British court rules one-year-old should be starved to death

[El_Machinae]

By analysing behaviour, basically we can see that nearly no one actually cares about kids getting proper medical care in order to prevent their deaths. So don't let anyone fool you with their hand-wringing. After that, it's just partisan politics. People notice when 'the government' is getting in the way of medical care. Or when 'the free market' is. But they don't actually care, it's just words in their cultural narrative.

I clicked the BBC link above, and the main request is by the father to "please stop focusing the media on us", which seems to say (to me) that we shouldn't be clicking these links.

The message, on behalf of himself and Alfie's mother, Kate James, said: "Our lives have been turned upside down by the intense focus on Alfie and his situation.

"Our little family along with Alder Hey has become the centre of attention for many people around the world and it has meant we have not been able to live our lives as we would like.

'Dignity and comfort'
"We are very grateful and we appreciate all the support we have received from around the world, including from our Italian and Polish supporters, who have dedicated their time and support to our incredible fight.

"We would now ask you to return back to your everyday lives and allow myself, Kate and Alder Hey to form a relationship, build a bridge and walk across it."

He said: "Together we recognise the strains recent events have put upon us all and we now wish for privacy for everyone concerned.

"In Alfie's interests we will work with his treatment team on a plan that provides our boy with the dignity and comfort he needs."

He added there would be no more statements issued or interviews given.

 

[Mouthwash]

The doctors treating him seem to have a different opinion.

I don't particularly trust doctors (no understanding of risk or their own fallibility). Plus, they were already wrong. I suspect this is more about the embarrassment the hospital would suffer if he were to live and even come out of a vegetative state.

Anyway, that was polemic. The truth is, this sucks, but medical resources need to be prioritized. Triage is a thing, and will be a thing until we have matter replicators or whatever. And as you've noticed, "conservative" media are picking this story up in a giant attempt to discredit "socialized medicine," which is a move that if successful will assuredly lead to all kinds of suffering. That's okay though, because people who suffer because they can't afford medical care deserve to suffer.

I agree, but there's something uniquely pernicious in the government getting to decide whether someone's life is worth living.

By analysing behaviour, basically we can see that nearly no one actually cares about kids getting proper medical care in order to prevent their deaths. So don't let anyone fool you with their hand-wringing. After that, it's just partisan politics. People notice when 'the government' is getting in the way of medical care. Or when 'the free market' is. But they don't actually care, it's just words in their cultural narrative.

I clicked the BBC link above, and the main request is by the father to "please stop focusing the media on us", which seems to say (to me) that we shouldn't be clicking these links.

That was literally a hostage note. Hospital said Alfie wasn't going to be released unless there was a 'sea change' in the father's attitude.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't particularly trust doctors

Good to know

I suspect this is more about the embarrassment the hospital would suffer if he were to live and even come out of a vegetative state.

I find that fairly unlikely.

I agree, but there's something uniquely pernicious in the government getting to decide whether someone's life is worth living.

Well, I don't disagree that it feels wrong. But there just aren't many good options here. Allowing the parents or other designated guardian (or in the case of adults, next-of-kin, spouse, or whomever) to decide sounds good in theory, but then we have to ask ourselves how much of an investment we want to make in prolonging people's lives in these kinds of situations.

I mean, this is the case with my own grandmother - she hardly knows what's going on half the time, drools a lot, is barely fit enough to go to the bathroom on her own, but we're spending all this money to have her in a nursing home because of course we're not just going to let her die - but every time we visit the place I can't help but wonder how many people are going without routine primary care because our society has decided to invest so much in places like that.

The whole thing really gives me sympathy for Hunter S Thompson. I'd rather go out like that than linger on life support for years or even months.

 

[dutchfire]

I don't particularly trust doctors

"I don't trust you, now please treat this baby."

 

[Tahuti]

While I support the existence voluntary forms of euthanasia, if the OP's citations are true, it would actually be a quite dangerous development if a court could decide on someone's else life without the consent of the person(s) involved.

Arwon rightly noted that the source may be taking liberties with the actual story; then again, so might the hospital.

 

[Farm Boy]

"I don't trust you, now please treat this baby."

Technical expertise and ethical authority are not the same thing, much as the professional fetish with classism would sell it otherwise.

 

[Kyriakos]

The doctors treating him seem to have a different opinion.

