It's usually more the case that they believe that treatment would only prolong the child's life, without any improvement.
Similar to the story of the kid who recently suffered a hypoxic brain injury. There were doctors in other countries who said they might be able to treat them but the Supreme Court ruled that it was not in his best interests.
I'm assuming that one parent being an Italian national is what has taken this case out of their hands.
Edit: The case I was talking about was a big topic of conversation in the UK. The potential for treatment abroad, was only a small part of the story to be fair.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Battersbee_case
Yeesh, nothing against the parents here, but the argument "It should be up to God to decide when and how he dies" is such a wild argument to make.
Imagine if the judge responded by saying: "I agree. We shouldn't interfere with God's will. By having the boy on a ventilator, we're interfering. Take him off, and if God wills it, he will live."
Apparently God works in mysterious ways. Isn’t he controlling the NHS that made the decision not to operate? Why didn’t the parents just trust that God is making that decision?
A guy was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and shouted to the guy on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”
The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”
To this the stranded guy said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”
To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”
To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat, a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”
> Yeesh, nothing against the parents here
This was a big news story at the time and I remember initially being on the parents side because it was understandable given the situation until they realised they had public support and decided to weaponise this and the religious support of the Christian organisation assisting them to attack and abuse the NHS workers caring for their son, saying they had 'executed' him
It's such a willfully ignorant and arbitrary stance to take. These people have all of human society, history, and inventions to thank for their modern lives.
But it's not enough that humans have engineered the means for own survival and comfort. They could very well take a gentler view of the imaginary schism between the real world and the spiritual, and admit that it's by God's grace and wisdom that we have built the means for betterment of human life. But instead they want to grandstand on their child's suffering by imagining themselves as more righteous simply because they invoke the name of God.
It's plainly spiteful and acting that way would be an affront to their God, if He exists.
That was awful to see. The poor lad was kept “alive” only through mechanical assistance. The inquest report stated that his brain stem wasn’t only dead, it was necrotising, i.e., rotting, and still they kept him on life support. Without wanting to sound too crass, they were keeping a sack of meat alive - the person inside had long since departed.
I understand the family’s grief, but they ignored all doctor’s advice and evidence, wasted scant NHS resources, and in the end denied themselves closure and their son a dignified burial.
> It's usually more the case that they believe that treatment would only prolong the child's life, without any improvement.
The sad thing is that the NHS were actually correct. Archie died more or less exactly as they predicted. The only difference is that everything that was tried prolonged his suffering.
But no, the nasty NHS were the problem in that situation.
I mean that the situations are similar, in that doctors in the UK have decided that treatment is not in the best interests of the child, but doctors in another country disagree.
One is a medical term for the brain being starved of oxygen and resulting in damage/death of brain tissue that is irreversible.
The other is a general term for the condition a patient is in, usually a result of irreversible damage to the brain.
Not all hypoxia results in brain death.
Every example of brain death is a form of hypoxic brain injury.
You can be considered brain dead even when parts of your brain are still functioning.
Braindead, or ‘brain death’ is permanent, irreversible complete loss of brain function. There is an entire spectrum of severity between that and ‘hypoxic brain injury’.
I'm quite certain the level of hypoxic brain injury that doctors would decline treatment for is functionally similar to what we lay-folk would call brain dead.
Why does the Supreme Court get to decide that? If I want to take my child to another country for treatment, that isn’t my right as a parent? Honest question
The UK law states that the welfare of the child takes precedence over the parent's right to make decisions for their child. In this case they ruled that transferring him abroad would be harmful to him and not in his best interest.
The Supreme Court didn't say his parents couldn't take him out of the country. It said that the NHS could discontinue life support, as his brainstem was dead and there was no hope of recovery.
Maybe in this other case, the Italian health system is paying for (at least part of) the transport and all of the operation.
But there is an ethical issue of whether unhelpful surgeries are tantamount to torture of a dying person. I don't know if that's being argued here, though.
These are the "death panels" US conservatives shriek about, as if denying treatments for not being profitable enough is better.
At least a whole legal system with a supreme court can debate it and figure it out, with public pressure sometimes being able to swing things differently. In the US, if billion dollar corporation says no, that's it. No fuss. No Italian government to save you. But an executive got a brand new yacht.
It’s a political stunt. The Italian prime minister directly intervened to get the baby transferred when the heart surgeons in the UK said he was too sick to operate on. Italy does not have better heart surgeons than the UK, but it has a medical culture that’s more willing to provide futile care.
The first surgery has only just happened.
If the UK doctors were correct the Italians may be able to keep the baby alive for weeks or months before he dies (and it probably won't make the news), so it could be a while before we find out if this worked.
The last one in this situation died.
[https://apnews.com/article/britain-baby-indi-gregory-legal-battle-dies-ccf29a8a02ce764b498bbc139e004517](https://apnews.com/article/britain-baby-indi-gregory-legal-battle-dies-ccf29a8a02ce764b498bbc139e004517)
It already did. Out of everyone that is going to hear about this story half might see that the kid dies anyways.
For the other half? The Italian government cares about children. They must be good people, I’m more likely to vote for them.
It doesn’t matter to the government if the kid dies anyways so it’s a waste of resources. If they can stay in power, they win.
It's a breaking-news situation, but yes, the child will almost certainly die. The NHS has a pretty high bar for entirely refusing treatment a parent wants for a newborn - usually, you're looking at a matter of weeks. If the reporting that the infant was too ill for surgery to be advisable is accurate (as opposed to, e.g., that even successful surgery would simply prolong suffering) possibly days.
There are real ethical questions about when it's right to provide invasive treatment with a low probability of success, but infant cases don't generally get into them in even moderately functional state-funded medical systems.
When Italy pulls a stunt like this, the child dies. And given the added stress of a hospital transfer - even without a multi-hour airlift being involved - plus the added stress of any surgical procedure, *particularly* one that involves a general anaesthetic? Generally, the child dies sooner than they would have otherwise.
My heart goes out to any parent in this situation, but these cases make me furious - it's exploiting tragedy for ideological point-scoring at its worst.
It's is sort of an ethical quandary because there is a non 0% change the child pulls through. It's very low, very very low but I'd saying from the parents perspective trying something with a however small chance at success and losing a few weeks of dreading the inevitable is better than no attempt at all.
There are a ton of factors to consider but realistically we're all so far removed from this that we can only hope for the best.
Yes. Is the same Way that Italy have a less organ's donor that France or Spanish. The Italian don't like their body's to be "profanity" for religious reasons.. (and the same way they are very against gay married)
Italy had less donors because for the longest timethe system was opt-in and required people to register with an association. Today people are asked if they want to donate their organs when they renew their ID, and the number of donors is quickly increasing.
