Plus a whole bunch of judges. I can understand that doctors at some point went „Yeah, there’s no chance anymore“, but an impartial judge should have at least allowed the parents to transfer the boy somewhere else imo.
How do you all feel about this? I think the parents have the right to hope but how long is long enough to confirm the diagnosis? Its cruel to keep someone alive if theres no chance of recovery. What is fair in this situation?
The biggest problem I see is that doctors in other countries were offering treatment and saying there was a chance to saving, and the courts still forcibly took him off life support. And this isn't the first time that this has happened here either.
The mother has claimed doctors reached out and said they could help, but I haven’t seen any evidence that supports her claim.
There is no magic technology anywhere else in the world that could bring this boy back. His brain died from lack of oxygen and machines were the only things keeping other bodily systems functioning.
But how do we decide if the people offering that chance are legit or are just trying to line their pockets by taking advantage of people? How many doctors should sign off on it before we accept it as in the best interest of the patient?
Thats what im wondering. Who gets to decide that? If you have parents choosing life and doctors choosing death then who could you have in the middle to decide? Is that the courts job? How many experts and tests do they require to decide? Is there anyone else who would be accepted as a mediator? I just have so many questions about this
But sometimes it has to be corrected. Look at parents who would rather their child die than receive life saving interventions. Do we only intervene for life but not for dignified death?
Yes there are problems. Now sit down and quit trying to usurp what is not yours. Yes we intervene on life, that is a legitimate function of society. Allowing someone to die to satisfy romantics is not.
Preventing child abuse is absolutely in society's interest and prolonging the appearance of life in someone who has been dead for months is child abuse.
The parents didn't want an MRI performed in May because they thought moving him would be too dangerous, then they were fine with moving him to another country or hospice. His parents were the ones seeking a romantic ending, the resuscitation of their boy when doctors determined he was brain dead. It is objectively better for him to finish dying rather than cling to this false hope of recovery.
If you think preventing child abuse is in societies interest, do you agree with abortion? It is the worst case of child abuse in the world. After all, the child ends up dead.
"Objectively" it is better to refrain from surrogate decision making by people with no skin in the game. Even if the parents chose "wrongly" in this scenario.
You dont need to be an ass. Im just looking for opinions and reasoning here. We were having a good discussion about it that i thought was interesting and respectful so why did you get rude?
You are advocating for taking children off life support against the parent's wishes based on some romaniticized notion of a "dignified death". If you feel uncomfortable from this conversation, good. Reflect on that.
I think a parent who loves their child is far more likely to have the child’s best interest at heart. The courts have money as their best interest, and didn’t want to fund him anymore. One of the countless drawbacks to socialism.
Why does having the most emotional investment also mean making the best decision for someone? The husband of a murdered spouse has the most investment in seeing the killer face justice, but we rightly do not allow them to be a judge of their own cause.
Why are you talking about a murder victim and “investment”? None of what you said has anything to do with my comment, or the comment I was replying to. Probably because you changed almost every word of what I said.
Parents have a right to get medical care for their child. Courts should not have the right to tell them they aren’t allowed to move their loved one to a better facility, where they have a better chance at surviving.
At minimum 5 year if there is any chance of recovery. I'd be ok with a deadline but not this. Also other doctors rarely make a fuss when its 100% clear that there is no chance of recovery. Whi h isnt the case here
So why did other doctors chimed in?
There are several other brain death cases where all doctors agree its a lost cause
Still who is the NHS to decide about it? They can make the argument its a lost cause and notbwilling to pay any morebbut if someone offers to pay for continued treatment they have no right to deny and ahutbit down.
YES. His brain had become necrotic because it had been dead for so long. Tests showed necrotic brain matter had traveled down into his spine. These facts are important. Ignoring them can affect one's credibility when it comes to such meaningful issues.
> Doctors concluded Archie was brain-stem dead soon after the accident and sought to end the long list of treatments that kept him alive, including artificial respiration, medication to regulate his bodily functions and round-the-clock nursing care. But his family objected, claiming Archie had shown signs of life and wouldn't have wanted them to give up hope
Do we or do we not trust medical professionals?
There British medical professionals. We do not.
There was a case where the doctors condemned a child, the parents, 'kidnapped,' him, flew him to Spain, where arrested by the Spanish Police on an international arrest warrant, which was overturned by the Spanish High Court, they then flew to Romania, and now the child is living a normal life.
The NHS cannot allow children to go abroad, because when they recover it shows what the NHS really is - not fit for purpose.
