UK's National Health Service to remove 12-year-old from life support against parents' wishes

[porchrat]

Sounds like a terrible scenario for the parents. Condolences.

This is however part of what you get with a public health system. At the end of the day that system has to do the most good it can with the budget it has.

If this child's prognosis was poor, and the resources used to keep him on life support were needed by a patient with a good prognosis, then this is the result. It's not ideal but overall I still feel a public health system does more good than a system that turns people away because they can't afford to pay exorbitant private medical costs.

 

[porchrat]

Have they determined the "prospects" ?
To any reasonable degree ?

I assume the medical experts have yes. I doubt one can just pull the plug on someone without a prognosis. Especially in the nanny state UK.

Tax money, like what the parents have been paying presumably since 18 or so ?
Yeah they can be given their wish.
Especially if they are still paying.
Wouldnt want the child to be put to death.
While corruption in the millions is potentially rampant.

Can they be just given their wish though? Can everyone in that system always be given their wish? Even if, in the opinion of the experts in that system, it's not medically beneficial? Is it not the responsibility of the health system to determine where resources are best spent?

What happens if the system starts attempting to meet the wishes of every single person that comes through their doors in this manner?

Doesn't seem at all feasible to me.

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

I assume the medical experts have yes. I doubt one can just pull the plug on someone without a prognosis. Especially in the nanny state UK.


Can they be just given their wish though? Can everyone in that system always be given their wish? Even if, in the opinion of the experts in that system, it's not medically beneficial? Is it not the responsibility of the health system to determine where resources are best spent?

What happens if the system starts attempting to meet the wishes of every single person that comes through their doors in this manner?

Doesn't seem at all feasible to me.

It can be feasible though.
Instead of allowing corruption to happen, they could save lives.
Or dont fund self inflicted harm.

 

[The Voice]

Brings an interesting moral question into play: how much is a single life worth? If it’s someone you love, it’s not even quantifiable. If everyone else has to pay for that life indefinitely, though, probably not that much.

While I feel for the parents, it’s going to cost the rest of us tens of millions of Pounds to keep the son “alive” in case he ever, through some miracle, starts showing a bit of brain activity.

 

[porchrat]

It can be feasible though.
Instead of allowing corruption to happen, they could save lives.

I assume you have access to their detailed budget and have run the numbers. Otherwise I have no idea how you could draw this conclusion.

Or dont fund self inflicted harm.

You just said the parents get to decide on what to do even when the medical experts disagree.

That means self harm is not only allowed but must be funded by the system because the patient says they want it even if the doctor says it's not necessary, fruitless or even harmful. By claiming this is the parents' choice you're effectively claiming the system doesn't get to decide how to spend the resources of the system, the patients (or their guardians in this case) do.

That seems like a very silly idea to me.

 

[Mystic Twilight]

It can be feasible though.
Instead of allowing corruption to happen, they could save lives.
Or dont fund self inflicted harm.

I trust you have put your money where your mouth is and donated a worthwhile and sizable sum to help the kid (or will do so as linked in below):

Aylesbury charity launches fundraiser for boy on life support whose family are battling for his life in court

An Aylesbury charity is dedicating its next fundraiser to a boy on life support whose family are taking a treatment dispute through the courts.

www.bucksherald.co.uk

De Lick Academy

De Lick Academy, Aylesbury. 1,112 likes · 6 talking about this. De Lick Academy is the home of martial arts, fitness and conditioning in Aylesbury and surrounding areas, with classes for 4 year olds...

www.facebook.com

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

I assume you have access to their detailed budget and have run the numbers. Otherwise I have no idea how you could draw this conclusion.


You just said the parents get to decide on what to do even when the medical experts disagree.

That means self harm is not only allowed but must be funded by the system because the patient says they want it even if the doctor says it's not necessary, fruitless or even harmful. By claiming this is the parents' choice you're effectively claiming the system doesn't get to decide how to spend the resources of the system, the patients (or their guardians in this case) do.

That seems like a very silly idea to me.

Corruption happens everywhere and im sure the NHS is not left out.
Judicially the same applies, lobby groups etc exist.

Who is an expert on which brain damaged person will or will not wake up tomorrow ?
I did say they should require a lot of experts and it would lead to a broader discussion.
Ethically and morally at least, these things should factor in.

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

I trust you have put your money where your mouth is and donated a worthwhile and sizable sum to help the kid (or will do so as linked in below):

Aylesbury charity launches fundraiser for boy on life support whose family are battling for his life in court

An Aylesbury charity is dedicating its next fundraiser to a boy on life support whose family are taking a treatment dispute through the courts.

www.bucksherald.co.uk

De Lick Academy

De Lick Academy, Aylesbury. 1,112 likes · 6 talking about this. De Lick Academy is the home of martial arts, fitness and conditioning in Aylesbury and surrounding areas, with classes for 4 year olds...

www.facebook.com

Would it provide and actual increase in the time frame that "experts" decided ?

