Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 13, 2018, 04:36:16 PM
-
I always feel that these cases, no matter the outcome the parents are used.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43750597
-
I am not quite sure what you mean?
I think the life support should be removed in the case of this poor little chap, and nature take its course.
People exploit the love the parents have to politicize the case.
-
NS, I agree with you & it never achieves anything. Poor little lad, I've been following this case quite closely. At least Trump hasn't waded in this time.
-
It appears to be the parents who are in the driving seat in this case, imo.
They aren't. They are just being exploited.
-
I agree with you & it never achieves anything. Poor little lad, I've been following this case quite closely. At least Trump hasn't waded in this time.
Nor the Pope.
-
If you say so, but I can't see that myself.
So you think that two people of 21 and 20 are running a media show for a case where they have lost to try and save their dying chikd?
-
Nor the Pope.
He has said something - maybe not him personally - but what the Vatican children's hospital is offering is no different to Alder Hey: palliative care. I doubt little Alfie's parents can speak Italian & it would be something of an ordeal to travel there with a sick child.
If you say so, but I can't see that myself.
LR it's the way so many people jump on cases like this with their own agendas & put suggestions to the very young parents who in the end don't really know what is best for their child. So much publicity too which is difficult to handle.
-
Sorry I don't understand what you mean? The parents are holding out against the life support being turned off, when the medics think it is the best and kindest option.
So how are they in the driving seat? There are people supporting them who are using this as an example of what happens under socialised medicine who are exploring them. This is two young people who want to save their baby being used.
-
I agree largely with NS. And the links to the Vatican seem clear, plus The Christian Legal Centre or whatever it is called.
But it isn’t just the parents - hardly adults themselves - that are being used. It is Alfie himself. I am so sick of seeing Christians, pro-lifers and the political right wanting to prolong the suffering of children for their own satisfaction. Because that is all that they are doing here. They’ve lost sight of what is in Alfie’s interests completely.
The location of the hospital treating Alfie should have been kept out of the public domain.
-
Yes.
-
I agree largely with NS. And the links to the Vatican seem clear, plus The Christian Legal Centre or whatever it is called.
But it isn’t just the parents - hardly adults themselves - that are being used. It is Alfie himself. I am so sick of seeing Christians, pro-lifers and the political right wanting to prolong the suffering of children for their own satisfaction. Because that is all that they are doing here. They’ve lost sight of what is in Alfie’s interests completely.
The location of the hospital treating Alfie should have been kept out of the public domain.
I take it as read that the poor child is exploited but it's not doing anything other than suffering. it doesn't, as the parents are, get taken advantage of while speaking out.
-
I take it as read that the poor child is exploited but it's not doing anything other than suffering. it doesn't, as the parents are, get taken advantage of while speaking out.
Any court proceedings involving children should have the child at the centre. Hard as it is, the parents should have no more say than the medical team and/or the State.
-
Any court proceedings involving children should have the child at the centre. Hard as it is, the parents should have no more say than the medical team and/or the State.
No disagreement on that.
-
Sentimentality is a disastrous basis for ethical judgements.. I agree that his parents are being exploited.
-
People exploit the love the parents have to politicize the case.
Who, in this case is exploiting the love the parents to politicise it?
-
So how are they in the driving seat?
Nobody else who understands the case wants this legal action to continue. Who is in the driving seat except the parents? Only they can instruct their lawyers to stop, nobody else.
There are people supporting them who are using this as an example of what happens under socialised medicine who are exploring them.
Who? Are you referring to the people in the US who don't want universal healthcare?
-
It’s Alder Hey, but yes. My grandmother died against a background of endless car horns from a ‘beep if you support us’ protest outside the hospital where she was being treated for a brain tumour. The difference this time was that the protest was organised by NHS staff.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43781041
The protestors outside Great Ormond Street Hospital are behaving in a disgusting way. >:(
What are they protesting about now?
Alfie Evans is not at GOSH.
-
What are they protesting about now?
Alfie Evans is not at GOSH.
They aren't, they are at Alder Hey. Simple mistake by LR.