No. The court itself ruled that the boy is likely to not be feeling anything. Which is what makes this case rather strange. Anyone can get the claim that 'the patient is suffering', but not so much that 'he isn't feeling anything, but it is pointless to take him in another hospital, so you aren't allowed to'.

 

[Farm Boy]

Progress is made through iteration, research is gleaned from death and unsuccessful treatment. It makes sense for a society to cut off how much it invests its resources in low probability of gain situations, where there isn't much suffering to alleviate, much life to gain, or knowledge to earn. It's another thing to flat decree that death is mandatory. I don't think we should treat convicted murderers this way. I might want to, but it'd still probably be wrong. I still do not understand the Charlie Gard case other than for its monstrosity. I'm not sure I'm going to get it here, but I do absolutely hate that it's making me mistrust socialized medicine, with all its potential, for the demons in the wings waiting for their chance to power. They're becoming visible, here. They may yet become normative.

 

[Mouthwash]

I find that fairly unlikely.

So?

Well, I don't disagree that it feels wrong. But there just aren't many good options here. Allowing the parents or other designated guardian (or in the case of adults, next-of-kin, spouse, or whomever) to decide sounds good in theory, but then we have to ask ourselves how much of an investment we want to make in prolonging people's lives in these kinds of situations.

This is literally Nazi-style reasoning. Kill the disabled because we've rationally calculated that they aren't worth the resources.

I mean, this is the case with my own grandmother - she hardly knows what's going on half the time, drools a lot, is barely fit enough to go to the bathroom on her own, but we're spending all this money to have her in a nursing home because of course we're not just going to let her die

Yeah, that baby is using up food, water and oxygen that could best be used elsewhere.

"I don't trust you, now please treat this baby."

That's why do no harm was the most important restriction placed upon healers. Limits their ability to control their patients.

 

[Kyriakos]

Progress is made through iteration, research is gleaned from death and unsuccessful treatment. It makes sense for a society to cut off how much it invests its resources in low probability of gain situations, where there isn't much suffering to alleviate, much life to gain, or knowledge to earn. It's another thing to flat decree that death is mandatory. I don't think we should treat convicted murderers this way. I might want to, but it'd still probably be wrong. I still do not understand the Charlie Gard case other than for its monstrosity. I'm not sure I'm going to get it here, but I do absolutely hate that it's making me mistrust socialized medicine, with all its potential, for the demons in the wings waiting for their chance to power. They're becoming visible, here. They may yet become normative.

They don't have to use any resources; they are asked to allow the boy to go to Italy.

 

[Farm Boy]

I know. That's how the Charlie Gard case rolled. The life was legally decreed abomination and not allowed further treatment despite further expenses being provided by the parents, not the state. Transport to the US was not allowed. Death at home was not allowed. Control was absolute and non-negotiable.

The legal point at play here is not a struggle over expense, it is whether doctors can decree adversarial death as a legally enforceable mercy. That's where they've gone with it.

 

[Lexicus]

This is literally Nazi-style reasoning. Kill the disabled because we've rationally calculated that they aren't worth the resources.

I mean, the Nazis euthanized the disabled because they presented a threat to the health of the Aryan race, not because they were consuming more resources than they were worth.

Yeah, that baby is using up food, water and oxygen that could best be used elsewhere.

Look, I'm not saying that any particular answers to this question are the right ones. I think that generally speaking every reasonable effort should be made to save every person possible. But appeals to emotion of this sort won't change the fact that we do have limited resources and we need some process as a society of deciding how best to use those resources.

 

[dutchfire]

but then we have to ask ourselves how much of an investment we want to make in prolonging people's lives in these kinds of situations.

Notably, as far as I know this aspect, which is immediately jumped upon by "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE == NAZI DEATH PANELS!" crowd, played no rule in the court's judgement. The decision is explicitly based on Alfie's best interest.

I'd recommend this Twitter thread over the article provided by the Opening Post, it even contains actual quotes from the verdict!
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/989195011043528704

Some highlights from the thread:

You will see, and must retweet to your followers, that the decision was based *entirely* on an assessment of Alfie’s best interests. Not on “cost of treatment”. Nothing to do with “socialised medicine” or “death panels”. Solely what is medically best for a very sick child.

 

[Farm Boy]

Correct, that makes it very clear. It's really just for the best for him, to be dead, so we say, so we enforce. Pain is immaterial, money is immaterial, international cooperation is immaterial, family is immaterial, research is immaterial, we're just kinda tired of looking at him and you need to know we're the boss.