 

[konfab]

That It's very easy to make comments about money beating out other concerns when you aren't the person paying the bill.

How many other patients with real prospects might get lesser standards of healthcare by keeping this child on life support?

That was my issue with the judgement. The judge didn't say it was about resources, the judge said it was in the patient's best interest.
Which simply does not make sense. The patient isn't suffering at the present moment.

This is one of those issues that people in favour of state healthcare don't want to address. What limit of resources is justifiable to spend on a person's life?

Private insurance makes this easy. They will pay for X amount of treatment, and then they will stop. But when you consider heathcare as a right, then there isn't any reason not to spend an infinite amount of money keeping a person with a 1% chance of recovery on life support.

 

[Grant]

That was my issue with the judgement. The judge didn't say it was about resources, the judge said it was in the patient's best interest.
Which simply does not make sense. The patient isn't suffering at the present moment.

This is one of those issues that people in favour of state healthcare don't want to address. What limit of resources is justifiable to spend on a person's life?

Private insurance makes this easy. They will pay for X amount of treatment, and then they will stop. But when you consider heathcare as a right, then there isn't any reason not to spend an infinite amount of money keeping a person with a 1% chance of recovery on life support.

It is seldom to do with money. If it were some doctors (very few) and some hospitals would simply continue life support and line their pockets.

It's about prognosis.
A patient in a vegative state will need increasing amount of care as muscles (diving organs) atrophy over time.
Care becomes more intensive and prognosis deteriorates.
There is also a continually high risk of infection via IV lines, ventilator etc.

It's a truly hideous situation for all - even the medical team who become attached to the patient and family over time.
No doctor wants to pull the plug on a patient unless all hope is well gone and no stone left unturned.

There is also a dilemma for the courts, as they cannot compel a doctor to treat a patient, or prescribe a course of treatment.

 

[konfab]

It is seldom to do with money. If it were some doctors (very few) and some hospitals would simply continue life support and line their pockets.

It's about prognosis.
A patient in a vegative state will need increasing amount of care as muscles (diving organs) atrophy over time.
Care becomes more intensive and prognosis deteriorates.
There is also a continually high risk of infection via IV lines, ventilator etc.

It's a truly hideous situation for all - even the medical team who become attached to the patient and family over time.
No doctor wants to pull the plug on a patient unless all hope is well gone and no stone left unturned.

There is also a dilemma for the courts, as they cannot compel a doctor to treat a patient, or prescribe a course of treatment.

No dilemma for forcing the taxpayers to pay for this treatment though.

 

[porchrat]

Corruption happens everywhere and im sure the NHS is not left out.

So you don't actually know then... you're just pulling stuff out of a certain orifice. OK then. Safely ignored until something a little more concrete is presented.

Judicially the same applies, lobby groups etc exist.

Who is an expert on which brain damaged person will or will not wake up tomorrow ?

The medical professionals that spent close to, if not more than a decade just studying to qualify to do their job and now deal with this stuff for a living.

Who else would you recommend over them?

I did say they should require a lot of experts and it would lead to a broader discussion.
Ethically and morally at least, these things should factor in.

It's the UK. It's nanny state central. I'd be amazed if any individual doctor could just willy-nilly decide to pull the plug.

Considering how that entire society is structured I imagine the situation you're describing has happened and the decision has not just been made by some single doctor to pull the plug.

The patients in this system can't be the ones ultimately making the decisions in cases deemed hopeless (as you have proposed). The experts with the experience and knowledge to provide a prognosis must be the ones that decide where the system's limited resources are best spent. Would you be OK with leaving a kid on life support with a poor prognosis and it costing a life elsewhere that those doctors know could have been saved?

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

So you don't actually know then... you're just pulling stuff out of a certain orifice. OK then. Safely ignored until something a little more concrete is presented.


The medical professionals that spent close to, if not more than a decade just studying to qualify to do their job and now deal with this stuff for a living.

Who else would you recommend over them?


It's the UK. It's nanny state central. I'd be amazed if any individual doctor could just willy-nilly decide to pull the plug.

Considering how that entire society is structured I imagine the situation you're describing has happened and the decision has not just been made by some single doctor to pull the plug.

The patients in this system can't be the ones ultimately making the decisions here. The experts with the experience and knowledge to make provide a prognosis must be the ones that decide where the system's limited resources are best spent. Would you be OK with leaving a kid on life support with a poor prognosis and it costing a life elsewhere that those doctors know could have been saved?

Corruption exists in all spheres.
To assert that the NHS is free of it is.
Silly.

Reading books, passing tests wow.
I have already mentioned a few of the experts that should be.
Required.

The patient hasnt decided anything though.
Limited resources are further limited because of potential corruption.
These doctors could do any number of things while caring for him.
Tik tok dances worked well against a pandemic.
Is it not better to save his life instead of someone who OD'ed or got any other number of self inflicted injuries ?

 

[porchrat]

Corruption exists in all spheres.
To assert that the NHS is free of it is.
Silly.

