Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Scousers - can they sink any lower?

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.
 
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.
 
Top