It’s got nothing to do with lawyers, and everything to do with ALLOWING FAMILY MEMBERS TO DECIDE. It is NOT up to the government.
He was unconscious and incapable of suffering. We’ll never know now if something could have been done to save him or not.
There is a time to say, “Put it in God’s Hands” and turn off the machines but that is not a decision that the state should be able to make for the parents.
They had other options but they had to kill him to make a point.
1 Like
It absolutely is about lawyers. It happens not too infrequently that doctors determine that a case is futile but the family threatens to sue if life support is removed.
It’s especially problematic when it’s children. At some point, enough is enough. Futile care is absolutely unethical.
The only other option was to keep providing basic life support and wait for him to die from some other cause.
It was futile.
Well that’s a valid point. But in the case of Terri Schiavo, her husband had the final say.
I agree she was killed intentionally. My heart sure went out to her parents and her brother. The husband was a dirt bag, but since they were legally married at the time he had the final say. The entire thing was shameful though.
Didn’t hear about the DFW case though.
Anyway, I believe Alfie, as an innocent child, went immediately to heaven upon his death. But it’s heartbreaking for his parents. They were treated like criminals. And it’s scary to think what happened in the UK will happen elsewhere.
Man you’re just making it up as you go along.
Harming the patient is unethical, killing them is unethical, futile care is absolutely not unethical and I challenge you to provide any credible source showing that it is.
1 Like
But it was ethical to allow the boy to die of starvation or suffocation? Because one of those is what ultimately led to his death.
That case still bothers me. There circumstances of her accident were at best highly dubious but as you say, he was the spouse.
It was determined in court though that he had the “Right” because at some point she’d signed a DNR.
She was literally killed for the hefty life insurance policy that made him beneficiary.
Even though he’d pleaded indigence and the state way paying for her care he got a hell of a payday out of it.
Their arguments fail. They repeat the same tripe over and over, thinking somehow it will magically become true.
It is very unlikely that the hospital in Italy could have made much difference, but we will never know for sure. However, the main point is that the parents were denied the opportunity of trying, thanks to the power of the almighty UK government.
Providing life prolonging treatment to a terminally ill patient with hope of recovery is unethical when that care is invasive and uncomfortable. You are causing suffering for no benefit.
Yes, it still bothers me too. I wonder how her family is coping.
I never really blamed the court for what happened. They could only go by the fact her “husband” was the primary decision maker in this case, so they went along with him.
Jeb Bush did everything he could at the time to help her parents, but her “husband” had the final decision. So sad because as you say, her family was fully prepared to take full responsibility for her.
As I recall, she died of dehydration, not of natural causes. What a terrible thing for her family to have to live with, but they did everything they could.
Yes. It was. It was alleviation of suffering.
She wasn’t’ suffering nor was the child in England.
Dying slowly from starvation and dehydration on the other hand causes tremendous suffering.
1 Like
Do you think allowing a patient to die of dehydration, starvation or suffocation is uncomfortable?
Okay. And how do you know that?
Absolutely. But those who support the actions of the hospital, and ultimately the UK government, will never admit thiat.
Not if you do it right.
Only if you allow it to.
Bull ■■■■■
So lets “allieviate the suffering” by letting them die of starvation, dehydration or suffocation instead.
Your argument is 100% bull ■■■■■