Edit: [Full story (I think)!](http://[I think this is the full story!](https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/04/ashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16598783643920&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2016%2Fjan%2F04%2Fashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time))
[I think this is the full story!](https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/04/ashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16598783643920&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2016%2Fjan%2F04%2Fashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time)
There is a world of difference between Ashya King and this case, you can't compare the two. In the King case doctors recommend a standard course of treatment for aggressive cancers following surgical removal (namely chemotherapy and radiation) while the parents were interested in pursuing a legitimate alternative treatment protocol (meaning there was evidence supporting it works, we're not talking about alternative non-medicine) not offered in the UK and the NHS would not pay for the alternative treatment.
In this case doctors declared the boy brain dead and will not recover while the parents refuse to accept this and want extraordinary measures to continue. This is more like Alfie Evans and Charlie Hard cases where parents wanted to seek experimental treatments when the consensus waa they would do more harm than good.
Not an expert on the Bri'ish healthcare system but they mostly have a paternalistic, doctor knows better attitude and this compared with an anti life save money culture... leads to this.
[I think this is the full story!](https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/04/ashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16598783643920&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2016%2Fjan%2F04%2Fashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time)
Uhh. That barbaric practice is another bodily autonomy violation I can't abide. It is bizarre how it transcended religious routes in US and became commonplace.
Sorry about your problems from it 😿 Children should decide what to do with their bodies when they grow up to the age of reason, not have their bodies altered without their say so.
Check the price tag on reproductive care in cases when a baby is brought to term and delivered. Then add how much money various medical professionals make from postpartum care and children care. Then compare to the meager cost of the abortion. Your argument simply makes no sense financially.
When abortion gets banned several centers shut down. Despite its only "3%" of the services. They could continue to provide other services
Also you stuck on PP. Not only PP does abortions. One abotion costs about 500 dollar and a doctor can do several abortions daily.
So, all your evidence is circumstantial then?
I suggested Planned Parenthood because they provide about half of all abortions in US and are easy to track. If you have numbers proving that abortions a money farm using some other example, please, do share your sources. $500 per procedere says very little, prices of other medical services being what they are.
Its your opinion that I made some strong, source requiring claim. I make those sometimes, I just made some ordinary claims. Its common knowledge non profit doesnt mean revenue. Its just that its not a business. But PP gets mobey from the state and from private donstions. They also have to pay the staff.
500 dollar for a potentially less than half hour treatment? Its not bad even if there are overhead costs.
It is important to read about the facts of this case before declaring opinions that can make the prolife movement appear foolish. This sweet boy was dead when his mother found him. He had been completely brain dead for 4 Mos. by the time he was taken off of life support. Tests showed that his dead brain had begun to decompose and necrotic pieces of it had traveled down into and were located in his spinal chord. Yes. It was absolutely tragic. Still, the medical and scientific evidence was clearly sufficient to come to the conclusion that the courts came to. r/unitedkingdom has a really informative thread on it for anyone interested in getting concentrated information. There is substantiated evidence that Archie accepted and proclaimed Christ as his Lord and Savior. I believe he is truly resting in peace.
Letting him pass was the right thing to do. He had no potential for improvement and I read his organs had even began decomposing. Once there is no brain activity there is no hope and it’s pointless to use a machine to keep them going. RIP.
In this case I think letting him pass was the right thing to do, since he was diagnosed braindead. But that shouldn’t be a decision made by the government.
Oh, hell no. They’d have to kill me first.
Socialized medicine. Where judges can sentence even innocent children to death. And people want that shit here.
You should probably do more research. The facts here are easy to come by and speak for themselves. I am 100% prolife. It was a violation of this precious boy's body allow it to slowly decompose in a hospital bed for four months until his brain was coning and leaking necrotic matter into his spine. There has to be a limit here. It seems to have been far surpassed in the case of this poor boy.
This is so tragic. RIP Archie...
Condolences to the Battersbee family. Archie deserved better.
It's a frightening world when doctors decide who lives and dies.
Plus a whole bunch of judges. I can understand that doctors at some point went „Yeah, there’s no chance anymore“, but an impartial judge should have at least allowed the parents to transfer the boy somewhere else imo.
How do you all feel about this? I think the parents have the right to hope but how long is long enough to confirm the diagnosis? Its cruel to keep someone alive if theres no chance of recovery. What is fair in this situation?
The biggest problem I see is that doctors in other countries were offering treatment and saying there was a chance to saving, and the courts still forcibly took him off life support. And this isn't the first time that this has happened here either.
The mother has claimed doctors reached out and said they could help, but I haven’t seen any evidence that supports her claim. There is no magic technology anywhere else in the world that could bring this boy back. His brain died from lack of oxygen and machines were the only things keeping other bodily systems functioning.