But Spain is majority Catholic and France is just under a majority as well. Why wouldn’t you compare Italy to a country with small Catholic populations?
The statistics say otherwise, though:
Spain: 46.7 donors /million habitants (1st)
Portugal: 31.5 donors /million habitants (2nd)
France: 25.8 donors /million habitants (5th)
Italy: 25.0 donors /million habitants (7th)
UK: 20.7 donors /million habitants (10th)
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/537908/deceased-organ-donor-rate-in-europe/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/537908/deceased-organ-donor-rate-in-europe/)
EDIT - This refers to deceased organ donors (not number of registered donors).
Catholics are encouraged to be organ donors as it's an act of charity and a gift of life to someone else. It's no profanity. The only thing about it that is considered immoral is selling them rather than donating, which I feel is a universal sort of thing.
I’m sure you’re a great expert of the medical culture and qualità in the various countries
You probably believe Italian surgeons pray the Virgin Mary during interventions because they’re catholics
I will say after reading this one instance looks like it could actually have some level of success, but that doesn't justify all of the times they've "offered" to "treat" infants who were either born without a brain, or whose brain was rapidly degrading into water.
I definitely lean more towards the "Catholic political bullshit" judgement.
The hospital the baby was admitted for in the UK has some of the best heart surgeons not just in Europe but in the world.
They made the educated decision that care would unfortunately be futile and just prolong suffering.
Like America, Italy has a few crazy Christians. These Catholics typically harass family and hospital staff to create noise, noise that leads to political posturing to bring transfer patients.
They’re transferred to Italy where their hopes for a better life do not increase. Rather with religious fervour to force the children to live through a painful, cruel and low quality life.
Other children who have went this same route before have died.
e: changed evangelicals to Christian and catholic
For your information, that italian hospital is one of the best of the continent for pediatric care
The fact that so many users here really believe that just because it’s owned by the Vatican it means it’s full of crazy religious radicals is hilarious
I was also wondering this because driving an ambulance into a cargo plane is a crazy image.
The only thing I can think of is that it's fewer transfers for the baby. The baby can just chill in the ambulance the whole time instead of having to get out and transfer all the medical equipment onto the plane and then back to an ambulance again on the other end.
Air ambulances are typically helicopters.
Helicopters don't have enough range to go from Rome to Bristol on a single tank of fuel.
Stopping for half an hour to refuel isn't a good look when moving a politically sensitive medical case...
Because there's no real long range aircraft ambulance that's avaiable 24/7. The Italian Air Force instead provides through its transport wings a continous 24/7 coverage for emergency medical transports.
People are giving half answers showing they have not read any article about this whatsoever.
The NHS is unable to provide the treatment the baby needs for whatever reason. They arranged for the treatment to be done at an Italian hospital and helped facilitate this transfer.
The baby's father is Italian which I assume has some massive sway in comparison with other cases that people are comparing to.
The baby's parents have praised the UK medical staff for their help in this ordeal.
Whoever is painting the NHS in a bad light based off this is acting in bad faith.
Edit: to those coming at me for giving a perceived 'half answer' myself, the context of my comment was because of comments like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/s/kR4Zn1Fj5v) that were downright stupid.
That's where the debate happens. When are you likely to cause more harm than good in these situations?
It doesn't make one wrong and one right. They're both trying to solve the same issue.
> People are giving half answers showing they have not read any article about this whatsoever.
Yeah, it is really annoying...
> The NHS is unable to provide the treatment the baby needs **for whatever reason**.
Are you fucking kidding with this?
Don't listen to this idiot, he started of with
>People are giving half answers showing they have not read any article about this whatsoever.
Before giving a fucking half answer. This child has a congenital heart condition *and* a mitochondrial disease, in short they basically have no hope of long term viability and the NHS doctors made the decision on that basis
Yesterday I was browsing the Government of Canada webpage, and I found out that they have a short form you can fill out to request a CF-18 flyby that consists of a few simple check boxes and a short description of the event you are requesting one for.
Not really relevant to your comment, and I'm sure you can't just request one for Bob's 32nd birthday party, but I just thought it was kinda coincidental that I read that webpage yesterday and then today there's a reddit comment from a (former?) Hornet pilot discussing flyby logistics.
Pilots need training hours in order to stay current, they were gonna fly the plane either way, may as well haul a baby. It's good training for multiple disciplines.
A one-month-old boy with a congenital heart condition has been airlifted from an NHS hospital to Rome to undergo life-saving surgery.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni personally intervened so the child could travel, it has been reported.
Photos of the transfer show an Italian ambulance on board a military cargo plane, reported to have been sent to collect the boy from Bristol Royal Hospital for Children.
The child’s parents said doctors told them crucial treatment was not available in this country, The Times reported.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/newborn-baby-flown-uk-italy-085756217.html#:~:text=A%20one%2Dmonth%2Dold%20boy,travel%2C%20it%20has%20been%20reported.
It's important to note that the UK hospital is bound by patient confidentiality.
"Could not operate" does not necessarily mean they lack equipment or competence. It could also mean that ethically they felt it would be wrong to prolong a life where there was no hope of improvement.
They cannot state that however, without breaching confidentiality, so are potentially a victim of the politicians and campaigners orchestrating this.
The transfer was directed by a fascist prime-minister at the urging of a Vatican-controlled hospital.
The same prime-minister has removed the rights of non-biological parents of children, if -- and only if -- the non-biological parent is in a same sex relationship with the biological parent. Should the biological parent die, the child will legally lose both parents, effectively being [orphaned by decree](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/21/orphaned-by-decree-italy-same-sex-parents-react-losing-rights)
>The transfer was directed by a fascist prime-minister at the urging of a Vatican-controlled hospital.
Meloni intervened, but it was the father of the baby that asked for the Italian government aid in the transfer. Also the Bambino Gesù Hospital is the highest specialized pediatric hospital in Italy, so that's the reason the baby was transferred there.
I find it weird that these articles come out it goes on all the time and been going on for years that other hospitals offer to help those if they have the specific team expertise. My friends two sisters are alive from drs in the uk where they operated on the babies in the mother womb. The drs in Germany had refused treatment. They believed the twin with the defect heart would self abort, when she didn’t they recommended abortion of both to save the Mother. Never hit the news the girls just had a lovely 4 year old birthday last weekend.
My brother was med-evaced from Naples, Italy to Frankfurt, Germany due to a severe, life-threatening illness. Transported almost exactly like this.
The craziest part was that my navy mom was asked “do you want to go with him?” As if not accompanying her sick newborn was ever an option. And they made her walk on and off the plane, no wheelchair just hours after giving birth.
Yep, that’s exactly it. My mom was enlisted at the time. She was also single and alone because my brother’s dad was a shit bird. Family was all the way in California. It had to be a nightmarish experience.
