3 ms·

>Nevertheless, when you compare the UK NHS to the system we have in the USA, the benefits - especially for those of lower means - far outweigh the downsides. A

by panny 6y ago

>Nevertheless, when you compare the UK NHS to the system we have in the USA, the benefits - especially for those of lower means - far outweigh the downsides. Alfie Evans died. Sterling Raspe is alive. The UK has its own version of "staggering cost" in healthcare.

EliRivers 6y ago
Going down the route of cherry-picking cases where someone could have lived had they only received medical care, I think the US isn't going to come out great. Especially given that you've picked an extreme and uncommon case with no assurance whatsoever that the patient would have lived given any treatment anywhere, and which could have killed him purely by being transported; how about if we pick something far more common, like diabetics dying simply because they can't afford insulin?
DanBC 6y ago
The Alfie Evans case had nothing to do with cost. It was entirely about what was in his best interest. He had a catastrophic and untreatable, progressive, neurodegenerative condition. Death was the only outcome. The argument was whether he'd have a painless death in hospital, or if he'd be made to suffer by transferring him to different hospitals or outside the UK. Some of the court documents are freely available online. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/308.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/308.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/550.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/550.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/805.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/805.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/818.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/818.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/953.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/953.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/984.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/984.html
- 0xfaded 6y ago
  I'm glad you posted this. I was curious at what point the NHS would decide that a newborn was beyond saving. I know there are cost vs years-of-life calculations at the other end of life, but this case sets an extremely high bar for extraordinary efforts expended to a baby.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  No, the argument was whether his parents would be in charge of his treatment, or if the state health system could confiscate their kid.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Maybe read the court documents before commenting further. "Confiscate"? He was human. He had human rights. He wasn't the property of his parents. He wasn't an object that they could control.
Thedarkb 6y ago
I fail to see the connection between a child with an untreatable neurodegenerative disorder who was cared for by the NHS free of charge until treatment was ruled as futile due to "total destruction of white matter in the brain" and a child with a number of completely treatable issues whose parents cannot afford to fund their treatment.

by panny 6y ago

EliRivers 6y ago

Going down the route of cherry-picking cases where someone could have lived had they only received medical care, I think the US isn't going to come out great. Especially given that you've picked an extreme and uncommon case with no assurance whatsoever that the patient would have lived given any treatment anywhere, and which could have killed him purely by being transported; how about if we pick something far more common, like diabetics dying simply because they can't afford insulin?

DanBC 6y ago

The Alfie Evans case had nothing to do with cost. It was entirely about what was in his best interest. He had a catastrophic and untreatable, progressive, neurodegenerative condition. Death was the only outcome. The argument was whether he'd have a painless death in hospital, or if he'd be made to suffer by transferring him to different hospitals or outside the UK. Some of the court documents are freely available online. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/308.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/308.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/550.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/550.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/805.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/805.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/818.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/818.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/953.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/953.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/984.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/984.html

0xfaded 6y ago
I'm glad you posted this. I was curious at what point the NHS would decide that a newborn was beyond saving. I know there are cost vs years-of-life calculations at the other end of life, but this case sets an extremely high bar for extraordinary efforts expended to a baby.
SamReidHughes 6y ago
No, the argument was whether his parents would be in charge of his treatment, or if the state health system could confiscate their kid.
- DanBC 6y ago
  Maybe read the court documents before commenting further. "Confiscate"? He was human. He had human rights. He wasn't the property of his parents. He wasn't an object that they could control.

Thedarkb 6y ago

I fail to see the connection between a child with an untreatable neurodegenerative disorder who was cared for by the NHS free of charge until treatment was ruled as futile due to "total destruction of white matter in the brain" and a child with a number of completely treatable issues whose parents cannot afford to fund their treatment.