Current Events > Toddler dies as hospital and courts refused treatment options

(+) Yeah! (+)

Another Doctor that didnt think it was right

Professor Dr Nikolaus Haas, the head of pediatric cardiology at Munichs university hospital, testified on behalf of Alfies parents, and later told BBC Radio 4 that the case is about grave matters of medical ethics.

Arguing that Alfie should be allowed to be treated in Rome, The Guardian reported that he said, It is not a question of whether this is medically right or wrong. The question is what is ethical. In Germany, we have learned from our history that there are clearly some things you dont do to handicapped patients. You have to be supportive.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

solosnake posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

lmao tc has done no research but is sure he knows whats best

You are the one that didnt even know they werent allowed to take their child out of the hospital

And now youre lying in order to advocate for child abuse, how noble

point to where I am lying or advocating child abuse? You are very close to being the only person i have ever ignored in over 10 years
---

We dont need laws. We need education. Fucking teach those moron parents a little bit about medicine maybe.
---

solosnake posted...

Finally, Alfies Law would give the right for a second opinion from a parent-chosen healthcare professional who is independent of the NHS, and would force the courts to give this medical opinion equal weight. This is a key factor in many cases. The vast weight of medical evidence delivered by one set of professionals can become a rolling stone, trampling over opinions from all other experts

What stopped the parents from presenting a second opinion from a medical professional in the first place? They apparently flew in the Polish doctor who apparently had a second opinion. Why would that testimony not be allowed? Seems the deciding factor was that there was no second opinion regarding available treatment to begin with, not that there was a magical treatment waiting in Italy.
---

solosnake posted...

In Germany, we have learned from our history that there are clearly some things you dont do to handicapped patients. You have to be supportive.

Yes, you don't torture them.

Hell, you don't torture anyone.
---

Finally, Alfies Law would give the right for a second opinion from a parent-chosen healthcare professional who is independent of the NHS, and would force the courts to give this medical opinion equal weight. This is a key factor in many cases. The vast weight of medical evidence delivered by one set of professionals can become a rolling stone, trampling over opinions from all other experts. There is a danger, also, that once the hospital decides on a certain course of action, they get tunnel vision; they become closed to all other arguments or evidence.

In Alfies case, many feel that the NHS has closed ranks, and that groupthink within the organisation has meant that doctors cannot question their colleagues' assessments. We cannot let this continue.

Without addressing the grotesque appeals to emotion the article starts with, this sounds like an attempt to equivocate cherry-picked opinions to an entire field of scientific and ethical research, which is a terrifying proposition. It also lacks sources... any at all it seems.

So, this, like the rest of your arguments, is garbage.
---

FluttershyPony posted...

Yeah cause we should spend 300,000 euros of our tax money on a vegetable that's 100% guaranteed to die in about 2 weeks.

its disgusting how much those rotten parents are hogging up all the tabloids for easy money, its literally everywhere here in the UK. Meanwhile you could've helped like 10-30+ homeless people get their life sorted and be productive members of society instead.

or treat people who actually won't die 5 days later regardless of circumstances.

I get disagreeing with the parents, but you seem like a wretched fucking human being.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

solosnake posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Guys Im not trolling, Im just a big fan of abusing children! is not a good look.

You are ****ing pathetic. Where has anyone here advocated the abuse of children, you call me a troll yet you have been doing nothing but trolling and flaming since you came in this topic

Every time you ignore the fact that transporting him would have been harmful, youre advocating for child abuse.

Every time you say that the parents deserve to do what they want with him, youre advocating child abuse.

Every single post youre making in this topic is advocating for child abuse.

Well there were doctors who would disagree with that assessment:

Haas added, Ive seen the child and I have a lot of experience in pediatric intensive care as well as transferring children with air ambulance around the world. Clearly Alfie would not be disturbed by any form of transport.

---

Clearly

My fucking ass. When a team disagrees with you theres something wrong.
---

solosnake posted...

Another Doctor that didnt think it was right

Probably because the Doctor saw very few of Alfie's files and didn't do a medical examination:

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2018/03/06/munich-based-doctor-failed-alfie-and-his-parents--judge/

I don't believe he had the opportunity to have that debate in court.

Anyway, its obvious that you are never gonna get past the "child abuse" thing so I guess we are done here
---

solosnake posted...