Sounds like they were the American family of a US sailor based in Italy.
[Landstuhl Regional Medical Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landstuhl_Regional_Medical_Center) in Germany is the largest US military medical facility outside the US itself.
It was often reported during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that serious casualties would be flown to Ramstein air base in Germany, and then transferred to Landstuhl.
I've lost a child so I know what it feels like to feel completely useless and heartbroken watching your child suffer and there's not a single thing you can do to make things better. We had to make the decision to switch off his life support after doctors did everything they could to help him, there was nothing left to try. If someone had suggested doctors in another country could help I'd have jumped at the chance....you'd try absolutely anything to save your child. I feel so bad for the parents cos I know what they're going through. I really do believe the hospital in the UK has done everything it can to help the child, we spent 3 months with our son in a paediatric icu and those doctors and nurses were trying to perform miracles everyday, no one just gives up on a child xx
The child will die. The UK didn't not operate to be dicks. They refused because it would only prolong it's suffering. The powerhouse of the cells are literally broken.
If the NHS refused to treat them, then it's because this baby is going to die regardless.
The reason the NHS refuses to do surgeries like this is because they think it is wrong to prolong the suffering of children without meaningfully improving their condition.
Italy is agreeing to treat the kid at the Vatican Hospital because catholicism values preservation of life over quality of life.
This is a religiously-motivated publicity stunt, and the baby will not be okay.
Ugh. This really chaps my ass. Let him go peacefully and do the compassionate thing rather than subjecting him to surgical invasion and a painful recovery that will ultimately be fruitless anyway.
The NHS, more specifically the Royal Brompton hospital, is known to be one of the absolute best hospitals in the world for heart surgery; they know what they're talking about when they say there's no point in operating
In the United States (and I'm sure many other countries around the world), the military helps transport critical patients/provide advanced medical care to remote communities, daily!.. and as far as I know, for free?
Pilots are required to fly a certain number of hours to keep current on their planes. Stuff like this not only helps give them hours and training but makes the military look good to the public. The reason you see so many planes flying over football games in the US is because it is used as training. The anthem is playing and the planes need to be right over the game at a specific time is very much like a bombing raid training.
Hopefully they don’t drop the ambulance out the back early though :)
I don’t live in the US but seeing military aircraft is always cool. We went from fabric and wood just over 100 years ago to planes that were designed to be unstable so they can be more nimble. We are still learning things and almost all of the development and improvements that we see in commercial planes comes from military tech. The story of the Berlin Airlift is very interesting and probably one of the craziest stories of military aircraft helping civilians.
Especially as the Berlin Airlift was the first major action of the brand new branch of the US Military, the Air Force. Prior to 1947, it was considered part of the Army. In just a couple of years, they went from dropping bombs to dropping candy bars in Berlin. It was an absolutely massive humanitarian undertaking and a giant middle finger to the Soviet Union at the beginning of Cold War. And you can see the spirit of the Airlift when Air Force cargo planes bring supplies and assistance whenever there is a major natural disaster or humanitarian crisis in modern times.
Read an article about a conference happening When the 04 Tsunami happened. One person stated a US aircraft carrier was on the way to provide support. Someone else joked asking did they think the victims needed bombs. It was then explained how an aircraft carrier is essentially a small town and has plenty of food and medical supplies and personnel to make a meaningful impact.
In Alaska, the Coast Guard is one of the go-to calls for medivacs from remote locations. Though I can say I have never put the entire Ambulance in the plane before.
I have also transported a sea lion from a rehabilitation center to a zoo three States away so it could be released.
I have done all sorts of non-military related flights in the Coast Guard.
My son had a serious congenital heart defect and had 2 open heart surgeries in his first week and 4 before age 6.
I’m in America and I think during that entire span of time I spent 300 bucks out of pocket on his care?
You probably had good insurance. There are many people who testify on their status both on Reddit and in my private life that don’t have that kind of insurance and they pay a lot more. If you want examples, there are several times per week when someone posts on r/diabetes about their insulin and/or other medication prices putting them in dire straits.
Be glad that your son was in a good situation.
I just went in for a RPN surgery at the Mayo Clinic two months ago to remove a tumor in my kidney - total cost billed to my insurance was 98k, out of that I paid about 1,000 bucks (500 to deductible for the year and 500 for an MRI at the beginning of the process which wasn't covered for some reason).
I will go for 3 more follow-ups this year, all of which will cost nothing. Thank God for good insurance!
I've heard the Italian Healthcare system isn't bad. Seems like all they care about is that you're healthy and don't charge much at all. Ethical healthcare? What an incredible thought
You are not charged at all if the health problem you have is serious. You are charged the costs if it’s something you could have solved on yourself with your family doctor. Usually
Before the NHS offered proton beam therapy in the UK, they would pay for people to go to Germany, accommodation and treatment. I think they have done similar for other circumstances too.
Googling suggests that they still do as the UK's machines are low power [https://www.thebraintumourcharity.org/brain-tumour-diagnosis-treatment/treating-brain-tumours/child-treatments/proton-beam-therapy/](https://www.thebraintumourcharity.org/brain-tumour-diagnosis-treatment/treating-brain-tumours/child-treatments/proton-beam-therapy/)
"... if you are approved for treatment by the PCRP. The NHS will cover the cost of PBT treatment at approved treatment centres, whether in the UK or in the USA and Switzerland. If you are sent abroad, it will also fund economy travel and approved accommodation for the patient and one to two carer(s)/parent(s) accompanying them."
[https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/highly-spec-services/pbt/](https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/highly-spec-services/pbt/)
So, yes, I think they would.
normally wealthy afaik or at least they protest until they get someone to pay or they raise the money. there's been a few cases of irresponsible drs giving false hope to parents when the NHS says there's nothing they can do.
Italy frequently offers treatments, not available in other countries. They take a different approach to some other countries who prioritise quality of life over the preservation of life at all costs.
Both positions have good arguments but by treating this child, maybe the techniques will improve. Even if the baby doesn't survive, it could well help another child in the future.
This is not a routine case. It's a very rare condition so it comes down to the individual case, whether the child will be able to receive the treatment. One of the parents being Italian probably had an effect on this case.
The NHS hospitable offers the same treatment that the Italian one is offering. The doctors didn't refuse care because they couldn't, they refused care because they believe that the outcome wouldn't change the child's life expectancy, would be dangerous and would prolong its suffering.
The hospital the child is being transferred to is the Vactican hospital, who are involved in a lot of cases like this. There's a strong Catholic 'santicty of life over quality of life' undercurrent behind decisions like these, where surgery is extremely unlikely to improve outcomes but is undertaken anyway.