-
Sorry I apologise for that error on my part. :-[
We all make them. And that was an easy one to make.
-
Nobody else who understands the case wants this legal action to continue. Who is in the driving seat except the parents? Only they can instruct their lawyers to stop, nobody else.
Who? Are you referring to the people in the US who don't want universal healthcare?
I would suggest the Christian Legal Centre who are representing them want the action to continue, and given the costs I presume doing this pro bono. Having a jet ready to fly the child to Rome seems unlikely to be within what they can afford.
-
I would suggest the Christian Legal Centre who are representing them want the action to continue, and given the costs I presume doing this pro bono. Having a jet ready to fly the child to Rome seems unlikely to be within what they can afford.
I agree with this. They’ll be giving the parents false hope, and it’s not hard to imagine the pressure the parents would be put under should they even consider letting it go given the nature of the campaign waged on their behalf so far.
-
It angers me when people - uninvolved - put their oar in. Treatment in Rome would be no different to what he already has here.
-
I would suggest the Christian Legal Centre who are representing them want the action to continue, and given the costs I presume doing this pro bono. Having a jet ready to fly the child to Rome seems unlikely to be within what they can afford.
Dunno about the pro bono bit.
From the very little I know about the CLC, I very much doubt whether they could afford the many big cases they undertake.
There must be some element of private financing involved. If the law in England's the same as that in Scotland, though, the CLC must declare where its' income comes from unless the case involves a sexual offence.
-
Dunno about the pro bono bit.
From the very little I know about the CLC, I very much doubt whether they could afford the many big cases they undertake.
There must be some element of private financing involved. If the law in England's the same as that in Scotland, though, the CLC must declare where its' income comes from unless the case involves a sexual offence.
Any significant money isn't coming from the parents/
-
Yeah, because this helps loads.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/alfie-evans-european-court-human-rights-life-support
Isn’t it time the hospital sought an injunction against the protests? And wtf would the ‘protestors’ have done had they succeeded in storming the hospital?
-
I feel desperately sorry for Alfie's young parents who are really being exploited.
Which is where we came in.
-
He's been awarded Italian citizenship, which adds a twist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-4387267
-
He's been awarded Italian citizenship, which adds a twist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-4387267
More exploitation. Italian govt playing politics with a child.
-
More exploitation. Italian govt playing politics with a child.
Yep: and utterly sick. The last couple of lines in this, by Burns, come to mind.
Many and sharp the num'rous ills
Inwoven with our frame!
More pointed still we make ourselves
Regret, remorse, and shame!
And man, whose heav'n-erected face
The smiles of love adorn, –
Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!
-
Apparently the baby has been taken off life support and is now breathing on his own. I thought he couldn't breath without the life support?
People on life support can quite frequently breathe for some time on their own off of life support but in the longer time would be unlikely to, and have needed to have been put on life support because of previous problems.
-
So is he suffering more or less than when on life support? Shouldn't it be ended? What is in the best interests of the child?
-
So is he suffering more or less than when on life support? Shouldn't it be ended? What is in the best interests of the child?
Not quite sure by the question of 'Shouldn't it be ended?' - are you talking about some for of active ending? I think what you think is in the best interest of the child are going to be dependent on your view on life and what makes it worthwhile. As in the case of Charlie Gard, I feel enormous sympathy for all involved but I struggle with what any judge is likely to go through on this. It's a hellish decision to make.
-
Since they have appointed themselves as the best judges of what is in the child's interest, they are responsible for any continued or, indeed, increased suffering.
-
Since they have appointed themselves as the best judges of what is in the child's interest, they are responsible for any continued or, indeed, increased suffering.
Eh? I think you may have misread my post. Any judge making a legal decision here has not appointed themselves.
-
I don’t know how this works but it sounds like a child is breathing unaided but then will end up fighting for breath before dying. That sounds like suffering to me. I’m assuming that sedation is available but not enough to end life, and as this is a child there may be an erring on the side of caution.
‘Letting nature take its course’ is a grim option.
-
Eh? I think you may have misread my post. Any judge making a legal decision here has not appointed themselves.
But they think they are competent to judge. Otherwise they would absent themselves from the position. There’s an element of self-appointment there.
