Universal Deathcare.

[Kyrshamarks]

So those that support Universal Healthcare and how great it is care to explain to us how it was great for Alfie Evans? Hopefully not coming soon to the America near you.

[pmabraham, BSN, RN]

Actually, I think it was "great" for him. He had no quality of life and no hope of becoming well. Death is not always the worst outcome.

So the parents have no say in what is quality of life for their own children? So the government can determine quality of life?

[pmabraham, BSN, RN]

All medical authorities agreed

Not 100% of doctors agreed... and the matter is such that parents should have had a say, NOT the government!

[pmabraham, BSN, RN]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26819[/ATTACH] First Charlie Gard, now Alfie. This is what government involvement in healthcare looks like. Death panels do exist, and it should not be up to a judge or a hospital to deny proper care. Those arguing to justify the cold blooded murder of Alfie, I hope your loved one is never kept prisoner in a hospital system due to government involvement where you are forbidden to take your loved one home or to another safe location.

[LibraSunCNM, BSN, MSN, CNM]

OK, against my better judgement I am going to chip in.

NHS is NOT free, it is free at the point of use. Everyone pays a part of their salary for "National Insurance" this ensures you do not get a medical bill and also can give unemployment/disability/old age pension rights.

The government had nothing to do with this it was a medical decision upheld by the courts see here for a timeline Timeline: key events in the legal battle over Alfie Evans | Society | The Guardian

Their are NO death squads looking to dispatch ill people.

Parents will always try their best for children - I do not blame them one little bit. I do blame the idiots who go by "Dr. Google" and know nothing about a very emotive issue.

NHS is excellent at the life saving stuff but less so at the life enhancing stuff. You can wait for certain treatments - not good but if you want you can always go private or have private health insurance.

USA spends more than twice what the UK spends on health care and has a lower life expectancy.

To sum it all up, yes the NHS has problems but killing children is not one of them. We have a government that does not care about people and wants to dismantle the NHS. We have social media stating nonsense about things that people know nothing about because it is easier to get a reaction.

Thank you for this. An injection of truth and common sense is always welcome in the age of ever-increasing ignorance and hysteria directly stemming from social media.

[psu_213, BSN, RN]

This. was. all. about. control. And if we allow our government to fully fund and dictate healthcare, it will happen here.

I find this extremely ironic. I can certainly understand the sentiment that we do not want the government to "dictate" healthcare. However, many Americans have no real issue with insurance companies being the dictators, or many do not realize how much control of the situation the insurance companies have. I work with adults, so I am going to use and example of adults. Every single physician can be of the opinion that a patient would benefit from inpatient rehab (IPR) on discharge from an acute hospitalization. If the patient does not meet the criteria in the insurance company's computer, that person will not go to IPR. Sure, this is different than an end of life decision for a child, but it does illustrate the difficulties of the debate of who we want in control.

[KatieMI, BSN, MSN, RN]

So the parents have no say in what is quality of life for their own children? So the government can determine quality of life?

In the article from the link above, The Guardian, it is clearly seen that the child was nasally intubated.

Do you know what it is to be on the tube? I can tell you that it was nice that the Holy Inquisition did not know about it, or there would be significantly more people burned alive, because you'll sell your own mom or tell them whatever just get that thing outta there. And nasal tube is worse than oral. And poor kiddo couldn't even cry in discomfort.

What "quality of life" you even try to tell about? This existence, if it was truly "semi-", then it was even worse than true PVC, because he might not be truly comatose. He could feel, hear, suffer - all in eternal silence and probably paralysis as well (as his hands appeared not to be fixed). It was an act of ultimate mercy to let him finally go.

[nehneh14]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26819[/ATTACH] First Charlie Gard, now Alfie. This is what government involvement in healthcare looks like. Death panels do exist, and it should not be up to a judge or a hospital to deny proper care. Those arguing to justify the cold blooded murder of Alfie, I hope your loved one is never kept prisoner in a hospital system due to government involvement where you are forbidden to take your loved one home or to another safe location.

Frankly, the fact that you're posting a tweet by Ben Shapiro, of all people, invalidates any appearance of a true faith effort to bolster or legitimize your opinion. Who next, Alex Jones?

[hawaiicarl, BSN, RN]

I actually think that name is sort of catchy! "Universal Deathcare" is way more Star Warsy than Palliative Care, makes it sound like an evil empire, where really it is just ending people's suffering.

Cheers

[psu_213, BSN, RN]

makes it sound like an evil empire

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, et al. would agree with this assessment.