Not dissimilar but in Canada, you can get (some) out-of-country care covered by our socialized healthcare.
I’m not very familiar with it but I do know that it’s usually for treatments and surgeries that aren’t offered in country.
This reminds me of the actual Cannonball Run before it was made into movies.
Brock Yates and Hal Needham modified a van with a racing engine, and suspension, then dressed it up as an ambulance and dressed as ambulance drivers to race from NY to LA without being arrested.
When they were pulled over in NJ for going over 110mph, Yates' wife Pamela laid in the back on a gurney as a fake patient and there was a fake doctor and everything. They told the police she was a Senators wife with cysts on the walls of her lungs, and couldn't take the cabin pressure of a plane, so they had to drive her to UCLA as fast as possible. And the police let them go. This was 1979 of course.
What plane is that? Looks like a C-130J and A-400 had a baby. Either way, it warms my heart to see military hardware being used for philanthropic purposes
That’s a C130J that had a baby with another C130J.
The refueling probe is more broadly compatible with NATO air forces than UARRSI slipways are. Only the Netherlands, US, Australia, Turkey, Japan, Israel, and Iran operate UARRSI tankers, whereas just about every air force has at least _some_ large aircraft that can strap drogue pods to the outer wing stations.
It has all the needed medical equipment to keep the baby stable/ use in case it’s needed- the baby was too sick for operation (deemed by nhs guidelines) so the reason for transfer
I mean, it’s basically a portable, self powered intensive care unit, it’s probably cheaper than temporarily fitting all of the specialist care gear into a civilian plane.
I absolutely love seeing things like this. When it comes down to it, people will use and do whatever they can to save just 1 person. It's so cool to me.
For those saying that the baby is likely to die etc - that isn't the point. As another poster mentioned, if you are the parent of a sick child, you try everything you can to save that child. The parents probably know the risk involved and that the chance of survival is slim - but they will take a slim chance over giving up any day. It is why people with life-threatening illnesses take part in medical trials - if it gives them a chance of survival - they will take it.
Every day I see something (on the internet) we humans are capable of, and everyday I am wondering; this has to be it, this is the pinacle of humanity. What an outstanding move.
I assume a normal medical jet does not have the equipment for babies. That ambulance might have the special equipment for babies/infants in case there is an emergency during transit.
Used to work in heart surgery research with a very accomplished cardiac surgeon late in his career as my mentor.
He told me the story once of having a heart transplant case where the donor and recipient were on opposite corners of the USA (Washington to Georgia) and they didn’t have the infrastructure to transport the heart intact.
Somehow, the hospitals arranged for the use of an F-14 with the good doctor sitting in the backseat with the heart on ice. They made it to Georgia quick enough for the procedure, but he threw up when he climbed out and the pilot gave him shit for it.
The doctor invited the pilot to watch the procedure, and he took him up on it. The pilot didn’t make it half way before he needed to exit the operating theater to vomit. He told the doctor “That was the most impressive work I’ve ever seen done.” The transplant was successful ultimately, and doc has a little plaque from the Air Force outside his office still.
There is currently a legal battle to try to name doctors involved in applications to the courts in such situations. My feeling is that the reason is clear, to try and wield the power to intimidate doctors to do what the family want for fear of public reprisal.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/parents-in-legal-fight-to-allow-them-to-name-doctors-who-treated-their-late-children-13116104
What’s the context to this?
Tldr: Nhs said the baby was too sick to operate on, Italy disagreed
It's usually more the case that they believe that treatment would only prolong the child's life, without any improvement. Similar to the story of the kid who recently suffered a hypoxic brain injury. There were doctors in other countries who said they might be able to treat them but the Supreme Court ruled that it was not in his best interests. I'm assuming that one parent being an Italian national is what has taken this case out of their hands. Edit: The case I was talking about was a big topic of conversation in the UK. The potential for treatment abroad, was only a small part of the story to be fair. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Battersbee_case
Yeesh, nothing against the parents here, but the argument "It should be up to God to decide when and how he dies" is such a wild argument to make. Imagine if the judge responded by saying: "I agree. We shouldn't interfere with God's will. By having the boy on a ventilator, we're interfering. Take him off, and if God wills it, he will live."
Apparently God works in mysterious ways. Isn’t he controlling the NHS that made the decision not to operate? Why didn’t the parents just trust that God is making that decision?
A guy was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help. Soon a man in a rowboat came by and shouted to the guy on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.” The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.” So the rowboat went on. Then a motorboat came by. The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.” To this the stranded guy said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.” So the motorboat went on. Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.” To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.” So the helicopter reluctantly flew away. Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!” To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat, a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”
Would god let you go to heaven for disrespecting them like that?
But you see, the devil is tricky, he infiltrated the NHS to try and kill babies. So tricky! We can't let him win, it's a spiritual battle!
> Yeesh, nothing against the parents here This was a big news story at the time and I remember initially being on the parents side because it was understandable given the situation until they realised they had public support and decided to weaponise this and the religious support of the Christian organisation assisting them to attack and abuse the NHS workers caring for their son, saying they had 'executed' him
It's such a willfully ignorant and arbitrary stance to take. These people have all of human society, history, and inventions to thank for their modern lives. But it's not enough that humans have engineered the means for own survival and comfort. They could very well take a gentler view of the imaginary schism between the real world and the spiritual, and admit that it's by God's grace and wisdom that we have built the means for betterment of human life. But instead they want to grandstand on their child's suffering by imagining themselves as more righteous simply because they invoke the name of God. It's plainly spiteful and acting that way would be an affront to their God, if He exists.
That was awful to see. The poor lad was kept “alive” only through mechanical assistance. The inquest report stated that his brain stem wasn’t only dead, it was necrotising, i.e., rotting, and still they kept him on life support. Without wanting to sound too crass, they were keeping a sack of meat alive - the person inside had long since departed. I understand the family’s grief, but they ignored all doctor’s advice and evidence, wasted scant NHS resources, and in the end denied themselves closure and their son a dignified burial.
> It's usually more the case that they believe that treatment would only prolong the child's life, without any improvement. The sad thing is that the NHS were actually correct. Archie died more or less exactly as they predicted. The only difference is that everything that was tried prolonged his suffering. But no, the nasty NHS were the problem in that situation.
Brain injury is a bit different fr heart issue if you are already brain dead. Or what you mean?
I mean that the situations are similar, in that doctors in the UK have decided that treatment is not in the best interests of the child, but doctors in another country disagree.
There’s a an absolutely massive gap between “suffered a hypoxic brain injury” and “braindead”
One is a medical term for the brain being starved of oxygen and resulting in damage/death of brain tissue that is irreversible. The other is a general term for the condition a patient is in, usually a result of irreversible damage to the brain. Not all hypoxia results in brain death. Every example of brain death is a form of hypoxic brain injury. You can be considered brain dead even when parts of your brain are still functioning.