-
But they think they are competent to judge. Otherwise they would absent themselves from the position. There’s an element of self-appointment there.
And what if they absent tthemselves? A decision needs to be made but they back away from their job?
-
And what if they absent tthemselves? A decision needs to be made but they back away from their job?
If they accept the job then they are saying that they are competent to make life and death judgements. Nothing wrong with that on that someone has to - in fact I admire their courage in doing so - but by stepping up there is an element of self appointment there. Otherwise they’d walk away.
-
If they accept the job then they are saying that they are competent to make life and death judgements. Nothing wrong with that on that someone has to - in fact I admire their courage in doing so - but by stepping up there is an element of self appointment there. Otherwise they’d walk away.
I doubt they think this sort of decision is going to happen. It's a very very unusual judgement to make. It only happens in the disputes but the agreements which are by far the most common cases. While we have discussed Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans on hers, hundreds of children in circumstances not dissimilar will have died with the agreement of the medical staff and parents. None of those decisions already or even palatable.
But waking away is also a decision. Being the final arbiter in cases like this because it's the position you end up in is nothing you expect or think about when you become a judge. It's a very very very case.
None of that means I don't have the utmost sympathy for everyone in solved here.
-
I heard an interview on PM just now with the lawyer - American working for that, in my opinion, ghastly group calling themselves something with the word Christian in the title - and cringed.
-
I heard an interview on PM just now with the lawyer - American working for that, in my opinion, ghastly group calling themselves something with the word Christian in the title - and cringed.
Isn't that just bigotted?
-
Eh? I think you may have misread my post. Any judge making a legal decision here has not appointed themselves.
I meant the state and court system rather than any particular judge.
It seems to be a case where there is no rational basis on which a decision can be made, and it is ultimately an emotional one - as in many other cases which do not get to court.
-
I meant the state and court system rather than any particular judge.
It seems to be a case where there is no rational basis on which a decision can be made, and it is ultimately an emotional one - as in many other cases which do not get to court.
That makes no more sense. Surely it's that we as a society have to have a method abstractions are made. The state and court system is just us.
-
And another appeal.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/24/alfie-evans-breathing-unassisted-for-nine-hours-says-father
-
But they think they are competent to judge. Otherwise they would absent themselves from the position. There’s an element of self-appointment there.
Do you know what a judge does? Do you really think that a judge can walk away from a case?
You may be interested in the discussion involving a former High Court judge and a parent who had a seriously ill child in The World at One today. It talks place about 10 minutes into the programme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09zt3fv
-
I don’t know how this works but it sounds like a child is breathing unaided but then will end up fighting for breath before dying. That sounds like suffering to me. I’m assuming that sedation is available but not enough to end life, and as this is a child there may be an erring on the side of caution.
‘Letting nature take its course’ is a grim option.
As long as euthanasia is illegal, it's that or nothing, apart from "double effect", mentioned earlier.
-
That makes no more sense. Surely it's that we as a society have to have a method abstractions are made. The state and court system is just us.
damn ... I must remember not to tick the "Make sick babies suffer longer" box next time.
-
Do you know what a judge does? Do you really think that a judge can walk away from a case?
You may be interested in the discussion involving a former High Court judge and a parent who had a seriously ill child in The World at One today. It talks place about 10 minutes into the programme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09zt3fv
Didn't they include another case where a sick child survived being taken off life support for quite a long time?
-
Didn't they include another case where a sick child survived being taken off life support for quite a long time?
Yes.
As I said "a parent who had a seriously ill child".
-
Yes.
As I said "a parent who had a seriously ill child".
Martha Kearney interviewed a German doctor, Nicolas Haas (?) shortly after 7:30 this morning, on the Today programme , first person I have heard speak sensibly on the issue.
-
As long as euthanasia is illegal, it's that or nothing, apart from "double effect", mentioned earlier.
Failing to see how euthanasia is relevant in this case. No-one is proposing it afaik.
-
Failing to see how euthanasia is relevant in this case. No-one is proposing it afaik.
I was pointing out that the only alternative to euthanasia is taking away life support and letting him asphyxiate.