 

[dutchfire]

Technical expertise and ethical authority are not the same thing, much as the professional fetish with classism would sell it otherwise.

....

I don't particularly trust doctors (no understanding of risk or their own fallibility). Plus, they were already wrong.

?

 

[Farm Boy]

I make my own points, mouthwash can make his.

 

[Cheetah]

I'd recommend this Twitter thread over the article provided by the Opening Post, it even contains actual quotes from the verdict!
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/989195011043528704

Finally some sensibility in this thread.

As was rather obvious, before even reading the title of this thread, the decision to let this boy die is to lessen his suffering. Keeping people alive is commendable, but at some point not just the survival, but also the dignity of human life, must be considered.

The fact that he will have to die by his own body's failing is unfortunate, but reflects the limitations of where we've come as an ethical society.

 

[Synobun]

The "news" article in the OP is an utter sham. Might as well post the "my neighbour took a poo in my chimney" Daily Mail article and it'd have as much journalistic rigor. The writer has zero understanding of what happens when one is taken off a ventilator and instead used what happened as source material for their moralistic fantasizing.

You're better than this, Mouthwash.

The article writer links to a "what has happened so far" article which is prefaced with a long plea from the parents' new legal representation for everyone to recognize just how talented and amazing their legal firm is, and that any failure in the case is of course not their fault and that of previous legal representation. They take several opportunities to tell you that they are great and then go, "Hey, maybe respect the parents' privacy" at the end. Don't forget, however, that the Christian Legal Centre is very good at what it does and is doing this FOR FREE!

This article goes on to not be much better than the first, outright describing the statement from the parents as a "hostage note" and defining the decision as a "conspiracy".

It is disingenuous that the provided material conveniently omits actual judgments and medical information. All the "updates" are variations of a few people from unrelated organizations talking about how awful the hospital is and the parents writing rage-posts on their Facebook timelines. Very little is provided in the form of facts beyond Alfie surviving while off the ventilator (which is not unusual). He still requires oxygen and external intervention for his vitals, and this is not surprising either.

As it turns out, I have a little experience with the nature of Alfie's condition. For those not in the know -- and I imagine those shouting up and down about death panels and conspiracies aren't in the know -- Alfie has an epilepsy-based neurological condition which entails a gradual degradation of brain tissue. There is no cure for this condition.

The simple fact is this: it will kill him. Not an 'if'. Not a 'maybe'. It will. There is no way, in modern medicine, to regenerate and repair the brain to the extent necessary to reverse the impacts of severe epilepsy. Alfie's case in particular is unique in the sense that it will likely kill him before he's six years old. Many with degenerative epilepsy can often survive into their teens and into adulthood, especially if the degeneration is "minor". This is not the case with Alfie.

The case with Alfie is that his brain is already severely damaged. He was born in May 2016 and degradation already began as early as November 2016 (which is when the first brain scan was done). Since then he's lost over half of the white matter in his brain. He is no longer conscious. He continues to have brain seizures which eliminate brain activity between spasms. He is not brain dead and can still rely on reflexes like breathing and response to touch (which is why removal of the ventilator did not lead to immediate death).

Furthermore, the loss of white matter has resulted in Alfie's brain having a majority of water content and spinal fluid. His brain is being turned into slush.

Again, there is no way to recover from something like this happening. None. Even if your case is mild and you can survive well into your teen years, it is a question of WHEN it will kill you.

In less than two years, Alfie has already lost the majority of function. It will get worse. There is no cure. There is no treatment. There is literally not a single thing any one of us can do, be we impassioned bystander or talented doctor.

There is no conspiracy. There is no mustache-twirling cabal of evil doctors trying to murder a child.

There is only reality.

I mentioned that I had a little experience with this condition! My source for all of this is losing a friend to a similar condition. The biggest difference is that her parents understood and had 15 years to prepare while Alfie's parents had to deal with this in the first six months of the boy's life. Their emotions are understandable, but in no uncertain terms... they know nothing about this and they don't get to overrule the entirety of modern science.

If they 'win' this case, they will lose more than they've already lost.

 

[Farm Boy]

There is no mustache-twirling cabal of evil doctors trying to murder a child.

They're not evil. They're a death cult.

There is only reality.

Everyone dies. How we get there and what we do in the interim matters.

 

[Synobun]

A death cult. Alright. Your opinion is freely dismissed. This isn't some philosophical debate club where physical health is but matter of perspective.