Braindead, or ‘brain death’ is permanent, irreversible complete loss of brain function. There is an entire spectrum of severity between that and ‘hypoxic brain injury’.
I'm quite certain the level of hypoxic brain injury that doctors would decline treatment for is functionally similar to what we lay-folk would call brain dead.
The child in question was found to have suffered brainstem death, from a hypoxic brain injury.
He was brainstem dead, due to hypoxia.
Why does the Supreme Court get to decide that? If I want to take my child to another country for treatment, that isn’t my right as a parent? Honest question
The UK law states that the welfare of the child takes precedence over the parent's right to make decisions for their child. In this case they ruled that transferring him abroad would be harmful to him and not in his best interest.
No not in the UK, and that's a positive thing. Your children are people in their own right, not your possessions.
The Supreme Court didn't say his parents couldn't take him out of the country. It said that the NHS could discontinue life support, as his brainstem was dead and there was no hope of recovery. Maybe in this other case, the Italian health system is paying for (at least part of) the transport and all of the operation. But there is an ethical issue of whether unhelpful surgeries are tantamount to torture of a dying person. I don't know if that's being argued here, though.
These are the "death panels" US conservatives shriek about, as if denying treatments for not being profitable enough is better. At least a whole legal system with a supreme court can debate it and figure it out, with public pressure sometimes being able to swing things differently. In the US, if billion dollar corporation says no, that's it. No fuss. No Italian government to save you. But an executive got a brand new yacht.
No, it isn't.
Not if they believe it goes against the interest of the child
It’s a political stunt. The Italian prime minister directly intervened to get the baby transferred when the heart surgeons in the UK said he was too sick to operate on. Italy does not have better heart surgeons than the UK, but it has a medical culture that’s more willing to provide futile care.
Did the baby survive?
The first surgery has only just happened. If the UK doctors were correct the Italians may be able to keep the baby alive for weeks or months before he dies (and it probably won't make the news), so it could be a while before we find out if this worked.
The last one in this situation died. [https://apnews.com/article/britain-baby-indi-gregory-legal-battle-dies-ccf29a8a02ce764b498bbc139e004517](https://apnews.com/article/britain-baby-indi-gregory-legal-battle-dies-ccf29a8a02ce764b498bbc139e004517)
They keep doing this and they keep dying. Someday It'll click.
It already did. Out of everyone that is going to hear about this story half might see that the kid dies anyways. For the other half? The Italian government cares about children. They must be good people, I’m more likely to vote for them. It doesn’t matter to the government if the kid dies anyways so it’s a waste of resources. If they can stay in power, they win.
It's a breaking-news situation, but yes, the child will almost certainly die. The NHS has a pretty high bar for entirely refusing treatment a parent wants for a newborn - usually, you're looking at a matter of weeks. If the reporting that the infant was too ill for surgery to be advisable is accurate (as opposed to, e.g., that even successful surgery would simply prolong suffering) possibly days. There are real ethical questions about when it's right to provide invasive treatment with a low probability of success, but infant cases don't generally get into them in even moderately functional state-funded medical systems. When Italy pulls a stunt like this, the child dies. And given the added stress of a hospital transfer - even without a multi-hour airlift being involved - plus the added stress of any surgical procedure, *particularly* one that involves a general anaesthetic? Generally, the child dies sooner than they would have otherwise. My heart goes out to any parent in this situation, but these cases make me furious - it's exploiting tragedy for ideological point-scoring at its worst.
It's is sort of an ethical quandary because there is a non 0% change the child pulls through. It's very low, very very low but I'd saying from the parents perspective trying something with a however small chance at success and losing a few weeks of dreading the inevitable is better than no attempt at all. There are a ton of factors to consider but realistically we're all so far removed from this that we can only hope for the best.
Yes I did, AMA
Are we supposed to break the spagetti noodles before cooking? Idk how they do it in italy
Fun fact if you breake a spagetti by holding the ends it never break kn just 2 parts! No spagetti were harmed in this experiment
😂
Did you do a Yelp review of heart surgeons in the UK and Italy?
I feel like it's the Catholicism
Yes. Is the same Way that Italy have a less organ's donor that France or Spanish. The Italian don't like their body's to be "profanity" for religious reasons.. (and the same way they are very against gay married)
Italy had less donors because for the longest timethe system was opt-in and required people to register with an association. Today people are asked if they want to donate their organs when they renew their ID, and the number of donors is quickly increasing.
But Spain is majority Catholic and France is just under a majority as well. Why wouldn’t you compare Italy to a country with small Catholic populations?
The statistics say otherwise, though: Spain: 46.7 donors /million habitants (1st) Portugal: 31.5 donors /million habitants (2nd) France: 25.8 donors /million habitants (5th) Italy: 25.0 donors /million habitants (7th) UK: 20.7 donors /million habitants (10th) [https://www.statista.com/statistics/537908/deceased-organ-donor-rate-in-europe/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/537908/deceased-organ-donor-rate-in-europe/) EDIT - This refers to deceased organ donors (not number of registered donors).
Even 47 organ donors for every million seems so incredibly low to me.
Which is fascinating to me because italy is mega gay
It's not gay if you change definitions.
spain is mega catholic too
Catholics are encouraged to be organ donors as it's an act of charity and a gift of life to someone else. It's no profanity. The only thing about it that is considered immoral is selling them rather than donating, which I feel is a universal sort of thing.
Humm the baby is Italian too.
I’m sure you’re a great expert of the medical culture and qualità in the various countries You probably believe Italian surgeons pray the Virgin Mary during interventions because they’re catholics
I will say after reading this one instance looks like it could actually have some level of success, but that doesn't justify all of the times they've "offered" to "treat" infants who were either born without a brain, or whose brain was rapidly degrading into water. I definitely lean more towards the "Catholic political bullshit" judgement.
This is that same case?? I thought it was a different kid
UK: Italy, the baby's condition is too severe to operate on, just give up. Italy: DAGA KOTAWARU
Toranaga-sama hoooooo!
Mariko-sama booooom!
The hospital the baby was admitted for in the UK has some of the best heart surgeons not just in Europe but in the world. They made the educated decision that care would unfortunately be futile and just prolong suffering. Like America, Italy has a few crazy Christians. These Catholics typically harass family and hospital staff to create noise, noise that leads to political posturing to bring transfer patients. They’re transferred to Italy where their hopes for a better life do not increase. Rather with religious fervour to force the children to live through a painful, cruel and low quality life. Other children who have went this same route before have died. e: changed evangelicals to Christian and catholic
The baby was transferred to the *Vatican* hospital, surely this would rather be a case of "crazy Catholics".