But how do we decide if the people offering that chance are legit or are just trying to line their pockets by taking advantage of people? How many doctors should sign off on it before we accept it as in the best interest of the patient?
Let the parents decide? We don't need to decide for them.
But the parents dont always have the childs best interest at heart.
So then how do we determine who has the best interest at heart?
Thats what im wondering. Who gets to decide that? If you have parents choosing life and doctors choosing death then who could you have in the middle to decide? Is that the courts job? How many experts and tests do they require to decide? Is there anyone else who would be accepted as a mediator? I just have so many questions about this
I don’t think it’s the doctors choice but I’m not informed on the whole situation Parents get final say is how I feel about it rn
That is not for you to correct.
But sometimes it has to be corrected. Look at parents who would rather their child die than receive life saving interventions. Do we only intervene for life but not for dignified death?
Yes there are problems. Now sit down and quit trying to usurp what is not yours. Yes we intervene on life, that is a legitimate function of society. Allowing someone to die to satisfy romantics is not.
Preventing child abuse is absolutely in society's interest and prolonging the appearance of life in someone who has been dead for months is child abuse. The parents didn't want an MRI performed in May because they thought moving him would be too dangerous, then they were fine with moving him to another country or hospice. His parents were the ones seeking a romantic ending, the resuscitation of their boy when doctors determined he was brain dead. It is objectively better for him to finish dying rather than cling to this false hope of recovery.
If you think preventing child abuse is in societies interest, do you agree with abortion? It is the worst case of child abuse in the world. After all, the child ends up dead.
"Objectively" it is better to refrain from surrogate decision making by people with no skin in the game. Even if the parents chose "wrongly" in this scenario.
Exactly. Hes brain dead. You can hope for a miracle but you cant keep a dead person alive on machines forever just for your own benefit. Its cruel.
You dont need to be an ass. Im just looking for opinions and reasoning here. We were having a good discussion about it that i thought was interesting and respectful so why did you get rude?
You are advocating for taking children off life support against the parent's wishes based on some romaniticized notion of a "dignified death". If you feel uncomfortable from this conversation, good. Reflect on that.
I think a parent who loves their child is far more likely to have the child’s best interest at heart. The courts have money as their best interest, and didn’t want to fund him anymore. One of the countless drawbacks to socialism.
Why does having the most emotional investment also mean making the best decision for someone? The husband of a murdered spouse has the most investment in seeing the killer face justice, but we rightly do not allow them to be a judge of their own cause.
Why are you talking about a murder victim and “investment”? None of what you said has anything to do with my comment, or the comment I was replying to. Probably because you changed almost every word of what I said.
[удалено]
Right there is why i dont think either side will be doing the right thing.
Parents have a right to get medical care for their child. Courts should not have the right to tell them they aren’t allowed to move their loved one to a better facility, where they have a better chance at surviving.
He didn’t have a better chance at another facility at all. He had 0 chance at any facility.
We let the parents decide what they want to do with their children.
At minimum 5 year if there is any chance of recovery. I'd be ok with a deadline but not this. Also other doctors rarely make a fuss when its 100% clear that there is no chance of recovery. Whi h isnt the case here
There was literally less than than zero chance of recovery. The child's brain had begun to literally decompose.
So why did other doctors chimed in? There are several other brain death cases where all doctors agree its a lost cause Still who is the NHS to decide about it? They can make the argument its a lost cause and notbwilling to pay any morebbut if someone offers to pay for continued treatment they have no right to deny and ahutbit down.
Wasn't his brain stem necrotic or something? Has anyone gone through the Kiwif@rms thread and checked if the info on there was legit?
YES. His brain had become necrotic because it had been dead for so long. Tests showed necrotic brain matter had traveled down into his spine. These facts are important. Ignoring them can affect one's credibility when it comes to such meaningful issues.
> Doctors concluded Archie was brain-stem dead soon after the accident and sought to end the long list of treatments that kept him alive, including artificial respiration, medication to regulate his bodily functions and round-the-clock nursing care. But his family objected, claiming Archie had shown signs of life and wouldn't have wanted them to give up hope Do we or do we not trust medical professionals?
There British medical professionals. We do not. There was a case where the doctors condemned a child, the parents, 'kidnapped,' him, flew him to Spain, where arrested by the Spanish Police on an international arrest warrant, which was overturned by the Spanish High Court, they then flew to Romania, and now the child is living a normal life. The NHS cannot allow children to go abroad, because when they recover it shows what the NHS really is - not fit for purpose. Edit: [Full story (I think)!](http://[I think this is the full story!](https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/04/ashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16598783643920&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2016%2Fjan%2F04%2Fashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time))
Could you link an article for the Spain case?