I don't believe he had the opportunity to have that debate in court.

Anyway, its obvious that you are never gonna get past the "child abuse" thing so I guess we are done here

You're not gonna over the fact that your source is basically fake news.
---

solosnake posted...

I don't believe he had the opportunity to have that debate in court.

Anyway, its obvious that you are never gonna get past the "child abuse" thing so I guess we are done here

I know, we're terrible people for now wanting to abuse a child.We will make sure to hang our heads and let everyone know how awful we are that we advocated against letting people abuse children.
---

solosnake posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The Italian government was willing to try. So why did the UK decide to be the arbiter of life and death rather than let the parents try in Italy?

idk, but that is disgusting and infuriating

Imagine not being allowed to get a second opinion and watching your child die

There was no 2nd opinion. There was "We can continue to let your kid suffer until he dies". Sometimes, parents do not know best.

CE would be having an aneurysm if these parents did various stupid things. But not letting a braindead child with no future but pain and suffering die? Muh parental rights! Functionally, how is this any different than a parent that beats their children or refuses normal medical care? But we can call this "killing children" so here comes the virtue signaling.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

wackyteen posted...

l Dudeboy l posted...

The government does not have that authority. The doctors wanted to take him off life support, and the courts approved their request. The courts operate independently from the government.

Courts are a part of the government.

Not in the UK

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/989195747005476864?s=19

I dunno, this doesn't really show anything except that the government isn't party to the lawsuit. And even then, it is indeed a government agency that is named in the suit, though I suppose that is the semantical difference between government as "the elected body of parliament and the prime minister and their direct cabinet functions" vs. government as "institutions which exist by government fiat," with the UK users referring to the former and at least some US users referring to the latter

setting that aside, the way the argument is laid out is weird.

Dredd Scott v Sandford doesn't name the government as a party but it is still about government power and the ability to regulate the movement of and decisions of people under their jurisdiction
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

solosnake posted...

I don't believe he had the opportunity to have that debate in court.

Anyway, its obvious that you are never gonna get past the "child abuse" thing so I guess we are done here

You're not gonna over the fact that your source is basically fake news.

Ive posted articles from a variety of sources.

It seems the majority of people here feel that it was child abuse to keep her alive, and the parents have no right to transfer their child to a different hospital when the doctors there decide that the child shouldn't be cared for anymore.

I disagree, but I guess there isnt really anything more to discuss. We just disagree here.
---

It is true that this has nothing to do with universal health care though. The government already holds this power. We over in the U.S. typically reserve more authority for parents than this, though. That was part of the problem in the Terry Schiavo case and she was not even a minor
---

shockthemonkey posted...

solosnake posted...

I don't believe he had the opportunity to have that debate in court.

Anyway, its obvious that you are never gonna get past the "child abuse" thing so I guess we are done here

You havent done any research at all so what you believe if irrelevant. Keeping a child alive solely so he can experience pain is fucking abuse and you dont get to abuse a child just because you conceived it.

Dude, you are the one who has literally not researched a single thing and just heard about a "child suffering" and can do nothing but scream child abuse!
---

solosnake posted...

I don't believe he had the opportunity to have that debate in court.

What was there to debate? He didn't see all of Alfie's files. That's a fact not up to debate.

solosnake posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

solosnake posted...

I don't believe he had the opportunity to have that debate in court.

Anyway, its obvious that you are never gonna get past the "child abuse" thing so I guess we are done here

You're not gonna over the fact that your source is basically fake news.

Ive posted articles from a variety of sources.

It seems the majority of people here feel that it was child abuse to keep her alive, and the parents have no right to transfer their child to a different hospital when the doctors there decide that the child shouldn't be cared for anymore.

I disagree, but I guess there isnt really anything more to discuss. We just disagree here.

Her? He/she can be written off as a typo, like you did. Him/her, not so much. Are you sageharpuia by any chance? She used to do this shit too. I hope you were outing yourself on purpose lol
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

solosnake posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

solosnake posted...

I don't believe he had the opportunity to have that debate in court.

Anyway, its obvious that you are never gonna get past the "child abuse" thing so I guess we are done here

You're not gonna over the fact that your source is basically fake news.

Ive posted articles from a variety of sources.