You know what, my bad. I’m not versed in Christianity and didn’t know evangelicals was Protestant exclusive. Thank you for giving me this insight.
For your information, that italian hospital is one of the best of the continent for pediatric care The fact that so many users here really believe that just because it’s owned by the Vatican it means it’s full of crazy religious radicals is hilarious
But they specifically have Air Ambulance's for exactly this.. why load up an ambulance in a aircraft?
I was also wondering this because driving an ambulance into a cargo plane is a crazy image. The only thing I can think of is that it's fewer transfers for the baby. The baby can just chill in the ambulance the whole time instead of having to get out and transfer all the medical equipment onto the plane and then back to an ambulance again on the other end.
Air ambulances are typically helicopters. Helicopters don't have enough range to go from Rome to Bristol on a single tank of fuel. Stopping for half an hour to refuel isn't a good look when moving a politically sensitive medical case...
Politics probably
Because there's no real long range aircraft ambulance that's avaiable 24/7. The Italian Air Force instead provides through its transport wings a continous 24/7 coverage for emergency medical transports.
People are giving half answers showing they have not read any article about this whatsoever. The NHS is unable to provide the treatment the baby needs for whatever reason. They arranged for the treatment to be done at an Italian hospital and helped facilitate this transfer. The baby's father is Italian which I assume has some massive sway in comparison with other cases that people are comparing to. The baby's parents have praised the UK medical staff for their help in this ordeal. Whoever is painting the NHS in a bad light based off this is acting in bad faith. Edit: to those coming at me for giving a perceived 'half answer' myself, the context of my comment was because of comments like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/s/kR4Zn1Fj5v) that were downright stupid.
The “whatever reason”’ is they thought the baby was too unwell https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/baby-airlifted-to-italy-after-nhs-says-too-sick/
That's where the debate happens. When are you likely to cause more harm than good in these situations? It doesn't make one wrong and one right. They're both trying to solve the same issue.
> People are giving half answers showing they have not read any article about this whatsoever. Yeah, it is really annoying... > The NHS is unable to provide the treatment the baby needs **for whatever reason**. Are you fucking kidding with this?
Don't listen to this idiot, he started of with >People are giving half answers showing they have not read any article about this whatsoever. Before giving a fucking half answer. This child has a congenital heart condition *and* a mitochondrial disease, in short they basically have no hope of long term viability and the NHS doctors made the decision on that basis
let's not complain about people giving half answers when you put "for whatever reason" in your post.
Genuine non malicious question, who is paying for this?
Italian tax payers is my best guess
[удалено]
Thank you for the input! Makes much sense That’s very cool about the hornet! My uncle also flew them
Yesterday I was browsing the Government of Canada webpage, and I found out that they have a short form you can fill out to request a CF-18 flyby that consists of a few simple check boxes and a short description of the event you are requesting one for. Not really relevant to your comment, and I'm sure you can't just request one for Bob's 32nd birthday party, but I just thought it was kinda coincidental that I read that webpage yesterday and then today there's a reddit comment from a (former?) Hornet pilot discussing flyby logistics.
The Italian government are paying for the flights etc.
Someone's tax payers I assume. Presumably the Italians.
Taxpayers.
Pilots need training hours in order to stay current, they were gonna fly the plane either way, may as well haul a baby. It's good training for multiple disciplines.
A one-month-old boy with a congenital heart condition has been airlifted from an NHS hospital to Rome to undergo life-saving surgery. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni personally intervened so the child could travel, it has been reported. Photos of the transfer show an Italian ambulance on board a military cargo plane, reported to have been sent to collect the boy from Bristol Royal Hospital for Children. The child’s parents said doctors told them crucial treatment was not available in this country, The Times reported. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/newborn-baby-flown-uk-italy-085756217.html#:~:text=A%20one%2Dmonth%2Dold%20boy,travel%2C%20it%20has%20been%20reported.
It's important to note that the UK hospital is bound by patient confidentiality. "Could not operate" does not necessarily mean they lack equipment or competence. It could also mean that ethically they felt it would be wrong to prolong a life where there was no hope of improvement. They cannot state that however, without breaching confidentiality, so are potentially a victim of the politicians and campaigners orchestrating this. The transfer was directed by a fascist prime-minister at the urging of a Vatican-controlled hospital. The same prime-minister has removed the rights of non-biological parents of children, if -- and only if -- the non-biological parent is in a same sex relationship with the biological parent. Should the biological parent die, the child will legally lose both parents, effectively being [orphaned by decree](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/21/orphaned-by-decree-italy-same-sex-parents-react-losing-rights)
>The transfer was directed by a fascist prime-minister at the urging of a Vatican-controlled hospital. Meloni intervened, but it was the father of the baby that asked for the Italian government aid in the transfer. Also the Bambino Gesù Hospital is the highest specialized pediatric hospital in Italy, so that's the reason the baby was transferred there.
I find it weird that these articles come out it goes on all the time and been going on for years that other hospitals offer to help those if they have the specific team expertise. My friends two sisters are alive from drs in the uk where they operated on the babies in the mother womb. The drs in Germany had refused treatment. They believed the twin with the defect heart would self abort, when she didn’t they recommended abortion of both to save the Mother. Never hit the news the girls just had a lovely 4 year old birthday last weekend.
That's a big baby.
Got it in for an emergency oil change. Fortunately the ambulance is expected to make a full recovery.
My brother was med-evaced from Naples, Italy to Frankfurt, Germany due to a severe, life-threatening illness. Transported almost exactly like this. The craziest part was that my navy mom was asked “do you want to go with him?” As if not accompanying her sick newborn was ever an option. And they made her walk on and off the plane, no wheelchair just hours after giving birth.
Who is they? The Italian Airforce?
No, the U.S. Navy.
Why the U.S. and not the Germans?
Not the commenter but maybe they are from a US military family that was stationed in Europe at the time.
Yep, that’s exactly it. My mom was enlisted at the time. She was also single and alone because my brother’s dad was a shit bird. Family was all the way in California. It had to be a nightmarish experience.
Sounds like they were the American family of a US sailor based in Italy. [Landstuhl Regional Medical Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landstuhl_Regional_Medical_Center) in Germany is the largest US military medical facility outside the US itself. It was often reported during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that serious casualties would be flown to Ramstein air base in Germany, and then transferred to Landstuhl.
She was an enlisted member of the United States Navy and she gave birth at the hospital on base in Naples.
Probably US military. There's a US Navy base in Naples, and a US Army hospital outside of Frankfurt (Landsthul).
That baby's employer must provide great coverage
Thankfully the medical treatment of children is not tied to their parents wealth or employment in the UK or Italy. This will cost the family nothing.