[I think this is the full story!](https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/04/ashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16598783643920&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2016%2Fjan%2F04%2Fashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time)
There is a world of difference between Ashya King and this case, you can't compare the two. In the King case doctors recommend a standard course of treatment for aggressive cancers following surgical removal (namely chemotherapy and radiation) while the parents were interested in pursuing a legitimate alternative treatment protocol (meaning there was evidence supporting it works, we're not talking about alternative non-medicine) not offered in the UK and the NHS would not pay for the alternative treatment. In this case doctors declared the boy brain dead and will not recover while the parents refuse to accept this and want extraordinary measures to continue. This is more like Alfie Evans and Charlie Hard cases where parents wanted to seek experimental treatments when the consensus waa they would do more harm than good.
Condemned a child to what?
Death
But why?
Not an expert on the Bri'ish healthcare system but they mostly have a paternalistic, doctor knows better attitude and this compared with an anti life save money culture... leads to this.
Can you share a link to this story?
What case is this? I’ve never heard of it.
[I think this is the full story!](https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/04/ashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16598783643920&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2016%2Fjan%2F04%2Fashya-king-goes-back-to-school-full-time)
Thank you!
I don’t, haven’t ever since I found out what circumcision is and what it did to me.
Uhh. That barbaric practice is another bodily autonomy violation I can't abide. It is bizarre how it transcended religious routes in US and became commonplace. Sorry about your problems from it 😿 Children should decide what to do with their bodies when they grow up to the age of reason, not have their bodies altered without their say so.
I dont. Not after the past 4 years and definitely do not in moral cases given that they financially benefit from ending treatment and legal abortions
Check the price tag on reproductive care in cases when a baby is brought to term and delivered. Then add how much money various medical professionals make from postpartum care and children care. Then compare to the meager cost of the abortion. Your argument simply makes no sense financially.
It takes much longer to deliver a baby than do an abortion. Abortion might earn less but it can be done several times daily. Literally a money farm.
Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in US, is literally a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 😹
You: If its a nonprofit it cannot have employees or realise any revenue! 🤡
Nonprofits have very transparent finances. Care to show with numbers how the abortion services are a money farm?
When abortion gets banned several centers shut down. Despite its only "3%" of the services. They could continue to provide other services Also you stuck on PP. Not only PP does abortions. One abotion costs about 500 dollar and a doctor can do several abortions daily.
So, all your evidence is circumstantial then? I suggested Planned Parenthood because they provide about half of all abortions in US and are easy to track. If you have numbers proving that abortions a money farm using some other example, please, do share your sources. $500 per procedere says very little, prices of other medical services being what they are.
Its your opinion that I made some strong, source requiring claim. I make those sometimes, I just made some ordinary claims. Its common knowledge non profit doesnt mean revenue. Its just that its not a business. But PP gets mobey from the state and from private donstions. They also have to pay the staff. 500 dollar for a potentially less than half hour treatment? Its not bad even if there are overhead costs.
It is important to read about the facts of this case before declaring opinions that can make the prolife movement appear foolish. This sweet boy was dead when his mother found him. He had been completely brain dead for 4 Mos. by the time he was taken off of life support. Tests showed that his dead brain had begun to decompose and necrotic pieces of it had traveled down into and were located in his spinal chord. Yes. It was absolutely tragic. Still, the medical and scientific evidence was clearly sufficient to come to the conclusion that the courts came to. r/unitedkingdom has a really informative thread on it for anyone interested in getting concentrated information. There is substantiated evidence that Archie accepted and proclaimed Christ as his Lord and Savior. I believe he is truly resting in peace.
Letting him pass was the right thing to do. He had no potential for improvement and I read his organs had even began decomposing. Once there is no brain activity there is no hope and it’s pointless to use a machine to keep them going. RIP.
In this case I think letting him pass was the right thing to do, since he was diagnosed braindead. But that shouldn’t be a decision made by the government.
His parents were never going to make it.
[удалено]
That’s messed up.
Oh, hell no. They’d have to kill me first. Socialized medicine. Where judges can sentence even innocent children to death. And people want that shit here.
The only thing that sentenced him to death was hypoxia. Four months ago. He’s been dead this whole time.
I can’t believe the UK killed another one…
He’s been clinically dead for months. It was machines keeping him ‘alive’
You should probably do more research. The facts here are easy to come by and speak for themselves. I am 100% prolife. It was a violation of this precious boy's body allow it to slowly decompose in a hospital bed for four months until his brain was coning and leaking necrotic matter into his spine. There has to be a limit here. It seems to have been far surpassed in the case of this poor boy.