Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not the one saying his brain is gone. All the doctors involved said so.
So what's the problem then? Flying the poor child to Italy is not going to change the fact that the illness is terminal. And no one even knows what's wrong with him. How can it be treated?
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19459
As far as I am concerned they can take the child to Italy, although the prognosis is going to be the same according to the experts, the only problem being will the child suffer unnecessarily and is it on the best interest of the child.
The reason that cases like this go to Court is not because of death panels or money, it is down to a piece of legislation passed in 1989 called 'The Children Act' which sets out rights, duties, powers and responsibilities in relation to the child and indeed the rights of the child.
The child is a seperate legal entity in such cases and the parents will have their barrister, the child will have a barrister represting the best interests of him/her including not being allowed to suffer and the hospital wishing to humanely withdraw treatment as they see it as futile will have their barrister.
Each of the three parties can present witnesses including medical experts and other evidence and the Courts will examine all of this before making any decision and there are numerous rghts to appeal throughout the process.
In UK Law and indeed European Law the interests and rights of the child, come first and this includes the right not to be kept alive artificially if it's believed the child is suffering or in pain. However many children do go abroad or indeed come to the UK for treatment, but these children have hope of a cure and possible mormality, i this case this is not going to happen.
The High Court often has to make difficult decisions, and often in relation to the opposite set of circumstances where parents refuse treatment for a child due to their beliefs or religion or where someone seeks the right to die or to switch off a life support machine of a loved one. Such cases are often upsetting for all involved.
The parents in this case have already been top the High Court, then the Court of Appeal, then the UK Surpreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, all of whom agree with the medical opinion of the experts, and the parents evfen acknowledge that the chils is terminally ill and will die.
The Court is now examing where best palative end of life care can take place, as there is no cure and this is acknowledged by all parties, and Alder Hay have stated they can provide the best nursing and pain free end of life treatment, which is possibly true as it's one of the best childrens hospitals in the world.
Last edited by Brave New World; 04-26-2018 at 07:20 AM..
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19459
You can read the Court Transcripts yourself, in which Professor Cross gives evidence relating to the child's condition, the fact that major neurological degeneration had taken place according to scans and that the brain can not repair itself. Professor Cross later cited a rare type of mitochondrial condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alder Hey Hospital v Evans - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Professor Cross concluded that Alfie has a progressive, ultimately fatal neurodegenerative condition, most likely a mitochondrial disorder.
During her cross-examination by F she told him in gentle terms that even if it were possible to stop Alfie’s seizures, which did not look likely given his poor response to anti- convulsant treatment to date, his brain is entirely beyond recovery.
The brain she said, again on F’s enquiry, simply has no capacity to regenerate itself unlike e.g. the liver. She agreed that nobody knew quite why the brain does not have the ability to do so but it is simply acknowledged by neurologists that it cannot.
F, who has been representing himself and his partner during thiscase for reasons which I will address in detail, followed this observation up by enquiring whether given that Alfie’s brain has not yet (at his age) fully formedit might generate as oppose to regenerate brain matter.
That was just one of F’s many thoughtful and impressive questions of the medical experts. Sadly, it drew a negative response. The brain would only be able to generate further from existing matter.
Professor Cross surveyed the broader canvas of evidence. She noted the deterioration in Alfie’s respiratory effort. It is unlikely that he can breathe now without assistance. She factored in the dramatic deterioration in the EEG scans. All this she concluded pointed to a mitochondrial disorder. This she recognised had now been further supported by tests indicating mitochondrial genetic mutation.
Nothing in the brain was functioning normally. Professor Cross considered that the brain was now only able to generate seizures. Accordingly, this was not an epileptic encephalopathy by which Professor Cross explained that the epileptic seizures are not contributing to the neurological degenerationbut a consequence of the neurodegenerative disorder.
The Evans family appealed the decision made by the High Court, however the Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion, they are now appealing to the UK Surpreme Court which will further examine the evidence and make a decision. The final court will most likely be the European Court of Human Rights, and the Courts can ask for independent reports from other medical teams just as they did with Charlie Gard when a team from the Children's Hospital in Barcelona reviewed the medical findings and came to the same conclusion.
Mitochondrial conditions are very rare, and the doctors and scientists who deal with the condition are often in close communication on a global scale and know each other, and there are a lot of researchers and experts in the UK. Indeed Alder Hey itself is a major research hospital, as well as a charity and has superb new facilities at Alder Hey in the Park, and the hospital is currently constructing a new paediatric research centre.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
^ So what? The parents should be the deciders, not a govt professor and a panel of bureaucrats.
Under International, European and UK Law the childs welfare must come first and it is what is best for the child and not the parents, and everyone has rights not just the parents.
The parents have been to the High Court, Court of Appeal, UK Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights, although the European Convention on Human Rights is enshrined in to British law anyway.
Furthermore the parents and everyone involved are in full agreement with Proifessor Cross and the staff, the question being asked of the court is where would be the best place for the child to die, that is the issue here. The Judge hasn't ruled yet on whether it's practical to take the child home to die, as he requires pain relief and prifesional medical care.
^ So what? The parents should be the deciders, not a govt professor and a panel of bureaucrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Under International, European and UK Law the childs welfare must come first and it is what is best for the child and not the parents, and everyone has rights not just the parents.
The parents have been to the High Court, Court of Appeal, UK Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights, although the European Convention on Human Rights is enshrined in to British law anyway.
Furthermore the parents and everyone involved are in full agreement with Proifessor Cross and the staff, the question being asked of the court is where would be the best place for the child to die, that is the issue here. The Judge hasn't ruled yet on whether it's practical to take the child home to die, as he requires pain relief and prifesional medical care.
Nothing you've said in any of your posts in this thread makes what Frank said incorrect.
if there was a medical transport plane waiting and a hospital in Italy willing to take him, what prevented the parents from taking him out of the hospital and to Italy?
British people aren't free, they're subjects. We forget how good we have it here.
As for the Catholic Church, I remember Christopher Hitchens destroying everything to so with it in a memorable speech.
Last edited by Brave New World; 04-26-2018 at 09:26 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
