• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Scousers - can they sink any lower?

You keep reading and taking your facts from the sun (wash my mouth out) mate, apparently that rag is renowned for the truth :)
Yeah. Cos it ain't like there isn't any tv footage showing scousers giving it the 'biggy' to the bizzies is there!
 
I’m bigger than a baby so I need much more cash.
A baby's arm holding an orange?

Poor form to quote one's own reviews mate!
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
That's not an unreasonable question if I may say so. It's often debated by med and para students.

It comes down to something called 'capacity' that is whether the patient has the capacity to make an informed decision about their own treatment, welfare and care....dementia patients are a good example.

If the patient lacks capacity, then there's a medico-legal process that enables Doctors to make decisions on their behalf, which are in the interests of the patient. Harsh as it sounds, and as much as they're consulted t's only a courtesy that the nearest and dearest are consulted at all. The key point with capacity is that it's a clinical decision made in the interests of the patient.

It's worth considering that the best medical and legal minds not just in the UK, but also the EU, have pondered this poor lad and all come to the decision that he should not be moved out of the Hospital. Those same minds have also concluded that to do so, would cause unnecessary suffering.

But as I said before, palliative transfers are not uncommon and if it were lawful, I'd take the job

This kid is dying. It's just a matter of when.
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/254430/0086221.pdf

Nice easy flow chart for the capacity process in Scotland as an example.

Not just doctors, but other health professionals can sign off on appropriate treatment if they have done the correct training.
 
Liverpool supporters were to blame in Belgium and were found guilty, the police and authorities were to blame in South Yorkshire and will hopefully get what’s coming.

Difficult for those who happily believed the lie, I know, but hey, you may get over it one day ^~
Police did not cause the crushing. They made the situation worse and lied about it. They also offered first aid and saved some lives.
 
It must be hard, vehemently believing a lie for so many years, then it all crumbling. I get why you are all so bitter about it, blindly trusting the beloved establishment ^~
Quit shoving.
 
He's their child, not their property. You're making it sound almost like some minister or other is calling the shots based on a political doctrine. I hope you haven't fallen for that "death panels"-type rubbish that some Americans were spouting in relation to the Charlie Gard case. (As with that dispute, whether the patient's health insurance or hospital staff & facilities are provided by the govt is beside the point.)

The doctors' responsibility is to their patient, not the patient's parents. The parents & the doctors disagree on what should be done for the patient. How can the disagreement be resolved? By taking it to the courts. In this particular case the courts - whose intention is to serve the best interests of the patient - have come to the entirely sensible decision that the doctors know what they're talking about & the parents are engaged in wishful thinking.
I hope you don’t mind WP, I cut n pasted that (with anonymous attribution “a clever poster on a British site”) to an American policy’s site I infest.

You can imagine how it’s going on there.
 
Two weeks ago when the protests started to get out of hand the father was apparently demanding that the helipad should be kept clear as he had an Air Ambulance chopper on standby to take the child to John Lennon Airport where a private charter was waiting to fly them out to Italy. The hospital obviously told them to jog on so some of the mob attempted to occupy the helipad until the police stepped in with the threat of arrests.
As daft as that sounds, it could well be true. There's a childrens air ambulance charity that could carry out a tip to tip transfer for them.

News this AM, is that the father is meeting doctors today, so that he can take the lad home. Once nothing more can be achieved in hospital, it's not unusual for end of life patients to go home to die.
 
That's not an unreasonable question if I may say so. It's often debated by med and para students.

It comes down to something called 'capacity' that is whether the patient has the capacity to make an informed decision about their own treatment, welfare and care....dementia patients are a good example.

If the patient lacks capacity, then there's a medico-legal process that enables Doctors to make decisions on their behalf, which are in the interests of the patient. Harsh as it sounds, and as much as they're consulted t's only a courtesy that the nearest and dearest are consulted at all. The key point with capacity is that it's a clinical decision made in the interests of the patient.

It's worth considering that the best medical and legal minds not just in the UK, but also the EU, have pondered this poor lad and all come to the decision that he should not be moved out of the Hospital. Those same minds have also concluded that to do so, would cause unnecessary suffering.

But as I said before, palliative transfers are not uncommon and if it were lawful, I'd take the job

This kid is dying. It's just a matter of when.
Actually the parents case in court has been quite interesting here.

As a normal standard of British law, the ultimate decision regards anything to do with a child is that of their parents

The state can ONLY intervene if social services etc. can demonstrate that the actions of the parents have been negligent and/or the child has suffered/would suffer significant harm as a result. Until that legal ‘threshold’ has been crossed, the state has no authority to intervene.

What we are ultimately seeing here is the interplay between medical law (interests of the patient) and family law (the authority of a parent to make a decision on behalf of their child)

The court appears to accept that nothing the parents have done, or proposed to do, has amounted to causing Alfie significant harm (Q1. how can it if he is incapable of feeling pain? Q2. how can it if the alternative course of treatment proposed would lead to his death)

So the argument is, what legal right do the state have to decide what is best for Alfie when the law says that the state has no power to intervene.

An interesting conundrum that the court has essentially resolved by saying that Doctors have the legal duty to do whatever they think is in their patients best interests, regardless of the wishes if the parents, even if the course of action proposed by the parents would not cause the child significant harm.

In a country where Doctors are employed by the state that potentially creates a fairly major change in the relationship between the parent and the state that could easily cascade down the system. I suspect there will be ramifications of this decision for years to come.
 
An interesting conundrum that the court has essentially resolved by saying that Doctors have the legal duty to do whatever they think is in their patients best interests, regardless of the wishes if the parents, even if the course of action proposed by the parents would not cause the child significant harm.
Let us go 180 degrees here.
IF Alfie suffered an illness/injury which meant he had to have a blood transfusion, or else he'd die, and his parents were staunch Jehovah's Witnesses, then the kid would get the transfusion, based on medical advice.
Again, acting in the patient's best interest.
 
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/254430/0086221.pdf

Nice easy flow chart for the capacity process in Scotland as an example.

Not just doctors, but other health professionals can sign off on appropriate treatment if they have done the correct training.
You're right of course. I can decide on capacity, but I didn't want to confuse the debate by introducing an unconnected dimension.

The key though, is that it must be in the best interest of the patient. As in this case, that can be at odds with the emotive wishes of family and friends.
 
Let us go 180 degrees here.
IF Alfie suffered an illness/injury which meant he had to have a blood transfusion, or else he'd die, and his parents were staunch Jehovah's Witnesses, then the kid would get the transfusion, based on medical advice.
Again, acting in the patient's best interest.
But, as you say, in that case the failure of the parents to agree a transfusion would clearly cause significant harm to the child, ergo the state would be able to intervene. The previous cases on this exact point have been decided on welfare “When judged against this overarching consideration, even a small risk of death is a risk which points powerfully towards the provision of available treatment” - essentially the risk of not giving the transfusion is greater than the risk of giving it.

In Alfie Evans case, the situation is reversed, the decision to withdraw treatment is the harmful one. It has moved the test to “best interest” rather than immediate welfare and risk of harm/death. Where does “best 8nterest” end? The logical conclusion is that doctors will be able to vaccinate against parents wishes - now, that’s not something I would necessarily disagree with, but I would suggest it’s a decision for parliament to make rather than through the consequences of a judicial decision (we are almost back to judge made law here)
 
Isn't it awful when people just generalise and tar everyone with the same brush ^~
What all police on the day were bad and all fans were angels?
 

Similar threads

Top