3 ms·

>> No, the medical professionals, i.e. doctors do. The UK doctors punted, agreed. But Italian doctors believed different treatments were warranted. The Italian

by judah 8y ago

>> No, the medical professionals, i.e. doctors do. The UK doctors punted, agreed. But Italian doctors believed different treatments were warranted. The Italian government gave the boy citizenship. In a private healthcare system, the parents would be free to pursue that. But in the state-run system of the UK, there was no such freedom. Alfie Evans died last Monday.

oldcynic 8y ago
> But Italian doctors believed different treatments were warranted Again no. "The Italian hospital had acknowledged it could not find a cure, but had proposed maintaining Alfie’s life for about two weeks while doctors tried to investigate his condition." There are no treatments - even that seems to be agreed. > In a private healthcare system, the parents would be free to pursue that If they could afford to write a blank cheque for open ended life support. Any insurance would defer to the consensus of medical opinion and cease treatment. They would have ceased cover long before the 2 year trail of court cases and appeals all the way up to rejection from the European Court of Human Rights (not part of the EU or UK govt).
DanBC 8y ago
The Italian doctors agreed treatment was futile. They were only offering end of life care. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/thomas-evans-v-alder-hey-trust/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/thomas-evans-v-alder-...
- judah 8y ago
  I was indeed misinformed. Reading several news articles, not one mention that all that was left of his brain was water and spinal fluid. I only see that in the court transcripts, and that assessment was done from brain scans over several months. Given this new evidence, I change my opinion on this: the state-run healthcare did offer the best advice. (The question of state-run medical systems restricting freedom still applies here, even though the freedom would simply have been different end-of-life care.)

by judah 8y ago

oldcynic 8y ago

> But Italian doctors believed different treatments were warranted Again no. "The Italian hospital had acknowledged it could not find a cure, but had proposed maintaining Alfie’s life for about two weeks while doctors tried to investigate his condition." There are no treatments - even that seems to be agreed. > In a private healthcare system, the parents would be free to pursue that If they could afford to write a blank cheque for open ended life support. Any insurance would defer to the consensus of medical opinion and cease treatment. They would have ceased cover long before the 2 year trail of court cases and appeals all the way up to rejection from the European Court of Human Rights (not part of the EU or UK govt).

DanBC 8y ago

The Italian doctors agreed treatment was futile. They were only offering end of life care. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/thomas-evans-v-alder-hey-trust/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/thomas-evans-v-alder-...

judah 8y ago
I was indeed misinformed. Reading several news articles, not one mention that all that was left of his brain was water and spinal fluid. I only see that in the court transcripts, and that assessment was done from brain scans over several months. Given this new evidence, I change my opinion on this: the state-run healthcare did offer the best advice. (The question of state-run medical systems restricting freedom still applies here, even though the freedom would simply have been different end-of-life care.)