[mrsboots87]

So the parents have no say in what is quality of life for their own children? So the government can determine quality of life?

The parents appealed this decision for almost a year before it reached the highest courts. They were given much longer then they would have been given in the US. The courts and government didn't decide this child wasn't worth the expense. A medical team that reached the end and realized the child was needlessly suffering wanted to end life support almost a year ago. When the family was not agreeable, the hospital petitioned the courts to remove the parents rights to choose. This same thing happens here in the US. It just doesn't usually pick up as much traction as it did in the UK.

This child had a Neuro disorder that was discovered at around 6-7 months old when he never progressed past the mind and skill ability of a 6-8 week old. He then further deteriorated until he had seizures. The seizures brought him to the hospital where they looked at every avenue of saving this child and treated him aggressively until it was realized that his brain was too damaged and would continue to deteriorate. He was already on mechanical ventilation at that point. It was possible that while he had no chance of long term survival, he might still be suffering emensly. The medical team attempted to end the poor child's suffering but had to keep him on life support for almost a year while parents fought it until the end.

This is not the parents fault. They love their child and we're driven by emotion. This is not the hospitals fault because they wanted to do right by the child. This is not the governments fault because they only became involved after petition by the hospital. This just is. The boy had an incurable mitochondrial disease that has likely never been seen before and has no treatment course. He was terminal and life support was only prolonging that. And not in any meaningful way outside of the parents getting to be with his body until it died anyway.

My only hope is that the boys brain was so far gone that he did not suffer for the past year while it took this long to get the vents turned off. Especially since the parents thought the hospital was trying to kill him with fentanyl and allowed for no pain medicine to be administered to alleviate his suffering. It's just sad all around. But no one murdered anyone. The boy was finally aloud to rest in piece after a longer then necessary battle with life.

[Ruas61, BSN, RN]

Just because we can or because we think/feel we need to doesn't mean we should.

[MunoRN, RN]

The issue most people I read is no that of the death of the child, but the forced denial of liberty of the parents. We, as health care providers, have a inside looking out opinion on the situation. Some of our critical care nurses see these occurrences often, just not in the same extreme way. We all have the compassion and understanding of what is best for the patient is allowing the natural passage of the spirit to God's arms.

The real issue I have seen is that the NHS made the decision to discontinue care, without giving the family the ability to contest or attempt the alternatives available to them. I'm not sure how the European system works, but parents have full decision making capabilities in the US. The NHS proved that they can remove the right of parents and families if they deem it necessary and good for the PT. They even denies the family the right to take the child home to die. This violates and interrupts the ability of the family to properly come to terms and cope with the loss of their child. This will breed a resentment and give a platform for them to cry foul on the NHS system.

If the transport of the child for experimental treatment was the main concern, so what? It's what everyone pays for right? so cost is not an issue. The Government themselves invited the family, so not a border issue. Then why wasn't he allowed to go? Why did we not allow any and all options to extend this life to the nth degree? Are we to maintain the moral highground and affirm, "It was the right thing to do!" With a stamped foot and a glower? This does nothing but make us look uncaring and dispassionate in the eyes of the public who revers nurses as the most trusted profession in the Nation. We should instead be on the side of the arbiter of life, not the advocate of death. (Heavy handed statement maybe, but it's what comes to mind."

Also, for those who emphatically state that the decision was made by the judiciary and not by the Government. Who upholds the judgement of the courts? Who directs the guns to enforce the laws? Who orders the treasury to remove the funds from the paycheck of the individual? Its short sighted to say that the Nation Healthcare System and Judicial system have no ties or relations with the UK government. When wondering whose in charge of the decision always ask, "Who has the gun?".

I pray that these parents can find peace following this loss. Despite everything, Alfie is playing at His table. A thought comforting to us all.

Parents don't have "full decision making capabilities in the US", it actually works the same exact way here. Hospitals and their ethics committees can determine that futile care is not appropriate and make the decision to withdraw care against the parents wishes, parents can appeal that decision in court just as the parents of Alfie Owens did. This is not particularly rare in the US, it's been about a month since my hospital had to take legal steps to bring futile and tortuous treatment to end in a child.

There were no "experimental treatments" offered, no additional treatments were proposed by the Vatican hospital, doctors from the Vatican hospital who travelled to Liverpool to evaluate Alfie agreed that his condition was not curable and other than palliative care they did not suggest different treatments would be available to him in Italy.

Denial and bargaining are well established steps in the grieving process. Appropriate care does involve helping ensure that the grieving process doesn't result in abuse of the child.