-
damn ... I must remember not to tick the "Make sick babies suffer longer" box next time.
I think it's more that as a society we participate in the system for deciding what to do rather than any specific decision.
-
Quite a lot of posts on Twitter arguing that this shows why the RC church is the correct one, while Justin Selby only talks about the newest royal one. As well as the usual stuff about tax u founding for the NHS leads to monsters who don't care about life.
-
But is what Alfie experiences truly "life"?
He breathes (sort of). His body accepts and processes nutrients. But his brain apparently consists mainly of spinal fluid and has lost about 70% of its white matter. Is it possible that he is - in effect - little more than an animated, organic doll?
-
If he isn't experiencing 'true' life, then is he experiencing 'true' suffering?
-
If he isn't experiencing 'true' life, then is he experiencing 'true' suffering?
It, to me, doesn't seem to be a decidable question. Similarly with what action is ultimately in his best interests, or causes least suffering.
-
I was pointing out that the only alternative to euthanasia is taking away life support and letting him asphyxiate.
Indeed. Nobody seems to be addressing this.
-
It, to me, doesn't seem to be a decidable question. Similarly with what action is ultimately in his best interests, or causes least suffering.
And yet that is the decision we are left with since there is no decision that is no decision.
-
IMO, the best option is to allow the parents to decide, providing as much advice and support as is reasonably possible. So, this includes euthanasia (if it were legal) as an option, or transfer home with care or abroad etc but probably not indefinite full life support in hospital.
-
So is he suffering more or less than when on life support? Shouldn't it be ended? What is in the best interests of the child?
There is no child and there is no suffering, if the doctors are correct.
Medics have said Alfie's brain has been destroyed by his illness, and it is in his best interests to withdraw life support.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43883865
Alfie is already gone. The sad truth is that all the arguments are about how long to keep a shell alive.
-
There is no child and there is no suffering, if the doctors are correct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43883865
Alfie is already gone. The sad truth is that all the arguments are about how long to keep a shell alive.
Which would on current law make any legal decision impossible, since legally there is a child and the decision is about its best interestts.
-
For info on current decision
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/953.html
-
I hope he is allowed to go home and die with his parents in a non-hospital environment but with medical aid at hand. When he stops breathing naturally, there's no reason to suggest he'll be fighting for breath and in agony, he could just stop breathing quickly as many people do.
A hospice-tye environment would ensure a peaceful death but he could also have the same at home.
Very sad case.
-
I hope they don't, I don't see how the hospital in Rome will be able to offer anything that he can't have here at this stage.
He can be looked after at home with help as are many others, children & adults. Bless him.
-
I hope they don't, I don't see how the hospital in Rome will be able to offer anything that he can't have here at this stage.
He can be looked after at home with help as are many others, children & adults. Bless him.
Not sure being 'looked after' at home is possible, rather being taken home to die. It's not clear that there would be the support available in that case,
-
You may be right in this case NS. I was only speaking from my own experience of adults having terminal care at home and being well looked after, ripple bed, oxygen, nursing care as well as drugs. I don't see why a child cannot have it but maybe Alfie's case is such that it isn't possible. However he wouldn't discharged into his parents' care unless something was put in place, he'd go to a children's hospice.
-
There is no child and there is no suffering, if the doctors are correct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43883865
Alfie is already gone. The sad truth is that all the arguments are about how long to keep a shell alive.
Hmm, but if so then all why all the guff about turning off life support because it is "in his best interests" ? Or considering whether he should be allowed to be taken home - but not to Italy?
-
Hmm, but if so then all why all the guff about turning off life support because it is "in his best interests" ? Or considering whether he should be allowed to be taken home - but not to Italy?
Because that's the way the law is currently structured, and jeremyp is expressing a personal opinion?
-
Exactly, the rulings are based on the assumption that he is still alive and can suffer.
-
You may be right in this case NS. I was only speaking from my own experience of adults having terminal care at home and being well looked after, ripple bed, oxygen, nursing care as well as drugs. I don't see why a child cannot have it but maybe Alfie's case is such that it isn't possible. However he wouldn't discharged into his parents' care unless something was put in place, he'd go to a children's hospice.
