Will the UK really let Alfie Evans die in a hospital unwilling to treat him?

What evidence do you have that Alfie was either suffocated or dehydrated?

What do you know about what happens when life support is switched off?

The judge actually stated it was time to switch off the ventilator and let Alfie have good quality palliative care,

So why ask? Of course there wasn't. Why would there be?

The information was supplied in other posts, so if you don't know it, then you ought to.

Ensuring they die with dignity and with as less pain as possible.

These things are easy to find out. Why don't you find out for yourself what happens when life support is stopped?
It happens in Australia, too.

 

Well that was what we were discussing? Just 'thanks for the link' would have been enough?

 

Sure, but I don't think that "brain dead" can be applied to Alfie can it? Not 100%.

 

What about 99% percent brain dead with zero chance of improvement - would you accept that as the poor kid being dead? I would.

 

I might consider it brain dead, but can 99% be applied to Alfie?

 

I was referring to Alfie. The topic is Alfie!!

 

Yes, I'm asking what are you basing it on, Alfie being 99% brain dead. The doctors didn't give any percentage of how brain dead Alfie was.

 

Sorry but you're making me lose the will to live. If you don't understand where I'm coming from by now, you never will.

 

I CAN see where you're coming from, but we can't be using the "brain dead/won't feel pain" argument because we don't know the degree of 'braindeadness' of Alfie. The other side won't take it seriously. This should only be a libertarian argument, that the parents should've been allowed to leave the hospital with their kid - that's certainly MY argument anyway.

 

Your point is well taken, and we agree more than we disagree; but as neither of us will ever know the answer to his perception of pain - nor will anyone else, for that matter - then it seems rather pointless to discuss that aspect of the tragic story?

 

In terms of what exactly? In terms of what happened to Alfie?

I agree, and if a kid died as a result of a good faith parental decision, then that is sad, but the government should not be held responsible for it, that's on the parents.

Government should only get involved in people's families when they are ACTIVELY causing harm to their family members, not doing things which a MIGHT lead to harm.

The US can have such a legal system can't it? Are you saying that parents would not be able to leave a hospital with their kid in the US?

Irrelevant, as they are expected to continue living.

Correct.

Incorrect. No one cares about the welfare of a child as much as loving parents.

What "ongoing clinical care and support" was Alfie receiving which avoided "suffering" and led to a
"relatively rapid and unpleasant death?" (even though there was nothing "rapid" about the death which went on for days on end.)

 

Yes it does seem rather pointless, but to be fair to the other side, they're not discussing the pain much either. Their argument is all centered around the whole "comfort and dignity" of being allowed to die stuff, even though they can't explain how Alfie's death was comfortable and dignified - the argument seems to be, "because the doctors said so."

 

Agree - and that aspect was the lesser of my argument; the thrust of mine was the parents' role in it all, and that their rights as the prime guardians of their own child were perversely subsumed by total strangers.

 

Alfie was to receive good quality palliative care once life support was switched off.
Why is it you don't know these things?

https://www.nhs.uk/Planners/end-of-life-care/Pages/what-it-involves-and-when-it-starts.aspx

 

I know that when life support is switched off, the life is no longer assisted with the necessary amount of oxygen, food or water to stay alive. Am I wrong?

How does switching off a ventilator lead to "good quality palliative care?" Why can't "good quality palliative care" occur WITH a ventilator?

I didn't "ask" anything in regards to drugs. I simply stated that I thought that it was possible that drugs may have been administered (with family consent) in order to make the death more rapid. However, after thinking about it, this would be euthanasia, the legalities of which in the UK I am unsure of.

What is your definition of "dignity" exactly?

How do you know what happens in Australia?

 

Can I assume that you draw the line at child abuse?

 

Yes

See my above link

It would be totally illegal.

Not being lugged about , possibly in pain, like a piece of meat.

My ex-sister-in law is a nurse over there. Australian hospitals love NHS trained nurses.

 

Let me put it this way - I'd quite literally kill anyone whom I see abusing a child. I wouldn't be able to stop myself.

 

The "other side" has discussed pain. Assuming that the child was in pain, one side wants to prolong and increase the pain by moving him all around Europe, the other side wants to lessen the pain by letting nature take its inevitable conclusion

 

The doctors case that leaving the hospital was likely to cause pain was far from convincing. Our side does not WANT to prolong and increase the pain, but rather allow the parents to have the say on where their child dies.

Since when was death by nature so painless?

 

Sure but should government intervene? Given your previous response, it could be that you think it should be the job of vigilante's!

 

Answer me this: does life support involve assisting with breathing and sustenance?

The word "ventilator" does not appear on that page.

How can taking a kid somewhere be described as the kid being "lugged about" like a "piece of meat?"

 

Read the link.

it would depend on each individual case.

That is what they wanted to do to Alfie.

 

You can't be serious. Your link was to NHS palliative care info, nothing to do with life support. Are you unable to say if it includes breathing assistance and sustenance support?

Sorry, the parents wanted to treat Alfie like a piece of meat? Are you actually saying this? You've lost your mind for sure and have clearly lost the debate if you're saying dumb sh*t such as this!

 

Of course any movement is going to increase the pain or are you now saying he was not in any pain

Who said it was?

What don't you understand - At the moment of death the child would suffer the same level of pain whether the moment of death occurred in England, Italy or Germany. You wanting him to be airlifted first to Italy then to Germany would only add to the amount of pain the child would have to endure. Flights are not smooth - have you ever been in a plane. Every movement of the plane would cause more pain on the child. Every jolt of ambulance would cause more pain on the child