Jump to content

Alfie Evans is fatally ill. Should he be allowed to die in peace?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Declan said:

Homarus, why would the state conspire to kill some kid in Liverpool? 

The fact is it didn’t. The medical team reluctantly decided that there was nothing more that could be done and courts reluctantly concluded they were right.

 

Then they should have let the Parents take their child ,but they didn't ,they took the decision out of the Parents hands for whatever reasons  although there were other avenues open !!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't want or need your apology thanks. However I will not resort to the tactics you have apparently demeaned yourself with based on lack of undertanding of what I meant and let's be clear, you have

I’ve read the various published judgments. First, the state, through the courts, does not claim ownership of the child. Second, whether the child had been registered at birth or not would ma

No, the real tragedy was the vicarious indignity and outrage of people who had absolutely 'no skin in the game' who wound up a situation and encouraged (if not pressured) the parents, who were extreme

Posted Images

John Wright, this judgment of 20 February uses the recital 'A Child by his Guardian CAFCASS Legal'. 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf

I think, Homarus, you should read that judgment before concluding that the Court was somehow coming to a decision that was 'required' in some way by the medics. To me, it reads as a very careful weighing of the evidence and conclusion based solely on the best interest of the child.

Edited by guzzi
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No, you just letting your personal feelings and beliefs obscure your interpretation. There was no "required" decision.

No one, any where, was able to offer treatment. He was in effect dead but being kept artificially alive. Was it in his interests to have prolonged i invasive procedures which would achieve nothing or, in the absence of any other treatment plan, and the parents had many months to find someone with a treatment plan and couldn't,   if they had the court would have let him go, or should nature be allowed to take its course.

  I think you've ever so slightly over egged it there John, he was not dead  and you know it!

 

      

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homorus do you get what Pope John Paul II was trying to say in 2002 when he said:

“It is necessary to approach the ill with that healthy realism which avoids generating in those who suffer the illusion of medicine’s omnipotence.”

There was no treatment available.  Why do you want this child to be continually medicalised, suffering further convulsions and all the distress that causes for both him and his parents?

Is there ever a time to stop treating and provide comfort while nature takes its cause?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, guzzi said:

John Wright, this judgment of 20 February uses the recital 'A Child by his Guardian CAFCASS Legal'. 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf

I think, Homarus, you should read that judgment before concluding that the Court was somehow coming to a decision that was 'required' in some way by the medics. To me, it reads as a very careful weighing of the evidence and conclusion based solely on the best interest of the child.

Yes, but that’s a Guardian ad Litem, solely to ensure that someone, other than the doctors or parents, puts forward an independent view on behalf of Alfie. It’s not a guardian under either child care or mental health legislation.

Homarus would do well to read that judgment. What the doctors appointed by Alfie’s mother and father say is illuminating. They state, in lay terms, that treatment was futile, that he could not breathe unaided, that there was no chance of recovery and that he was in a vegetative state, ie brain dead, so as I said, in lay language, he was in effect dead. The only thing that was stopping him dieing was invasive and destructive artificial ventilation.

One of the doctors who the parents obtained reports from in 2017 identifies the real problem, that Alfie’s parents weren’t able to reconcile the medical advice, from Alder Hey or their own experts, with their desire to keep Alfie on ventilation for ever. 

This is what their own expert, Professor Haas, said. They didn’t disagree

 

“The main underlying problem seems in my opinion that from the side of Alfie’s parents that they do not understand and/or accept that:
a. the majority of Alfie’s reaction to external stimuli (i.e. touching, pain stimulation like pinching, etc., reaction to noise, parents voice etc.) is very likely not a purposeful reaction but very likely caused by seizures (as proven by repeat EEC monitoring)
b. these reactions are very difficult to separate especially for parents. Based on videos shown to me, there may however well be a change in Alfies behaviour and his status may well fluctuate
c. the seizure activity is very likely the consequence of the underlying process
d. the neurodegenerative process has unfortunately progressed so far that an improvement or recovery is also extremely unlikely.
e. Alfie’s inability to breathe is a consequence of the disease and not likely from the medication administered.
f. there are by all means no thinkable treatment options available that would stop or reverse his underlying disease.”