There’s also the issue of safe transport.
-
In addition, if he were to be allowed home, given the amount of publicity, interest and concern to date, I wonder if the family would be given the privacy they should be allowed now (not to mention local residents if the press didn't back off, though I'd hope they would).
-
In addition, if he were to be allowed home, given the amount of publicity, interest and concern to date, I wonder if the family would be given the privacy they should be allowed now (not to mention local residents if the press didn't back off, though I'd hope they would).
But surely, that fchristian group that is funding them would not want that! They want publicity don't they?
-
This covers a lot of my thoughts
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/alfie-evans-parents-activists
-
N
Thank you for posting that Guardian link. Very interesting, factual and no woolly euphemisms.
-
N
Thank you for posting that Guardian link. Very interesting, factual and no woolly euphemisms.
One hopes that Hinsliff is examining her own motives here but I doubt it since it looks as though she has used this opportunity to shit out some of her bugbears.
-
One hopes that Hinsliff is examining her own motives here but I doubt it since it looks as though she has used this opportunity to shit out some of her bugbears.
Is it your morning for gibberish?
-
And another I agree with
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16187626.We_owe_it_to_Alfie_Evans__parents_to_face_the_difficult_truth/
-
Ghastly scenes outside the hospital, Christian fanatics and trolls, I suppose. I don't blame the parents, but those who feed off them and seem to provoke them, for example, an attempted prosecution for murder of some doctors. Eh?
-
Not sure the crowds are fanatics and trols. I think they just as the pictures of a child and cannot see the other side of the discussion. There are undoubted fanatics, see Ted Cruz, but I think 'Alfie's Army' is in the main just people who think the parents are right.
-
I just saw the film of people storming the front door of the hospital, and police keeping them out. What were they going to do, insert a breathing tube, or mount a rescue?
-
This 'ere so-called Christian Legal Centre seem to be absolutely despicable, and a world away from anything I recognise as Christian.
-
Evangelical, I guess. Groan, puke, shudder.
-
Evangelical, I guess. Groan, puke, shudder.
Indeed - most "born-again" people should never have been born once.
-
Actually, not all evos are groan, shudder, I used to read Rachel Held Evans, who was very interesting. But I think now she's now an Episcopalian.
-
This 'ere so-called Christian Legal Centre seem to be absolutely despicable, and a world away from anything I recognise as Christian.
They’ve been around for ages. Usually they turn up in the news because they are advocating for Christians who have been sacked for evangelising in the workplace etc.
-
It just seems to me that with better procedures we would not have these groups involved and the whole case treated as a legal issue, like a dispute over a contract.
The court report and various articles don't really explain the underlying decision by the staff, that given the condition of the child, it was "in his best interests" for life support to be be terminated but that he should not be allowed back home or to travel. On what basis are they evaluating the best interests or degree of suffering or not? If they thought death would be best, they should be able to say that.
With good explanation and support to the family I expect public interest and the hysterical exploitation would not have arisen.
How does the UK compare with other European countries in dealing with these kinds of cases?
-
I think it was pretty unequivocable; brain scans showed that the poor wee lad has mostly spinal fluid where his brain should be. Whatever is left is what is enabling him to breathe. Ending life support means that they do think death is best; travel is risky for even the most mundane things (one of my kids needed a hospital transfer for minor surgery and that was deemed so risky we went under blue lights) and it isn’t easy to control pain relief at home.
The court proceedings included the appointment of a guardian (this will be a highly trained CafCass officer) who then appoints a barrister to act for the child. Not the parents, not the hospital. The child. Unfortunately when two sides cannot agree court is the only option. It really does sound as though Alfie’s parents have been shamelessly exploited into thinking they could hang onto him in some way. The saddest thing is that their last days with him have been ruined by people who not only want to point score but who seem to have been taking some weird satisfaction in the process. Innocent people have been affected by their actions.
