morality is indeed subjective and I am very glad I do not have to make that choice but to play devils advocate what is to say that a parent or guardian would make the right choice for their child when evidence would suggest that in many cases this is not the case. Parents and guardians subject there children to all sorts of horrible shit and many of them consider they are doing the right thing.
Nothing. But, here’s the thing, the government is in the same boat. I prefer freedom of choice not government mandate.
So does government.
1 Like
You forget I pay less than half of the taxes you do assuming the same income bracket.
I agree with everything you say usmccds423 and that is why I already said I am glad I don’t make the choice. Unfortunately people are inherently selfish so in most cases will make the best choice in their view whether that is the government or the parents, but can either of them be trusted to do what’s best. Who is right? I don’t think we can decide that on an internet forum. But to suggest it as an argument against universal healthcare is absurd
2 Likes
I think the argument is that the government should not be the one deciding–since we can’t say whether either government or individual will make the “right choice”, the default should be that the right to decide remains with the individual.
Besides which, the notion of making the “right choice” implies that someone knows what that is. Since views of what is Right vary, the individual should make the choice every time it does not involve murder/violent crime, etc.
Excluding decisions to violent crime, the individual should always be the one making the decisions for their lives and/or their kids’ lives, because they are the ones living it.
Regardless you are likely correct that we are not solving this on a political forum.
2 Likes
Lets be honest we cant even decide on the best training split let alone the nuances surrounding moral philosophy.
2 Likes
Actually, I’m SOFA status, so I get a pretty nice exemption since I work overseas 
I basically get all my money back 
Even so, my Japanese friends here have never complained about taxes, so it must not be all that bad…
They probably don’t live in a horrific financial situation where a change in tax rate would cripple them like most Americans.
The individual can’t very well make the choice when it involves murder/violent crime, etc.
True indeed. I was thinking from the perpetrator’s perspective
This is mind-boggling. I get that a court can and sometimes should interfere with the parents’ actions when it is in the best interest of the child. That’s the language that the UK courts are using here, “child’s best interest”.
I get that his chances are slim to none, but how can it be in anyone’s best interest to die? Why not let the parents pursue hope elsewhere and exhaust all options in search of their miracle? This is terrible!
1 Like
Anyone know how the legality is being handled re: not letting the parents just check out the kid and head home? Is his condition unstable enough that it would require the hospital to handle the move?
Saw this posted:
For everyone debating the reasons behind this, you can actually read why the court permitted Alfie’s ventilator to be switched off here. There are too many comments just assuming it’s the “NHS death panels” they heard about when Obamacare came in. Some extracts: (btw this is an appeal against the original judge’s decision)
I’ll start with what his parents actually wanted:
It was and is the father’s wish that Alfie should be permitted to travel to the Bambino Gesù Hospital in Rome, and if necessary be thereafter transferred on to Professor Haas’ Munich hospital. The father is passionate in his views, and through [his lawyer] he told the court that although he would not wish Alfie to die being transported to Italy, he would rather that happened than ventilation being withdrawn. He wanted, he said, to fight on with “Alfie’s army.” Alfie, he says, would be “fighting”, continuing to explore options and fighting the battle which would lead, he believes, to an “heroic death” as compared to a managed death in a hospital.
The father understandably, and as was conceded by [his lawyer], really has no clear plan. On one level he understands that neither Bambino Gesù nor Professor Hass in Munich are offering Alfie any hope for the future. The most they are offering is surgery in the form of a tracheostomy and gastrostomy, which would allow the possibility of his being ventilated at home, but that is not what the parents are asking for. It is clear and understandable that they have been unable to think through the disadvantages for them as a family to relocating either to Italy or Munich without the support of their extended families and unable to speak either language, in order to be able to spend Alfie’s last weeks or months in what they currently regard as a more empathetic environment. [His lawyer] was unable to help the court to understand why the father’s proposal involved Alfie being transferred to both Italy and Munich.
A further scan was … undertaken on 2 February 2018. This scan showed the almost total destruction of Alfie’s brain, with fluid identical to water or CSF now present where brain matter should be.
Professor Cross [instructed to produce a review independent from Alfie’s treating doctors] concluded that Alfie has a progressive, ultimately fatal, neurodegenerative condition, most likely a mitochondrial disorder. Professor Cross considered all the evidence, including the dramatic deterioration on the EEG. Professor Cross concluded that Alfie’s brain was now only able to generate seizures. … she told [Alfie’s father] in gentle terms that even if it were possible to stop Alfie’s seizure, which did not look likely given his poor response to anticonvulsant treatment to date, his brain is entirely beyond recovery.
