Nicely put, PickyPicky.This is a side issue, but interesting (at least I think so). I’m not sure where you are from, Scarlett, but I would be surprised if anyone from Britain thought a court was part of the government. It’s one of the organs of the state, of course, but certainly not, in my view, part of the government.
Strangely, in view of the often asserted theory that the United States takes the separation of powers more seriously than the United Kingdom, this is not the case in the matter of the judiciary. The British judiciary acts quite separately from the government, and has not succumbed to that politicisation that, in British eyes, so disfigures the American system.
Which, if I’m not mistaken is what happened recently in England. The problem comes into play when doctors and patient’s family can’t come to an agreement. It’s sad to be faced with end of life issues when you aren’t prepared, and if you have only limited medical knowledge, it’s very overwhelming as you don’t always know the right questions to ask. Most people don’t understand the dying process, they don’t realize that there are times when providing nutrition is actually harmful to a dying person. As your organs shut down, they stop processing nutrition which can cause additional problems, that is why nutrition can be stopped.The medical professionals should outline what options are available in a way the patient or patients next of kin can understand. Ideally they should come to a decision together.
A mentally competant patient can refuse treatment against the doctors advice.
When the patient is unable to decide for themselves and the family and doctors disagree then some form of 3rd party should mediate.
The treatment in Italy would have been the SAME as what he was receiving in the UK. The Italian doctors consulted with the UK doctors and agreed they could do nothing more for Alfie than was already being done. Additionally, transporting him could have caused further brain degradation, and it was possible he would have endured additional pain. How would that have been in his best interests?However, when it comes to situations like little Alfie, the government caused harm when it could have been avoided. They did not have the right to keep Alfie in their hospital with Italy granted Alfie citizenship and access to be treated. This should have been a family concern.
From my understanding, Italy would have offered Alfie life support of which Britain took him off.The treatment in Italy would have been the SAME as what he was receiving in the UK. The Italian doctors consulted with the UK doctors and agreed they could do nothing more for Alfie than was already being done. Additionally, transporting him could have caused further brain degradation, and it was possible he would have endured additional pain. How would that have been in his best interests?
Why was this a horrible thing to say? Isn’t that consistent with Catholic teaching, that we all be allowed to die with dignity? Yes, Alfie was only two, but he was suffering from a seemingly incurable, fatal disease.It’s worth noting that the British government said that Alfie should “die with dignity.” Alfie was only two. This was a horrible thing to say. They had no right to do this.
Because it was undignified – they knew that taking him off of life support would have resulted in death. They were suggesting that it is undignified to keep him on life support. This is why so many people were appalled at the British government for not allowing Alfie the chance. If they couldn’t have continued, others were wiling to try, like Italy, and they didn’t grant him that option. That is what was undignified.Why was this a horrible thing to say? Isn’t that consistent with Catholic teaching, that we all be allowed to die with dignity? Yes, Alfie was only two, but he was suffering from a seemingly incurable, fatal disease.
Was is the government or the doctors decision? I though it was the Dr and then the judge supported that decision?The Alfie discussion boils down to who should make the decision to terminate medical care to a patient. Should it be the Government or should it be the Patient and/or their family? Which is more ethical? Who do you want making your decisions when you or someone you love is on the deathbed?
Because he would have received the exact same care at the other hospital that would have taken him, but transporting him to that hospital would have been risky.What I don’t understand is how could they justify not let the parents take their child to another hospital?
Still should have been parents right to take that risk.Because he would have received the exact same care at the other hospital that would have taken him, but transporting him to that hospital would have been risky.