-
Good summary, Rhiannon. It shows what a ludicrous position some right to life people can get into, whereby their shrill protests end up turning the medical staff into enemies, and the NHS into some soulless killing machine. I can't really understand this mindset, but I suppose it's like some pro-life people and anti-vaxxers. Pity the parents in the middle of it.
-
Afie's struggle is now over.
We should leave his parents in peace to grieve and to recover how best they can.
And for the rest of us? Let's see if we can inform well meaning and concerned people that the siren voices of organisations like Christian Legal Centre are not interested in anything other than their own narrow and often bigotted agendas.
-
Sad news, but as expected - even though they courted attention I do hope the media circus will now decide to leave them alone now.
-
Hmm, but if so then all why all the guff about turning off life support because it is "in his best interests" ? Or considering whether he should be allowed to be taken home - but not to Italy?
That’s a good question. There was no reason IMO why he couldn’t be taken home (I’m writing this after he died btw). The only reason not to take him to Italy is the cost of the transport and the cost in every way to his parents.
-
That’s a good question. There was no reason IMO why he couldn’t be taken home (I’m writing this after he died btw). The only reason not to take him to Italy is the cost of the transport and the cost in every way to his parents.
No, the judgement makes clear that the reason for not transporting him to Rome was the increased risk of him having a fatal seizure. The idea of palliative care is for death to be managed in as dignified and pain free way as possible. Dying mid-flight of a seizure is not that.
-
For anyone interested the full judgement is here (this may be the same one NS linked to earlier). It really is worth a read - it offers some insight as to the underhand tactics used by those proffering ‘help’, as well as a very poignant picture of the relationship between Alfie’s Dad and his son, and his mum to both of them. They are clearly a remarkable young couple and I hope that they find a way to move forward together.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/308.html
The judge seems to be extrememy careful, thorough and compassionate.
-
No, the judgement makes clear that the reason for not transporting him to Rome was the increased risk of him having a fatal seizure.
yes, but what would it have mattered if he did have a fatal seizure?
The idea of palliative care is for death to be managed in as dignified and pain free way as possible. Dying mid-flight of a seizure is not that.
He’s gone. He’s been gone for a long time. Concepts such as pain and dignity have not relevant to him since quite a while ago. .
-
yes, but what would it have mattered if he did have a fatal seizure?
He’s gone. He’s been gone for a long time. Concepts such as pain and dignity have not relevant to him since quite a while ago. .
No, he was alive. Not able to think, communicate, even eat, but what is uncertain is the extent to which he was able to suffer. To die mid transfer of a seizure may have meant that he suffered. And it isn’t a dignified way to die. Dignity did apply to him - the judge made that clear, and that he had dignified care at Alder Hay from both family and medical teams. Dignity does matter even to those in a vegetative state. It matters because it honours the humanity of the person and it says something about us as a society.
Furthermore, he would have been in a highly medicalised situation - maybe both parents would have been allowed on the flight but no other relations and it would be uncomfortable - ambulances are. It’s not a peaceful way to go. There would then be the added complication of what to do - return mid flight, land at the closest available airfield, keep going to Rome, then get Alfie and his parents back to the UK (and thus for them without the support of family and friends...)
To say that ‘it makes no difference’ to Alfie and that the parents wishes should be paramount puts them at the heart of this, not the child.
-
No, he was alive. Not able to think, communicate, even eat, but what is uncertain is the extent to which he was able to suffer. To die mid transfer of a seizure may have meant that he suffered.
according to the doctors his brain was practically completely destroyed. There really was nobody there to suffer.
And it isn’t a dignified way to die. Dignity did apply to him - the judge made that clear, and that he had dignified care at Alder Hay from both family and medical teams. Dignity does matter even to those in a vegetative state. It matters because it honours the humanity of the person and it says something about us as a society.
On the subject of dignity, i think that ship sailed a long time ago. Nothing about this story is dignified but I’m afraid that, if you think there was anybody in there to care about his dignity, you are mistaken.
To say that ‘it makes no difference’ to Alfie and that the parents wishes should be paramount puts them at the heart of this, not the child.
It would have made no difference to Alfie and nor do I think what the parents want is paramount. In fact, I think their inability to accept the reality of the situation has only been damaging to them.