It seems the majority of people here feel that it was child abuse to keep her alive, and the parents have no right to transfer their child to a different hospital when the doctors there decide that the child shouldn't be cared for anymore.

I disagree, but I guess there isnt really anything more to discuss. We just disagree here.

Her? He/she can be written off as a typo, like you did. Him/her, not so much. Are you sageharpuia by any chance? She used to do this shit too. I hope you were outing yourself on purpose lol

what are you even talking about?
---

tbf if you genuinely don't think it's child abuse then I can see why this situation bothers you

to me it's clear it's abusive. but I do get the opinion
---

solosnake posted...

Also, I know you guys dont really care and would rather assume anyone that disagrees with you is trolling, but I was looking at an article that referred to Alfie as a male, and to be fair its not a hard mistake to make as that name is not gender specific.

But oh ho!!!! you didnt know the gender, you are just trolling, DURTRRRRRR

****ing gfaqs lol

You were corrected on the gender of the child and used the pronoun "her" again after being called out and acknowledging you were wrong. This is an admission of trolling. You are finished.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

solosnake posted...

Also, I know you guys dont really care and would rather assume anyone that disagrees with you is trolling, but I was looking at an article that referred to Alfie as a male, and to be fair its not a hard mistake to make as that name is not gender specific.

But oh ho!!!! you didnt know the gender, you are just trolling, DURTRRRRRR

****ing gfaqs lol

You were corrected on the gender of the child and used the pronoun "her" again after being called out and acknowledging you were wrong. This is an admission of trolling. You are finished.

I thought I had referred to alfie as a male initially and had been told he was a female. Turns out I was mistaken again. Its not "an admission of trolling" jfc
---

prince_leo posted...

tbf if you genuinely don't think it's child abuse then I can see why this situation bothers you

to me it's clear it's abusive. but I do get the opinion

like I said, I dont think there is really much point in discussing this further as most people here seem to whole heartedly believe it was nothing more than child abuse. I dont buy that. to me that is sensationalist. Its no different than me claiming the hospital murdering their child is child abuse. It is flaming and trolling. to me the issue here is who has the right of control of the patient.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

solosnake posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

solosnake posted...

Also, I know you guys dont really care and would rather assume anyone that disagrees with you is trolling, but I was looking at an article that referred to Alfie as a male, and to be fair its not a hard mistake to make as that name is not gender specific.

But oh ho!!!! you didnt know the gender, you are just trolling, DURTRRRRRR

****ing gfaqs lol

You were corrected on the gender of the child and used the pronoun "her" again after being called out and acknowledging you were wrong. This is an admission of trolling. You are finished.

I thought I had referred to alfie as a male initially and had been told he was a female. Turns out I was mistaken again. Its not "an admission of trolling" jfc

Proving that you havent done a lick of research and just made this topic because you want attention

If thats what you really believe then why keep posting here and "giving me attention"?
---

solosnake posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

solosnake posted...

Also, I know you guys dont really care and would rather assume anyone that disagrees with you is trolling, but I was looking at an article that referred to Alfie as a male, and to be fair its not a hard mistake to make as that name is not gender specific.

But oh ho!!!! you didnt know the gender, you are just trolling, DURTRRRRRR

****ing gfaqs lol

You were corrected on the gender of the child and used the pronoun "her" again after being called out and acknowledging you were wrong. This is an admission of trolling. You are finished.

I thought I had referred to alfie as a male initially and had been told he was a female. Turns out I was mistaken again. Its not "an admission of trolling" jfc

That doesn't fit with the timeline of events in the topic
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Because stupid people who havent researched might think youre serious and need to know how youre advocating doing deliberate harm to a child who has no recourse.

The child was sick, providing medical care =/= doing deliberate harm
---

solosnake posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Because stupid people who havent researched might think youre serious and need to know how youre advocating doing deliberate harm to a child who has no recourse.

The child was sick, providing medical care =/= doing deliberate harm

WHAT THE FUCK IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO FUCKING TREATMENT AVAILABLE FOR WHAT THIS CHILD HAD
---

solosnake posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Because stupid people who havent researched might think youre serious and need to know how youre advocating doing deliberate harm to a child who has no recourse.

The child was sick, providing medical care =/= doing deliberate harm

I think harm was possibly the wrong word. I'd have gone with "advocating prolonging the suffering of the child".
---