Three specialists from Bambino Gesù in Rome reviewed Alfie’s records and on 11 September 2017 travelled to Alder Hey to examine him. They too agreed that Alfie had a neurodegenerative disease and fitting disorder which was untreatable. They agreed that even if further testing were carried out, it would not provide a cure or, “bring a different treatment plan.” In respect of the proposal that Alfie be transferred to their care: “It is possible that during travel Alfie may present continuous seizures due to stimulations related to the transportation and flight: these seizures might induce further damage to (the) brain, being the whole procedure of transportation at risk.”
It then records how a German doctor who manages an air ambulance visited Alfie in the guise of a normal visitor, read a minority of his notes, believed the parents’ description of his condition over that of the previous experts, and issued a “fit to fly” certificate. Having considered his evidence against that of other doctors, the judge said:
“I am at a loss to know quite why Dr Hubner fell so far below the standards expected of his profession. I am constrained to say that he has failed the parents, the Court but most importantly, Alfie.”
In a further report commissioned by the parents, again with a non-UK doctor:
"The main underlying problem seems in my opinion that from the side of Alfie’s parents that they do not understand and/or accept that: … the majority of Alfie’s reaction to external stimuli (i.e. touching, pain stimulation like pinching, etc., reaction to noise, parents voice etc.) is very likely not a purposeful reaction but very likely caused by seizures (as proven by repeat EEG monitoring)
The judge said
“I have, on the parents’ behalf, taken very great care to evaluate the quality of Alfie’s present circumstances, even though I accept entirely the conclusion of the medical evidence that treatment for Alfie is futile. It does not follow axiomatically that the futility of Alfie’s situation leads to the immediate withdrawal of ventilation. Life itself has an intrinsic value, however, tenuous or vestigial its hold. I am very much aware that both parents are Roman Catholics, brought up in that tradition. They do not present themselves as devout or observant but it is obvious to me that their faith plays a part in their life and sustains them both at this very difficult time. In his closing remarks F said that Alfie is “our child and a child of God”. It is important that these beliefs are considered within the broad gamut of relevant factors to which I have eluded and which cumulatively illuminate where Alfie’s best interests lie.”
The court then sets out the law on who gets to decide:
the sole principle is that the best interests of the child must prevail and that must apply even to cases where parents, for the best of motives, hold on to some alternative view.
in considering the best interests of this particular patient at this particular time, decision-makers must look at his welfare in the widest sense, not just medical but social and psychological; they must consider the nature of the medical treatment in question, what it involves and its prospects of success; they must consider what the outcome of that treatment for the patient is likely to be; they must try and put themselves in the place of the individual patient and ask what his attitude towards the treatment is or would be likely to be; and they must consult others who are looking after him or are interested in his welfare, in particular for their view of what his attitude would be."
It goes without saying that in many cases, all other things being equal, the views of the parents will be respected and are likely to be determinative. Very many cases involving children with these tragic conditions never come to court because a way forward is agreed as a result of mutual respect between the family members and the hospital, but it is well recognised that parents in the appalling position that these and other parents can find themselves may lose their objectivity and be willing to “try anything”, even if, when viewed objectively, their preferred option is not in a child’s best interests. As the authorities to which I have already made reference underline again and again, the sole principle is that the best interests of the child must prevail and that must apply even to cases where parents, for the best of motives, hold on to some alternative view."
Then as to the reasons for the decision:
The judge, whilst rejecting the evidence of Dr Hubner, did not exclude the possibility that travel by air ambulance could be a theoretical option. It required, however, to be considered in the context of Alfie’s present condition and in particular that it was unsafe to discount the possibility that Alfie experiences pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. Given that whilst the evidence pointing to this would be unlikely, it cannot be excluded. The judge identified the obvious challenges to transporting Alfie, initially to Italy and possibly thereafter to Munich. He noted that away from intensive care, Alfie would be more vulnerable to infection and the maintenance of his anti-convulsive regime, (already of limited effect) risked being further compromised by the travel. The journey, the judge said, “self-evidently, will be burdensome.” The judge rightly faced up to the worst of all possible outcomes, saying, “Nobody would wish Alfie to die in transit.” The judge even then did not rule this out as an option, considering the potential present risk, and saying in terms that the risk “might be worth taking” if there were any prospect of treatment, but there is none. It was that that the judge found irreconcilable with Alfie’s best interests. The judge therefore held that “All this drives me reluctantly and sadly to one clear conclusion. Properly analysed, Alfie’s need now is for good quality palliative care. It was entirely right that every reasonable option should be explored for Alfie. I am now confident that this has occurred. The continued provision of ventilation, in circumstances which I am persuaded is futile, now compromises Alfie’s future dignity and fails to respect his autonomy. I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfie’s best interest. This decision I appreciate will be devastating news to Alfie’s parents and family.”
