of doctors have come to the end of the line, and another medical team want to keep it going, they should be allowed to do so, at their expense.

 

It might be argued that it is futile, as the child will die anyway, and has no quality of life and so on, but perhaps this step is needed to help the whole thing come to a conclusion, as the situation at present is unsatisfactory on any number of levels - the parents want to fight on, (understandably) and (appallingly) an angry mob has been stirred up. In the melee conspiracy theories are flourishing when, in my view, all of this could have been prevented with an alternate conclusion.

Read the judgements and the uncontested medical evidence.

[Special K]

I've just seen footage of the attempt by the cunts to get into the hospital. Some lad giving it the large one to a policeman on the door with the classic scally cunt move of moving backwards whilst simultaneously throwing his arms down to his sides in a "come 'ed then" way just makes me wish our police had guns.

 

The lot of them bring utter shame on the city. I'd say they being shame on themselves but they don't have any

[Ne Moe Imya]

I have to say I'm completely baffled by this whole saga.

 

Everyone is debating what is best for the child, or which doctor/hospital should get to decide that, and the like. But the issue isn't what is best for the child, the crux of the problem is WHO gets to decide what is best for the child!

 

For me a child's parents are always the ones who should get to decide this, unless it can be demonstrated that they are being willfully or recklessly harmful to the child. Surely no one is saying that Alfie's mum and dad want him to suffer, are they? I understand the doctors think there's no hope, and that's fine. But unless the government can prove willful disregard for the child's welfare, decisions about a child should always ultimately come down to his/her parents.

 

It's a very slippery and scary slope once you start changing that. Just because one disagrees with the parents (and all the weirdos protesting and such) and agree with the hospital in this particular case is no reason to do so.

[Moo]

I’m not sure. I would probably want to explore the space between “may cause further pain and suffering” and “will cause further pain and suffering.”

And if you can't explore that space, and both teams agree they can't be certain but it's possible the child may suffer further? Still okay to let palliative care continue if the parents want it?

 

To be fair, I might have been of a similar opinion until this case as I simply didn't know enough and wondered "what's the harm" if it helps the parents? But I hadn't particularly read about any other cases and my understanding is still limited but I know more than I did before and it's opened my eyes a bit.

[Oh Buoy]

I have to say I'm completely baffled by this whole saga.

 

Everyone is debating what is best for the child, or which doctor/hospital should get to decide that, and the like. But the issue isn't what is best for the child, the crux of the problem is WHO gets to decide what is best for the child!

 

For me a child's parents are always the ones who should get to decide this, unless it can be demonstrated that they are being willfully or recklessly harmful to the child. Surely no one is saying that Alfie's mum and dad want him to suffer, are they? I understand the doctors think there's no hope, and that's fine. But unless the government can prove willful disregard for the child's welfare, decisions about a child should always ultimately come down to his/her parents.

 

It's a very slippery and scary slope once you start changing that. Just because one disagrees with the parents (and all the weirdos protesting and such) and agree with the hospital in this particular case is no reason to do so.

 

You can indirectly harm a child by placing the parental interests (let's call just label this, "what the parent's think is best" to avoid any further confusion) at the forefront. As for the proving the "willful disregard for the child's welfare" argument - there's a reason why we have children's social care in this country. There's also a reason why "best interests" have become so important due to past events which have caused further harm to the child. 

 

The parents are involved in all-if-not-most decisions taken by the medical team looking after Alfie. They don't decide to withdraw treatment easily and they have conditions that they have to meet to make such a decision. Alfie will have had every possible chance and route explored before they'd reached the point of entering end of life care. 

 

If you gave parents the right (and in turn remove the child's right) we'd be setting a dangerous precedent going forward. 

 

But it's not undo all the work social/health care has established over the years because of Alfie.