I asserted no such thing. I'm saying I'd need to see some evidence backing up your claim that
(A) it exists at all
(B) it exists to the scale where it impedes service in any significant manner
(C) that there is a practical method of elimination of said corruption and it hasn't been followed

I don't know about you, but I generally tend to want to see evidence before I accept a claim. Especially one as large as the one you've made.

Otherwise... I mean... pixies live in your shoes mate and they'll kill you in your sleep unless you give me R100k. No need to ask for evidence mate I've said it so it's true.

Reading books, passing tests wow.

Medical students don't just read books. Neither do those working fellowships.

The patient hasnt decided anything though.

In this case as the kiddo is comatose and not a legal major the guardians would make that decision on his behalf. It's the same thing.

Limited resources are further limited because of potential corruption.

Evidence please. Remember those pixies.

These doctors could do any number of things while caring for him.
Tik tok dances worked well against a pandemic.
Is it not better to save his life instead of someone who OD'ed or got any other number of self inflicted injuries ?

No you've said the parents need to be able to make the ultimate decision. The same must apply to the ODing guy. Self-inflicted is irrelevant. He wants to be treated with everything that system has to keep him alive so you have to do it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander mate. Congrats on your proposal to bankrupt the NHS though

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

I asserted no such thing. I'm saying I'd need to see some evidence backing up your claim that
(A) it exists at all
(B) it exists to the scale where it impedes service in any significant manner
(C) that there is a practical method of elimination of said corruption and it hasn't been followed

I don't know about you, but I generally tend to want to see evidence before I accept a claim. Especially one as large as the one you've made.

Otherwise... I mean... pixies live in your shoes mate and they'll kill you in your sleep unless you give me R100k. No need to ask for evidence mate I've said it so it's true.


Medical students don't just read books. Neither do those working fellowships.


In this case as the kiddo is comatose and not a legal major the guardians would make that decision on his behalf. It's the same thing.


Evidence please. Remember those pixies.


No you've said the parents need to be able to make the ultimate decision. The same must apply to the ODing guy. Self-inflicted is irrelevant. He wants to be treated with everything that system has to keep him alive so you have to do it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander mate. Congrats on your proposal to bankrupt the NHS though

It is easy to report NHS fraud. You can call our anonymous, 24-hour reporting line on 0800 028 4060 (powered by Crimestoppers) or use our confidential online reporting form.


Big enough problem for them to acknowledge it.
B - All corruption impedes service, literally value taken away.
c - I kicked goals 3 times now, enough goalpost shifting.

A good portion is solely theory isnt it ?

Not the same, you used different terms there.

Corruption impedes service and detracts value.

OD and other self inflicted harm is a great drain on the system.
This bot could live if we just stopped that.

1 Case will not bankrupt them.
Will it ?
You made the claim now do the same, as me.

 

[Grant]

No dilemma for forcing the taxpayers to pay for this treatment though.

You're missing the point - it's about prognosis

 

[Grant]

People really need to consider - would they themselves wish to be placed on secondary life support when there is near zero brain function - a ventilator, naso-gastric feeding tube, IV lines for fluid and electrolyte balance, suprapubic catheter, probably a colostomy bag.
And this is your bedroom forever:

 

[The Voice]

People really need to consider - would they themselves wish to be placed on secondary life support when there is near zero brain function - a ventilator, naso-gastric feeding tube, IV lines for fluid and electrolyte balance, suprapubic catheter, probably a colostomy bag.
And this is your bedroom forever:
View attachment 1348706

View attachment 1348708

Not to mention the staff needed to run all that every day.

 

[Dave]

Not to mention the staff needed to run all that every day.

The kid has been examined by numerous specialists who all concur he is brain stem dead and only the machines are keeping him "alive". Unfortunately his mother suffers under the delusions of religion and has the opinion only her god can decide and not the medical experts.

It's an unfortunate state of affairs and now two high court judges have agreed with the experts. It's not about money or resources, it's about the possible outcome for the patient and that has a zero chance of positive change.

 

[porchrat]

It is easy to report NHS fraud. You can call our anonymous, 24-hour reporting line on 0800 028 4060 (powered by Crimestoppers) or use our confidential online reporting form.


Big enough problem for them to acknowledge it.
B - All corruption impedes service, literally value taken away.

Key word being significant.

c - I kicked goals 3 times now, enough goalpost shifting.

You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence of any significant corruption in that system. I'm still asking for that evidence. I haven't shifted any goalposts.

A good portion is solely theory isnt it ?

Not the same, you used different terms there.

Corruption impedes service and detracts value.

OD and other self inflicted harm is a great drain on the system.
This bot could live if we just stopped that.

The boy is brain-dead. His organs are alive. That's apparently about it.

1 Case will not bankrupt them.
Will it ?
You made the claim now do the same, as me.

I'm referring to your stance that the patients should get to dictate treatment. That's what will bankrupt the NHS. It will not be just 1 case. It's a state system. If that principle is applied to 1 case it must be applied to all.