-
according to the doctors his brain was practically completely destroyed. There really was nobody there to suffer.
On the subject of dignity, i think that ship sailed a long time ago. Nothing about this story is dignified but I’m afraid that, if you think there was anybody in there to care about his dignity, you are mistaken.
It would have made no difference to Alfie and nor do I think what the parents want is paramount. In fact, I think their inability to accept the reality of the situation has only been damaging to them.
He was a toddler. Even perfectly healthy toddlers don’t have much of a concept of dignity. But just because Alfie wasn’t capable of understanding what was happening to him - and clearly he couldn’t, I’d already made the point that what was left of his brain could barely keep him breathing and that he was past thought - that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be afforded the maximum dignity, including avoiding the very real possibility of an undignified death on a futile flight. And it really wasn’t certain that he couldn’t suffer in any way.
This is the view of one of the expert witnesses:
Dr Samuels filed a report which was, as I have said, solicited by the parents. F required him to attend to give oral evidence. If I may say so I thought that was a proper course for F to take. However, Dr Samuels is very clear that Alfie's prognosis is futile. He notes that BG describes him as being in a "semi-vegetative state" (my emphasis). For Dr Samuels the greatest concern was the possibility of any potential suffering that Alfie may be experiencing. He considered that the high quality intensive care that Alfie is receiving at Alder Hey could "sustain him for a long time". He noted that there is the "potential for acute infection e.g. sepsis, or hypoxia relating to seizure to cause sudden deterioration and death".
If we don’t afford the maximum dignity to those in a semi vegetative and vegetative state then what does that say about the value we place on them as human beings? They may have all but gone but they are no less worthy of the same kinds of consideration as anyone else. Unfortunately our strict anti euthanasia laws mean that we very often don’t get it right when it comes to allowing people a dignified death. At least in cases such as this it is possible, however imperfectly.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43936682/alfie-evans-supporters-release-balloons-to-remember-toddler
:-X
-
The money spent on those balloons would have been much more use if donated to a children's charity.
Exactly what I thought. But no, bits of film and photos can now be put out on social media . And, being even more grumpy old woman, I shall add what about the litter caused by those balloons?
-
The money spent on those balloons would have been much more use if donated to a children's charity.
I was about to criticise the balloon release as sentimentalism, but then I read this joyless, self-righteous load of arse-dribble and changed my mind.
-
I was about to criticise the balloon release as sentimentalism, but then I read this joyless, self-righteous load of arse-dribble and changed my mind.
It’s the environmental angle that bothers me, nothing else. People are free to spend their money as they wish. But the chances are wildlife will die as a result of this, aside from the eyesore of deflated helium balloons littering the countryside. And some will probably end up in the sea where they will cause who knows what damage. :(
-
YAWN! ::)
The usual adolescent reply.
-
I don't use CAPITALS and lots of exclamation marks, at least!!!!
-
Agreed.
-
I thought it was quite charming. Yes people could've given the money spent to charity, no doubt some will make donations anyway but they were free to spend their money as they wished & I doubt the few balloons cost that much. They looked lovely. Some of Alfie's 'supporters' have been dubious but not all, there would have been plenty of people there who just sympathised with his parents & were glad his struggle was over.
-
I thought it was quite charming. Yes people could've given the money spent to charity, no doubt some will make donations anyway but they were free to spend their money as they wished & I doubt the few balloons cost that much. They looked lovely. Some of Alfie's 'supporters' have been dubious but not all, there would have been plenty of people there who just sympathised with his parents & were glad his struggle was over.
It really isn’t about the money. But there is nothing ‘charming’ about hedgehogs and birds getting their legs entangled in the balloon string, deflated balloons polluting the countryside or ending up in the stomach of a seal. We understand about the problems of plastic littering the natural environment now, there’s no excuse. Social media being what it is, people will copy this because it’s ‘pretty’. I wasn’t going to comment further but actually destructive behaviour like this makes me angry.
-
I get that Rhiannon & it isn't something I would do myself but I understood why it was done. Not everyone thinks these things out, their awareness has to be raised. What I thought was a little mean was the idea that people don't see that charities can be supported as well as a few other, more indulgent, things, in memorium. It was kindly meant even if misguided.
