Alfie Evans - More tragedy exploited?

[Udayana]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Steve H]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

If he isn't experiencing 'true' life, then is he experiencing 'true' suffering?

[Udayana]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

For info on current decision



http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/953.html

[Robbie]

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.

[Robbie]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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,

[Robbie]

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.

[Udayana]

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?
 

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Udayana]

Exactly, the rulings are based on the assumption that he is still alive and can suffer.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Gordon]

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).

[SusanDoris]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

This covers a lot of my thoughts

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/alfie-evans-parents-activists