Universal Deathcare.

Guest219794 · May 3, 2018

A good read: How Alfie died: all the facts - La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana

The first expert you referred to was Ben Shapiro. An anti science right wing pundit with gems such as this: "If you pay tuition, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If you pay taxes, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If your child majors in English, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda."

He is a nut job who knows less about medical issues than my dog. But he does know how to write material that will inflame uneducated readers more interested in a particular agenda than the facts.

And now, you have somebody with a bachelors in political science from Catholic University. I am probably more qualified to write about Catholic Theology than she is to write about medical issue. And I am quite sure that Catholic scholars would give my opinions the same weight any medical professional gives to Frigerio.

allnurses Guide · May 3, 2018

No, it is not.
It is emotive, unsubstantiated opinion. It was written by someone who has a qualification in "Political Science" from a catholic university. She has no knowledge of medicine.
It is another piece that seeks to demonise the nursing and medical staff who have looked after Alfie for a very long time and have an emotional attachment but are being harassed, bullied and victimised by stupid, ignorant people.
I was trying to stay out of this but seriously guys, get a grip. This child was suffering, he was dying and the decision was made by the MEDICAL staff - and this would have included nursing staff (his parents would also be involved) - to remove interventions and allow him to die peacefully and with dignity. The courts agreed - nothing to do with the government - several times. We would not allow an animal to suffer, why then do we want our children suffering.

Grumpy i am so relieved you replied first, you are far more articulate than I could have been after reading that absolute tripe.

I got as far as the mouldy vent tubing and came to the conclusion it was a poorly written, ill informed piece of rubbish by someone who has no idea about how UK hospitals operate.

Mini2544, ASN, RN · May 3, 2018

I am against socialized medicine but what happened to that little boy was compassionate withdrawal. We should practice that more often with our own people.

CharleeFoxtrot, BSN, RN · May 3, 2018

No, it is not. It is emotive, unsubstantiated opinion.

Here Here!! You were far more diplomatic that I could be.

Guest219794 · May 4, 2018

I am highly critical of families that allow the Elderly to suffer. I was pedi nurse for over 10 years and I can understand giving kids a chance at life.

I really have no idea what that means. I am quite sure that nobody here will argue the case that a kid should not have a chance at life.

Are you saying that Alfie had a chance at life?

You have said that a court should not be able to make decisions about the best interests of a child. What do you suggest should happen when a family disagrees with medical decisions, and asks the court to intervene? Would you be in favor of a court mandated decision to continue care? Taking courts and committees out of the picture gives family members no recourse if they disagree with medical decisions.

Are you suggesting that family members should have absolute authority on what medical experts should do? I want my kid to have both ears amputated, as that is clearly where the evil spirits live. Should I have the right to make that call, or should science play any role in the decisions?

I'll give you an A for starting the discussion, and a C- for presenting and explaining your view point. I would give you a D, but you seem sincere.

broughden · May 4, 2018

I am highly critical of families that allow the Elderly to suffer. I was pedi nurse for over 10 years and I can understand giving kids a chance at life.

I find it remarkable that you made it through nursing school and came out the other side thinking a child with a cranial cavity full of water and lysed neurons has a chance at life.

But please by all means educate us all.

Tenebrae, BSN, RN · May 4, 2018

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.

oh horse dung!

Guest957596 · May 5, 2018

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.

Quality of life or not, the parents had their CHOICE and PARENTAL RIGHTS abrogated by a know-it-all National Health System. Their alternative for care in another country was independently funded. They should of had the choice. Socialized medicine equals death panels, plain and simple.

Guest957596 · May 5, 2018

Oh, don't even START. This had nothing to do with universal healthcare and everything to do with an utterly tragic situation with grief-stricken parents who could not accept their baby boy's reality, combined with uninformed masses seizing on one side of the story and reacting in an appalling manner. I worked in a NICU in the NHS for the past six years and we encountered several of these situations, where the humane thing to do was to let the baby go peacefully and the parents were simply unable to accept that. Money was NEVER a consideration when deciding the appropriate course of treatment, only the best interests of the baby - which, sadly, sometimes conflicted with what the parents wanted.

The parents should be the ones to determine what's in the best interests of the baby; not you, not the government.

heron, ASN, RN · May 5, 2018

The parents should be the ones to determine what's in the best interests of the baby; not you, not the government.

There's nothing magical about parenthood that renders a person competent to raise a healthy child. When parental decisions veer into abuse, regardless of intentions, they need to be checked. In this case, it's fairly clear that the parents were meeting their own needs, not their child's.

What you are suggesting is that parents should have absolute power over the life of their children. Unopposed power inevitably leads to abuse, whether that power is exercised by a parent, a religion or a state.

Coffee Nurse, BSN, RN · May 6, 2018

The parents should be the ones to determine what's in the best interests of the baby; not you, not the government.

Incorrect.

I wonder if there's something about working in pediatrics, especially on the younger end of the spectrum, that makes it easier to see these children as people in their own right. Alfie did not exist as an extension of his parents. His ability to communicate, or lack thereof, notwithstanding, he was an individual, with his own rights to dignity, comfort, and peace. Being kept alive as a shell for the sake of his parents was not in his best interests, and this was not a determination that his parents were in a position to be able to make.

And once again, just for the record -- the government had nothing to do with this decision.

psu_213, BSN, RN · May 6, 2018

The parents should be the ones to determine what's in the best interests of the baby; not you, not the government.

So the Turpins, the parents in California who shackled their children to their beds and withheld food from said children, should not be punished because, unequivocally, "parents should be the ones to determine what's in the best interest" of their children? If not, why do the parents in Alfie's case have the right to continue these futile (torturous) treatments?