[Spy Bee]

 

 

My name is Kristina Martin. I am trained ICU nurse and I have never been working for Alder Hey Hospital but I have been working for NHS and did quit my job. I don't care will I loose my license because what is happening with little Alfie is beyond normal and it's very inhuman ! Medical workers have and oath they need to respect and in Alfie's case no one does. They neglected that child,they didn't do tracheostomy, he had burns on his hand, everything is just wrong. How can anyone from medical team in AH be there and do just nothing then watch this poor sweet child suffocating and his parents are doing all they can to save him. How is this human ??!!! Is this compassion ??! Is this humanity at all ?!! Leaving a child to starve to death for 24 h.,little baby still. How can anyone from medical team watch this child struggling to breath and not allow CPAP mask ? They should jump all nurses and doctors and HELP. I have now 20 years of experience and I have NEVER saw or heard or witness situation even similar to this. In most of my working life nurses and doctors especially in ICU jump to save patient,they do not give up easily. This with Alfie is more then heartbreaking!!!! You stuff in AH should be ashamed of yourself for watching and doing NOTHING to save a life of an INOCENT CHILD ! You can't say it's in child's best interest to die because Alfie proved you WRONG !!! He was on ventilation for sooooo long and you doctors know that after all this time to even breath without assistance of oxygen for more then few minutes it's soo incredibly rare and I personally never ever witnessed that! You are MURDERERS ,you really are and definitely you are covering something! Not even been diagnosed ! I spoke to another medical workers and ALL of them are shocked with this situation of KEEPING ALFIE AS HOSTAGE but everyone are afraid to speak - why = it's beyond my understanding ! I don't care about job if child Life is in danger! I don't know how you people sleep at all and you DO KNOW that what you are doing is wrong ! Everything will get out everything and then it will be to late. Do the right thing an let Alfie go or help him there ! Do the right thing ! How can you all just stand there and do nothing?! Where is your responsibility, compassion,oath, humanity ???!!! People don't care about stupid job,if you are good you will get another immediately,,,do the right thing and help this family,help little warrior because breathing for so long it's an absolute miracle no matter what judges or doctors are saying,they are just covering their asses ,! If this is a Royal Family and their baby well in their case child would be in Rome days ago. Disgusting from government, NHS, this is MURDER !!! 

 

Part from oath : ath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel;

Nnnng nng

[Fabio]

Child is the priority, not the parents

 

That's true in any case, ever surely?

 

In this case the parents want to fly him to another palliative team, that will give him a tracheostomy

 

Main issues for the hospital to consider

 

1) is the flight going to be traumatic for the child. No certainties how all this will play out when pressures changes in flight

 

2) the care the other hospital offer, will it improve his life? Arguably no, as they're introducing another area which could be an infection risk (i.e. the tracheostomy).

 

If alder hey believe that transfer will cause more harm than good, then they shouldn't agree to the transfer.

[Harry Squatter]

Welcome to Britain 2018. Where scallies who can't spell or have any interest in anything outside of their own little world suddenly become neurological and legal experts because they go on Facebook.

[Oh Buoy]

Nnnng nng

 

Painful to read that. 

 

It's almost like she's forgot all her nursing training.

 

 

 

 

Or never had any to start with. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

The father is now making noises to suggest he's coming round to accepting the reality of the situation and that Italy won't happen and is saying he wants to take his son home.

 

That should absolutely be allowed to happen and should be facilitated as soon as possible.

 

Although, I'd definitely be wanting round the clock police monitoring to ensure that there is no attempt to abscond with the child.

[Fabio]

The father is now making noises to suggest he's coming round to accepting the reality of the situation and that Italy won't happen and is saying he wants to take his son home.

 

That should absolutely be allowed to happen and should be facilitated as soon as possible.

 

Although, I'd definitely be wanting round the clock police monitoring to ensure that there is no attempt to abscond with the child.

Agreed. If the family can be trusted.

 

Also, interesting snippet I heard today. Apparently few months ago the mum was giving him cannabis oil and she was barred from seeing him for a bit.

 

Now I know it hasn't got the THC in....but did they not think that maybe it's not wise to give a toddler some medication that could interact with other meds?

[Fabio]

All allegedly of course

[Rico1304]

The father has just been on LBC saying he thinks he can wake up with the right treatment.

[Fabio]

The father has just been on LBC saying he thinks he can wake up with the right treatment.

He needs to get a fucking grip

[Spy Bee]

Now I know it hasn't got the THC in....but did they not think that maybe it's not wise to give a toddler some medication that could interact with other meds?

In fairness, it has worked before, but that was with cancer, not brain death.