Edited by John Wright
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, homarus said:

  I think you've ever so slightly over egged it there John, he was not dead  and you know it!

 

      

For how long would you have had him lie there being artificially kept "alive" then?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, homarus said:

Then they should have let the Parents take their child ,but they didn't ,they took the decision out of the Parents hands for whatever reasons  although there were other avenues open !!

 

 

There were no avenues the kid was for all intent and purpose was dead he was being kept alive by machines ironically provided by the state. 

The parents were doing what was best for them not the child which I can understand as I imagine I'd react the same. The child was having no quality of life and it was his human rights at play not his parents or alfies army.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thommo2010 said:

There were no avenues the kid was for all intent and purpose was dead he was being kept alive by machines ironically provided by the state. 

The parents were doing what was best for them not the child which I can understand as I imagine I'd react the same. The child was having no quality of life and it was his human rights at play not his parents or alfies army.

 You don't fill me with confidence Thommo!

  ""He was dead but being kept alive""  ??

They took the child off the machine and he lived for a further 5 days despite being put on a ""death pathway"" .

 If the Parents had decided to let little Alfie die after taking advice from the medicals ,fair enough ,but they wanted to try  something different  and were blocked by the Hospital (who in effect claimed the power of life and  death) even though they had the support and means to do .

 Similar events have occurred several times of the past few years regarding children where  in at least one high profile case the UK medical teams were proved wrong  .

 It's obvious that the legal powers of the establishment need to be curbed as we are heading down a very slippery slope !

 Only God should have that power of life over death ,  the medical staff should concern themselves with saving lives nothing else

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, woolley said:

For how long would you have had him lie there being artificially kept "alive" then?

He'd have been out of there and on his way to Italy as per the parents wishes  woolley. If he died in Italy then the parents had done all they could in accordance with their beliefs.

 Interestingly nobody seems to have picked up on the fact that  Alfies parents had an audience with  pope  Francis ,so were obviously  religious people .

  Pope Francis himself stated that only God should determine life or death ,this in my opinion  set the scene for a  Faith v  The State battle.

 

 

 

 

 

Alfie evans meetspope.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, homarus said:

He'd have been out of there and on his way to Italy as per the parents wishes  woolley. If he died in Italy then the parents had done all they could in accordance with their beliefs.

 Interestingly nobody seems to have picked up on the fact that  Alfies parents had an audience with  pope  Francis ,so were obviously  religious people .

  Pope Francis himself stated that only God should determine life or death ,this in my opinion  set the scene for a  Faith v  The State battle.

 

 

 

 

 

Alfie evans meetspope.jpeg

And what did that achieve, other the some comfort for the parents, possibly?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

People have talked about their faith. The judge specifically referred to it and didn’t belittle and down play it. The audience was widely reported.

Homarus, it isn’t a state versus faith debate, it isn’t about who “owns” a child. It’s about what is in the best interests of a patient who is never going to recover, who’s disease is terminal, who is insensate ( and it doesn’t matter in the way I put it whether it’s an adult or child - although it’s inevitably more emotive if a child is involved ) and who is being kept “alive” by artificial means, because we can.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, John Wright said:

People have talked about their faith. The judge specifically referred to it and didn’t belittle and down play it. The audience was widely reported.

Homarus, it isn’t a state versus faith debate, it isn’t about who “owns” a child. It’s about what is in the best interests of a patient who is never going to recover, who’s disease is terminal, who is insensate ( and it doesn’t matter in the way I put it whether it’s an adult or child - although it’s inevitably more emotive if a child is involved ) and who is being kept “alive” by artificial means, because we can.

I disagree John, it's 100% about who owns the child,parental rights etc!

 He's a question for you ! Who made  that child  ,the parents or the state?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, homarus said:

I disagree John, it's 100% about who owns the child,parental rights etc!

 He's a question for you ! Who made  that child  ,the parents or the state?

nobody owns a child.....

you really need to lay off the angkor in sexpat......

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...