-
Letting off so many balloons was a crazy and pointless thing to do, imo. As has been pointed out the balloons will add to the litter problem, and could be an environmental issue.
What? like Dawkins giving his blessing to an Atheist poster on the side of a Bus and sending the big stinking diesel powered juggernaut (that's the Bus not atheism) round London to pollute all and sundry?
-
What's done is done - & isn't a pity that we can't undo things but that's life I'm afraid.
I'm in agreement with LR & StephenH in hoping Alfie's parents will eventually move on & have another child who does not have degenerative brain disease; no reason why not from what I've read but they are very young & young couples often don't stay the course. This experience has been so life changing for them, I wish them well.
-
I can see that to someone who doesn't first think about the consequences of some spontaneous actions the balloon fest would appear to some superficial charm about it. But only a few weeks after David Attenborough opened the nation's eyes to the problem of plastic waste in the oceans, hundreds of people deposit even more plastic waste into the environment. And in addition squander a gas which is in scarce supply and cannot be replenished.
This is what appeared in the Guardian six years ago :
https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2012/dec/11/should-we-ban-helium-balloons
But something else has also caught my attention. A Facebook entry appearing under the name of Brent Bozell, yesterday at 15.58 (French time - perhaps 14.58 BST)
"The world cared more about Cecil the lion than British toddler Alfie Evans being starved to death at the order of the government. And Brittany M Hughes knew the unfortunate reason why more people are aware of this disturbing and inhuman situation unfolding."
A video insert is then followed by 1,649 comments, almost every single one condemning the NHS or British government for murdering an innocent child - using this as an example to condemn the evil of socialised medicine with its death panels. I have not chosen to read them all - doubt my sanity would survive - but I recall at least one which seemed to suggest that Donald Trump takes up the matter when he visits the United Kingdom.
Oh ... and Cecil's death was perfectly lawful.
-
I hadn't heard of Cecil the Lion, sure I would have cared about him but not more than a small, sick child. I am aware of the problems with helium balloons but imagine many of Alfie Evans's 'supporters' would not have been, nor watched the Attenborough programme. Could be wrong about that! All I say is let's not be too harsh towards people who mean well albeit rather naive. In future, more must be made of the danger we post to the environment with some of our antics. When people have their eyes opened, they do change their attitudes and habits.
-
Clarification
I should have written
Oh ... and Cecil's death was "perfectly lawful".
Cecil was a lion in Zimbabwe whose behaviour was being studied by scientists from Oxford who was shot first by crossbow and then a gun by an American dentist on a hunting holiday.
-
I hadn't heard of Cecil the Lion, sure I would have cared about him but not more than a small, sick child. I am aware of the problems with helium balloons but imagine many of Alfie Evans's 'supporters' would not have been, nor watched the Attenborough programme. Could be wrong about that! All I say is let's not be too harsh towards people who mean well albeit rather naive. In future, more must be made of the danger we post to the environment with some of our antics. When people have their eyes opened, they do change their attitudes and habits.
It’s actually rather patronising to think that the people supporting Alfie don’t watch Attenborough or understand about plastic pollution. Do you think that they also leave their plastic picnic stuff on the beach and toss takeaway wrappers onto roundabouts? Looking at the sea of purple plastic there it’s hard to believe that nobody even considered that they were creating litter if nothing else. But as with disrupting the lives of medical staff and patients at the hospital, consideration for anyone other than themselves went out of the window long ago for too many people involved in this campaign. I think even Alfie and his family were beyond their consideration a lot of the time.
-
OK, point taken. I don't know any of the people personally, was trying to think the best of them. Will say no more on this, it's over.
-
OK, point taken. I don't know any of the people personally, was trying to think the best of them. Will say no more on this, it's over.
I do get where you are coming from. As the marvellous Jane Marple once said, ‘Most people, you know, are neither good nor bad, but really, very silly. ‘
-
Useful intervention from Cardinal Nichols.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/01/archbishop-hits-out-at-political-aims-of-some-alfie-evans-campaigners