Should the Government or the Patient Decide What is Medically Necessary

[Monica83]

I pray you will care about others because its an important part of being a Christian.

 

[paperwight]

Would they have been arrested if they tried to leave the hospital? Mmmkay. I think we all know the government was involved in this.

Presumably they would have been stopped, yes, because they would have been going against the court’s decision.

But how would that have involved the Government?

Once again, in the UK the courts are independent of the Government…

 

[SuperLuigi]

I heard that in the UK if you are an infant/toddler with long term disability they quickly deem you not worthy of continued care

Gotta keep that diversity and climate change funding going. Because the ultimate sin in UK pop culture today is hurting someone’s feelings.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Oh. Would they be idiots for doing so?

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Plenty of disabled children are cared for in NHS hospitals.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

I don’t believe his parents were idiots, they were people in an unbearable situation who couldn’t cope.

 

[_Ruby]

'I heard that in the UK…"

Heard from who?

You have repeatedly been told you are being factually incorrect about the UK health system by people living in the UK. You seem to not want to listen to them, but claim ‘you heard things’ from others.

Alder Hey is an INDEPENDENT hospital. They were MAKING MONEY on Alfie’s care. Why would they want to kill a patient they were making money on?

 

[Vonsalza]

The parents weren’t abusive or neglectful-they showed him the most unconditional love a human being could.

That’s wonderful. It’s also not medically relevant.

…just because he had an imperfect body does not mean he should’ve been cast aside.

Sure. And the year and a half of treatment before Alfie’s death were proof that no one was trying to cast him aside.

I heard that in the UK if you are an infant/toddler with long term disability they quickly deem you not worthy of continued care.

I hear the boogeyman still exists too.

He doesn’t.

Here in the U.S. many long term care facilities are equipped with vent units and the patient or family decides when to stop interventional care.

That decision is often associated with the letter received from the insurance company stating that they were no longer going to pay for what they deemed as hopeless treatment.

The U.S. has incentives to find cures/treatment for disorders like the one Alfie had. The NHS…not so much.

Really? How so?

 

[Pup7]

Thank you for sharing this.

Thank you, Archbishop.

 

[Pup7]

Would they have been arrested if they tried to leave the hospital? Mmmkay. I think we all know the government was involved in this.

Multiple times it’s been said that neither the NHS nor HM’s Courts are agencies of the British government. The system there is different.

Saying the NHS is an agency of the Feds is like saying Medicare or TRICARE are in this country.

They are not. Mmmkay?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Plenty of disabled children are cared for in NHS hospitals.

No doubt. I’ve experienced big government “caring” first hand…

 

[Monica83]

Blockquote
That’s wonderful. It’s also not medically relevant.

I never said it was. Its morally and ethically relevant.

Really? Does the insurance company want the $%#& sued out of them? They cover CONTINUED care.

Because the UK government has more money available for prevention of illness/disease and paying for their other socialist agendas. A disabled child to them is just a big expense that could more easily just be put down instead of helped in any big way. The U.S. leads the way in medical research, experimental procedures, and drugs.

 

[Vonsalza]

I never said it was. Its morally and ethically relevant.

Again, sadly, mom and dad don’t always know what’s best. Makes me think of Jehovah’s Witness parents who are so devout that they deny their children blood transfusions even when they’re highly needed.

Really? Does the insurance company want the $%#& sued out of them? They cover CONTINUED care.

And when they think it’s getting a little expensive they arbitrarily switch the label to “extraordinary care”, which they can deny.

I assure you, someone in the insurance company checked your demographics and determined both your likelihood of suing and your probability of winning before informing your family that the money was stopping.

Because the UK government has more money available for prevention of illness/disease and paying for their other socialist agendas. A disabled child to them is just a big expense that could more easily just be put down instead of helped in any big way.

Sorta sounds like the exact critique levied against insurance companies… They vehemently opposed things like the ACA because it meant they had to actually cover someone who had cancer before getting insurance. !!!!!!

The U.S. leads the way in medical research, experimental procedures, and drugs.

That’s so vague as to be meaningless. I know, for example, that the best medical system in the world for colon cancer outcomes was Japan. And there were lots of things the Europeans did better than the US.

“The US Leads the Way!” appears to be a jingoism that’s safe to outgrow.

 

[Monica83]

So many Christians are like the Weeping Women unfortunately. They say “so sad. He died” but do not really care. I’ll pray for all the people here who value socialism above helping ALL human life even when it’s not ideal. You are on the road to forced abortions on disabled babies and euthanasia. Change your course!

 

[jtavington]

The trouble is that it doesn’t seem like the doctors did anything wrong, given the facts of the case. There was no treatment available, nor reasonable hope he would recover so the ventilator would have been extraordinary care. Because they expected death to occur within minutes, nutrition and hydration would have also been extraordinary care. When he survived longer than expected on the ventilator, nutrition and hydration were restarted until he died from his underlying condition. Moving him would have very likely killed him even faster and more painfully, and if he had survived, he would have simply continued receiving the extraordinary care.

Not every case is Terri Schiavo, nor is it a step down a slippery slope. If we treat every case like it is, people won’t listen to us when there are genuine threats like physician-assisted suicide.

 

[o_mlly]

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?

As this thread is in the “Moral Theology” forum, who decides to terminate medical care is less important than what medical care may be terminated (by anyone).

The nature of care does not change with the with the decision to provide or terminate that care. According to Catholic teaching, nutrition and hydration are not only ordinary but also non-medical.

Under what conditions may ordinary, non-medical care be withheld? The answer must be similar or the same condition(s) that would allow a mother to withhold the bottle from her infant.

 

[JanetF]

Under what conditions may ordinary, non-medical care be withheld? The answer must be the same condition(s) that would allow a mother to withhold the bottle from her infant.

The answer would be when providing that care begins to cause more problems than it alleviates, that is when the body can no longer process nutritive sources. So when the digestive tract quits working, the feeding tube would be removed.

 

[Pup7]

Uh, no. That is not how medical professionals think.

Emphasis on PROFESSIONAL.

I am one, and know better.

 

[Pup7]

So many Christians are like the Weeping Women unfortunately. They say “so sad. He died” but do not really care. I’ll pray for all the people here who value socialism above helping ALL human life even when it’s not ideal. You are on the road to forced abortions on disabled babies and euthanasia. Change your course!

Your ability to infer, draw conclusions, and pass judgment without hard evidence is astounding.

 

[Pup7]

Blockquote
That’s wonderful. It’s also not medically relevant.

Actually, vonsalva is correct.

If I were you, I’d start reading my policy’s fine print. You might be surprised.

And please, lay off the NHS. It’s obvious you don’t understand that system at all.