[Spy Bee]

The father has just been on LBC saying he thinks he can wake up with the right treatment.

I'd love to know what he is basing this on. He's just feeding the animals in the zoo with shit like that!

[Creator Supreme]

I give up, a mate is being trolled on FB by one of the 'army', who claims that the intimidation of the staff is bullshit and we'd know this if we were there supporting Alfie like any right thinking person would against the murderers in AH!

 

There's no communicating with them!

[Fabio]

In fairness, it has worked before, but that was with cancer, not brain death.

Yeah cancer there's research and stuff so can't argue with it there

 

Here they've just thought is a cure all. 2+2=5

[Ne Moe Imya]

Child is the priority, not the parents

 

That's true in any case, ever surely?

 

In this case the parents want to fly him to another palliative team, that will give him a tracheostomy

 

Main issues for the hospital to consider

 

1) is the flight going to be traumatic for the child. No certainties how all this will play out when pressures changes in flight

 

2) the care the other hospital offer, will it improve his life? Arguably no, as they're introducing another area which could be an infection risk (i.e. the tracheostomy).

 

If alder hey believe that transfer will cause more harm than good, then they shouldn't agree to the transfer.

 

Agree with every word of this post right up until this part.

 

I genuinely find it difficult to believe that people think that a hospital should have more say in what happens to a child than his/her parents. Do you have kids? How could anyone think that?

 

To be clear, I think it's clear from what is publicly known that poor Alfie is for all intents and purposes already brain-dead and has no hope for recovery. But it should 100% be the parents' choice whether to continue treatment or not, not a doctor's or a hospital's or a court's. As you say, if there's evidence that they are willfully ignoring how traumatic a flight would be or that they're going to cause him more pain/suffering, then that could change things. However, it seems that they are aware of the risks, aware that the odds are long, and they have chosen to move him anyway. In which case, it's their choice, in my book. Parents get to decide what happens to their children, period, unless they're intentionally putting him in harm's way (in which case the government should begin proceedings to terminate their parental rights).

 

By the way, if he is brain-dead with no chance for recovery, and he doesn't feel any pain, then what would be the harm in letting him take a flight or have a tracheotomy? That's a separate issue to the main problem, but I haven't seen it explained. He surely won't feel anything that happens to him from here on out, no?

[Fabio]

 

 

Agree with every word of this post right up until this part.

 

I genuinely find it difficult to believe that people think that a hospital should have more say in what happens to a child than his/her parents. Do you have kids? How could anyone think that?

 

To be clear, I think it's clear from what is publicly known that poor Alfie is for all intents and purposes already brain-dead and has no hope for recovery. But it should 100% be the parents' choice whether to continue treatment or not, not a doctor's or a hospital's or a court's. As you say, if there's evidence that they are willfully ignoring how traumatic a flight would be or that they're going to cause him more pain/suffering, then that could change things. However, it seems that they are aware of the risks, aware that the odds are long, and they have chosen to move him anyway. In which case, it's their choice, in my book. Parents get to decide what happens to their children, period, unless they're intentionally putting him in harm's way (in which case the government should begin proceedings to terminate their parental rights).

 

By the way, if he is brain-dead with no chance for recovery, and he doesn't feel any pain, then what would be the harm in letting him take a flight or have a tracheotomy? That's a separate issue to the main problem, but I haven't seen it explained. He surely won't feel anything that happens to him from here on out, no?

I've got 2 kids, one is under alder hey for a genetic condition.

 

Parents are thick and emotional. I know I am. But that's why sometimes the decision needs to be taken out their hands. They're not acting in the best interests of the child, they're acting in whay they believe the best interests of the child.

 

And they don't know he doesn't feel pain. He could. He could be in constant agony for all we know. Problem is, he wouldn't be able to tell us.

 

Seizure and aspiration is a lot worse way to go than organ shutdown.

[Anubis]

The father has just been on LBC saying he thinks he can wake up with the right treatment.

Whilst I echo the sentiments about letting Alfie home if the parents could be trusted, let's be brutally honest, dad's going to try and get him to Italy, probably with some ill-conceived help from the CLC and the more rabid elements of the Army. I can see this ending badly with a stand-off at an airport or airfield somewhere.