There is much discussion of the law and the facts and the experts.
There have now been two hearings in the High Court, two in the Court of Appeal, and consideration by the UK Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights. Nowhere anywhere will you see the cost of Alfie’s treatment being relied upon by anyone. It is frustrating to see people lazily assuming that’s why the decision was taken. It isn’t the judge’s money, and it isn’t the judge’s kid, which is why the whole point of courts in the Western world is to listen carefully to both sides and act in the child’s best interests.
5 Likes
Wow. Heavy read. Thank you for posting
Thanks for posting. I disagree with their findings completely, but that’s the most complete explanation I’ve read.
2 Likes
Exactly. It’s sad to say but there is no magical cure, no treatment that can actually improve the kid’s health, he’s doomed. The matter is not about giving somewhat of a normal life back to a patient, it’s about mantaining a spark of life in an empty shell that can’t literally function on itself and never will be. Other than the dignity in death, there’s a whole talk about dignity in life.
That’s great.
When my father was rushed to the hospital with three subdural hematoma and had an emergency surgery done overnight by one of those low-skill peasant surgeons that work in public healthcare and after his shift had to stay and open his head to be fixed in a 6 hours operation, we didn’t have to pay.
When my mother got breast cancer almost 15 years ago and went through all the treatments on annual basis, for years, we didn’t have to pay.
When I was rushed to the hospital after a sudden peritonitis that gave me a ridicolously strong fever and had to stay there for a week while I was completely checked and diagnosed with a bowel syndrome, the total ticket I paid was in the $75 range.
I’m glad you’re covered in case you hurt your foot, but that’s not the point of public healthcare. I hurt my wrist recently and I’ll have to spend about 25$ for an x-ray next week, then wait until August 29 for an orthopedic visit (another 30$) if I want to go through public service. So I’ll have the x-ray done and then I’ll see a private clinic for the orthopedic visit, that will cost about $130 for 10 sessions.
But this isn’t where public healthcare really shines, it shines when shit hits the fan for real. Sooner or later it happens, for everyone.
1 Like
Except you paid with your taxes. And so did everyone else. You get less choice of providers and procedures.
Why private?
I live in the UK and I’m very proud of our NHS, in fact I’d happily pay more tax if it was guaranteed to go into education and healthcare. Also, I think tax avoidance by rich firms and individuals to be a bigger problem than tax rate. I saw a figure of 55.95% above but I’m not sure where that comes from.
I don’t think this case is about socialised medicine or not, I think it’s about a legal system deciding what’s best for a child. Whether I agree with the decision is not something I’ll get into on the internet. But as all societies have vulnerable people I do feel that you need a system that intervenes with parenting, sometimes.
To the original poster, whats wrong with banning certain knives? Having less specialised murder weapons is a good thing.
Also, I hate this left v right polarisation, I move between political parties depending on leadership and priorities.
Nothing if you’re a boot licker. Weapons don’t kill people on their own. Maybe they should make murder and assault with weapons illegal. Then nobody would do it right?
How dare people try and keep the money they earn. Those anti social bastards.
Japan’s top marginal rate for individuals.
I don’t think it’s about being a boot licker or not, I think some people can be desperate, under the influence of something, or just even capable of making poor choices in the moment. Having a more capable weapon available just makes that situation worse.
I think if you earn in a society and you prosper off that society you should give back to it, at what is a fair rate I have no idea. In my original comment I wasn’t wanting to comment on those trying to make ends meet but rather the very wealthy.
Tbh I’m finding this conversation insensitive, due to the child being mentioned and what happened last night. I’ll be stepping out but I’ll continue the conversation elsewhere in a different form or if references to the child are somehow edited out.