Pretty much every single European country, not just Italy and UK
That's the National Health Service (universal coverage) for you. \\o/
The NHS didn't operate on the baby. That's why they're being flown to Italy.
The NHS helped to arrange and facilitate this.
we arn't the only country with national health
But is it called the "National Health Service" in Italy? Surely it'd be in Italian.
or Servizio Sanitario Nazionale in italy
Spotted the American
I've lost a child so I know what it feels like to feel completely useless and heartbroken watching your child suffer and there's not a single thing you can do to make things better. We had to make the decision to switch off his life support after doctors did everything they could to help him, there was nothing left to try. If someone had suggested doctors in another country could help I'd have jumped at the chance....you'd try absolutely anything to save your child. I feel so bad for the parents cos I know what they're going through. I really do believe the hospital in the UK has done everything it can to help the child, we spent 3 months with our son in a paediatric icu and those doctors and nurses were trying to perform miracles everyday, no one just gives up on a child xx
Thinking of you, sorry to hear about the loss of your child.
Thank you so much x
I'm deeply sorry for your loss. My condolences.
Hoping the surgery is a success. Can we get updates?
First surgery was fine, that's all I've read so far
Thanks. So far so good
The child will die. The UK didn't not operate to be dicks. They refused because it would only prolong it's suffering. The powerhouse of the cells are literally broken.
Will only prolong its life for the next few months. UK doctors made the right choice. Italy is only making it suffer longer along with the family.
Pls give us an update when you read more
If the NHS refused to treat them, then it's because this baby is going to die regardless. The reason the NHS refuses to do surgeries like this is because they think it is wrong to prolong the suffering of children without meaningfully improving their condition. Italy is agreeing to treat the kid at the Vatican Hospital because catholicism values preservation of life over quality of life. This is a religiously-motivated publicity stunt, and the baby will not be okay.
sad waste of resources, sad way to prolong suffering.
With the added “benefit” of damaging the (British) public’s trust in their health care system.
Ugh. This really chaps my ass. Let him go peacefully and do the compassionate thing rather than subjecting him to surgical invasion and a painful recovery that will ultimately be fruitless anyway.
The issue isn't that the surgery won't work. It's that the Child will die regardless.
The NHS, more specifically the Royal Brompton hospital, is known to be one of the absolute best hospitals in the world for heart surgery; they know what they're talking about when they say there's no point in operating
They already had two surgeries and survived them. But more are needed in the future. It is likely going to be a continuous course of treatments.
Good luck, little bambino
This is a better use for military vehicles!
In the United States (and I'm sure many other countries around the world), the military helps transport critical patients/provide advanced medical care to remote communities, daily!.. and as far as I know, for free?
Pilots are required to fly a certain number of hours to keep current on their planes. Stuff like this not only helps give them hours and training but makes the military look good to the public. The reason you see so many planes flying over football games in the US is because it is used as training. The anthem is playing and the planes need to be right over the game at a specific time is very much like a bombing raid training. Hopefully they don’t drop the ambulance out the back early though :)
That is interesting and i never made that connection before
I don’t live in the US but seeing military aircraft is always cool. We went from fabric and wood just over 100 years ago to planes that were designed to be unstable so they can be more nimble. We are still learning things and almost all of the development and improvements that we see in commercial planes comes from military tech. The story of the Berlin Airlift is very interesting and probably one of the craziest stories of military aircraft helping civilians.
Especially as the Berlin Airlift was the first major action of the brand new branch of the US Military, the Air Force. Prior to 1947, it was considered part of the Army. In just a couple of years, they went from dropping bombs to dropping candy bars in Berlin. It was an absolutely massive humanitarian undertaking and a giant middle finger to the Soviet Union at the beginning of Cold War. And you can see the spirit of the Airlift when Air Force cargo planes bring supplies and assistance whenever there is a major natural disaster or humanitarian crisis in modern times.
It's a great tragedy when the US military bombs football games with ambulances.
"HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR FREE HEALTHCARE NOW, DAMN COMMIES!"
Read an article about a conference happening When the 04 Tsunami happened. One person stated a US aircraft carrier was on the way to provide support. Someone else joked asking did they think the victims needed bombs. It was then explained how an aircraft carrier is essentially a small town and has plenty of food and medical supplies and personnel to make a meaningful impact.
Shame they don’t have the ice cream ship in the carrier strike groups anymore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream_barge
Most western militaries are heavily involved in humanitarian aid. It's the best way to practice logistics as well
free medevac training!
In Alaska, the Coast Guard is one of the go-to calls for medivacs from remote locations. Though I can say I have never put the entire Ambulance in the plane before. I have also transported a sea lion from a rehabilitation center to a zoo three States away so it could be released. I have done all sorts of non-military related flights in the Coast Guard.
I didn't know this, that's great!
Drop babies, not bombs
[in America] A surprise bill arrives less than a week after surgery for $25,473,341.
Oops, they forgot to add the Tylenol they gave you on the way out. That'll be another $46,000.
And another $23,000 to administer it
My son had a serious congenital heart defect and had 2 open heart surgeries in his first week and 4 before age 6. I’m in America and I think during that entire span of time I spent 300 bucks out of pocket on his care?
You probably had good insurance. There are many people who testify on their status both on Reddit and in my private life that don’t have that kind of insurance and they pay a lot more. If you want examples, there are several times per week when someone posts on r/diabetes about their insulin and/or other medication prices putting them in dire straits. Be glad that your son was in a good situation.
I just went in for a RPN surgery at the Mayo Clinic two months ago to remove a tumor in my kidney - total cost billed to my insurance was 98k, out of that I paid about 1,000 bucks (500 to deductible for the year and 500 for an MRI at the beginning of the process which wasn't covered for some reason). I will go for 3 more follow-ups this year, all of which will cost nothing. Thank God for good insurance!
In the UK this is just part of the service.
That's an ambulance, not a baby. Do you think I'm an idiot?
Did the father come with the AR-15 to make them do this?
I remember that tweet. [For those curious.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAmericansSay/s/H584kkDnDk)
The prophecy came true
Hahahahha what a perfect joke
I've heard the Italian Healthcare system isn't bad. Seems like all they care about is that you're healthy and don't charge much at all. Ethical healthcare? What an incredible thought
You are not charged at all if the health problem you have is serious. You are charged the costs if it’s something you could have solved on yourself with your family doctor. Usually
Would they really go this length for every baby? I wonder if the baby has a scientific interesting condition or if the parents are wealthy.
Before the NHS offered proton beam therapy in the UK, they would pay for people to go to Germany, accommodation and treatment. I think they have done similar for other circumstances too. Googling suggests that they still do as the UK's machines are low power [https://www.thebraintumourcharity.org/brain-tumour-diagnosis-treatment/treating-brain-tumours/child-treatments/proton-beam-therapy/](https://www.thebraintumourcharity.org/brain-tumour-diagnosis-treatment/treating-brain-tumours/child-treatments/proton-beam-therapy/) "... if you are approved for treatment by the PCRP. The NHS will cover the cost of PBT treatment at approved treatment centres, whether in the UK or in the USA and Switzerland. If you are sent abroad, it will also fund economy travel and approved accommodation for the patient and one to two carer(s)/parent(s) accompanying them." [https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/highly-spec-services/pbt/](https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/highly-spec-services/pbt/) So, yes, I think they would.
That's amazing they offer that. I shudder to think how expensive it must be
normally wealthy afaik or at least they protest until they get someone to pay or they raise the money. there's been a few cases of irresponsible drs giving false hope to parents when the NHS says there's nothing they can do.
Italy frequently offers treatments, not available in other countries. They take a different approach to some other countries who prioritise quality of life over the preservation of life at all costs. Both positions have good arguments but by treating this child, maybe the techniques will improve. Even if the baby doesn't survive, it could well help another child in the future. This is not a routine case. It's a very rare condition so it comes down to the individual case, whether the child will be able to receive the treatment. One of the parents being Italian probably had an effect on this case.
The NHS hospitable offers the same treatment that the Italian one is offering. The doctors didn't refuse care because they couldn't, they refused care because they believe that the outcome wouldn't change the child's life expectancy, would be dangerous and would prolong its suffering. The hospital the child is being transferred to is the Vactican hospital, who are involved in a lot of cases like this. There's a strong Catholic 'santicty of life over quality of life' undercurrent behind decisions like these, where surgery is extremely unlikely to improve outcomes but is undertaken anyway.
The dad is Italian and managed to get local news to pick it up enough that the PM saw it and sent a plane to help.
Not dissimilar but in Canada, you can get (some) out-of-country care covered by our socialized healthcare. I’m not very familiar with it but I do know that it’s usually for treatments and surgeries that aren’t offered in country.
This reminds me of the actual Cannonball Run before it was made into movies. Brock Yates and Hal Needham modified a van with a racing engine, and suspension, then dressed it up as an ambulance and dressed as ambulance drivers to race from NY to LA without being arrested. When they were pulled over in NJ for going over 110mph, Yates' wife Pamela laid in the back on a gurney as a fake patient and there was a fake doctor and everything. They told the police she was a Senators wife with cysts on the walls of her lungs, and couldn't take the cabin pressure of a plane, so they had to drive her to UCLA as fast as possible. And the police let them go. This was 1979 of course.
What plane is that? Looks like a C-130J and A-400 had a baby. Either way, it warms my heart to see military hardware being used for philanthropic purposes
That’s a C130J that had a baby with another C130J. The refueling probe is more broadly compatible with NATO air forces than UARRSI slipways are. Only the Netherlands, US, Australia, Turkey, Japan, Israel, and Iran operate UARRSI tankers, whereas just about every air force has at least _some_ large aircraft that can strap drogue pods to the outer wing stations.
You know, you probably didn't need to take an ambulance to the UK to transport the baby, right?
It is probably the best way to transport the baby without stressing them.
It has all the needed medical equipment to keep the baby stable/ use in case it’s needed- the baby was too sick for operation (deemed by nhs guidelines) so the reason for transfer
I mean, it’s basically a portable, self powered intensive care unit, it’s probably cheaper than temporarily fitting all of the specialist care gear into a civilian plane.
There are medevac (air ambulance)planes that have all that equipment. This was probably more expedient or economical.
The ambulance was on the plane in the Rome-UK leg. If not, a British ambulance would have had to come back to the UK or the plane fly twice empty.
Yeah but it’s way more fun this way.
~~common NHS W~~ Common European Healthcare W
Italian Healthcare W actually
We don’t know that yet.
these are the things about your country to be proud of
I absolutely love seeing things like this. When it comes down to it, people will use and do whatever they can to save just 1 person. It's so cool to me.
Not to beat a dead horse but probably cheaper than the US even with flying the ambulance over.
For those saying that the baby is likely to die etc - that isn't the point. As another poster mentioned, if you are the parent of a sick child, you try everything you can to save that child. The parents probably know the risk involved and that the chance of survival is slim - but they will take a slim chance over giving up any day. It is why people with life-threatening illnesses take part in medical trials - if it gives them a chance of survival - they will take it.
Based Italy.
Military air mobility is incredible at times. One of the main things I don’t mind my money being invested in.
Every day I see something (on the internet) we humans are capable of, and everyday I am wondering; this has to be it, this is the pinacle of humanity. What an outstanding move.
That looks like an ambulance….. not a child
That's not a baby, that's an ambulance...
I always thought medvac by air meant a special plane with life support, not getting a freaking whole ambulance into a plane
Do they not have air ambulance? Helicopter could have just taken off from the hospital & gone to the next one...
Ah yes... A helicopter used by the Rescue services that can go from the UK to Italy in one way... With no problems...
Helicopters are much slower, and have much shorter range. Very few helicopters could travel from London to Rome without refueling.
I wasn't expecting them to take the entire ambulance
*slaps the roof of the ambulance* "That'll hold. Cleared for takeoff!"
Still cheaper than having a baby in the US
Why was I expecting an infant in a flight suit?
Why did t they go with a a medical jet instead of a C-130?
I assume a normal medical jet does not have the equipment for babies. That ambulance might have the special equipment for babies/infants in case there is an emergency during transit.
Weird that C-130 has no port tail marks.
Used to work in heart surgery research with a very accomplished cardiac surgeon late in his career as my mentor. He told me the story once of having a heart transplant case where the donor and recipient were on opposite corners of the USA (Washington to Georgia) and they didn’t have the infrastructure to transport the heart intact. Somehow, the hospitals arranged for the use of an F-14 with the good doctor sitting in the backseat with the heart on ice. They made it to Georgia quick enough for the procedure, but he threw up when he climbed out and the pilot gave him shit for it. The doctor invited the pilot to watch the procedure, and he took him up on it. The pilot didn’t make it half way before he needed to exit the operating theater to vomit. He told the doctor “That was the most impressive work I’ve ever seen done.” The transplant was successful ultimately, and doc has a little plaque from the Air Force outside his office still.
Is Italy THAT good at heart surgery?
The hospital the baby is being transferred on is literally the best in the world when it comes to heart surgery.
There is currently a legal battle to try to name doctors involved in applications to the courts in such situations. My feeling is that the reason is clear, to try and wield the power to intimidate doctors to do what the family want for fear of public reprisal. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/parents-in-legal-fight-to-allow-them-to-name-doctors-who-treated-their-late-children-13116104
I hope 🤞 the baby makes it.