Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: OBAMA!  :whyyou:

Topic: Alfie Evans (Read 2809 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Pingu
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #25
BTW Dave, people think of the functioning part of the brain as being the "grey matter" - and it's true that that is where the activity takes place - around the the bodies of the cells and the dendrites. But each neuron cell has an axon - a long fibre that connects it to countless other neurons and receives inputs the inputs of countless other neurons via their axons.  Those axons are the "white matter". Some are local but there are long axons that connect entire regions and cerebral hemispheres together. This is the stuff that looks white when you dissect a brain.



But although it looks like amorphous white cheese it's literally the "wiring" - the "spaghetti" you fondly imagine that only women possess:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbnRuRi1B-Q

When that is gone, your neurons aren't connected to each other anymore.  As an EE you will appreciate that if a electrical system isn't wired up, it won't work.



I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #26
Why did a court even get involved at all?  When I was raising my kids *I* and *my wife* made the decisions regarding their treatment.
FFS, Dave, parents don't own their children. Children are people, with fucking human rights, and when their well-being is being threatened by improper care and decisions by the parents, you bet the state should step in in some way, to fucking protect the child. Even, as in this case, to end the suffering of the child, needlessly prolonged by poor parental decisions.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #27
My point remains.  Why is a court deciding something that parents should be deciding?

Quote from: WaPo
If they misbehaved, the 13 siblings living in a Southern California home would be tied to their beds as punishment -- first with ropes, until a child whose limbs were strung together was able to wriggle free. Then, the parents began using chains and padlocks, officials said.

A case of parents deciding. Is that always a good thing, Dave?
Needs repeating. For Bluffy's attention.

Was it a good thing or a bad thing that the courts got involved in this case, Bluffy? Was it a good thing for these parents to chain their children?

And, sadly, there are many cases similar to this. Cases involving starvation, beatings, sexual abuse, forced prostitution, maltreatment, failure of the parents to be parents and take care of their children. Do you also feel in all those case the parents should be in control? If so, then you are condoning, indeed, encouraging child abuse.

It's the same with animals in human care. Normally it is the purview of the human caretaker but, sadly, some humans are cruel and/or indifferent to the welfare of the animals they care for.

Basically, Bluffy, you're shooting skills are right at their best marks on this. Total blindness to anything other than the really, really obvious, no effort to understand the entire situation, just knee jerk reaction. Typical Bluffoonic behavior.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #28
Having said all that, I think it was a really really hard decision, if only because it wasn't clear Alfie was even capable of suffering. 

But if he was, then it was the right decision.  If not, it would have been arguably more merciful to let the parents take him abroad - but the courts aren't there to decide what is in the best interest of the parents. They are there solely to judge what is in the best interests of the child.

And if there was any chance (and there was) that Alfie was suffering any distress (and remember he was having regular seizures), even if all he was capable of experience was pure pain, then surely it was right to cease active treatment, even if the inevitable consequence was a rapid natural death.

I have a friend with a terminallly ill child.  They knew from birth that the child wouldn't survive more than a few months.  It is so sad. But they are getting really good advice, I think, and taking it - keeping the child comfortable, lots of hugs, but whenever she gets an infection there is a DNR in place.  In a few weeks or months, one of these infections will cause her death.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #29
Did Hawkins miss the Charlie Gard story?  Why the sudden outrage now?  :dunno:

Anyway, these cases are tragic and complicated. And inevitable.
What I find very distressing is how political camps get involved and rouse the rabble with highly emotional and very ill-informed diatribes that get idiots like Hawkins headed for the torches and pitchforks.  Medical personnel at the hospitals - both in the Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard cases - were getting death threats.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #30
Did Hawkins miss the Charlie Gard story?  Why the sudden outrage now?  :dunno:

snip, snip
Bluffy needed a distraction.
Are we there yet?

Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #31
I love the knee-jerk response without actually looking into any of the facts.

The poor child suffered from an unknown disease. Treatment failed, and the level of brain damage Alfie suffered was extensive... so extensive that any meaningful recovery was considered impossible by the hospital that treated him.

His parents wanted to try a treatment in Italy at this point. However, the Hospital objected: for starters, even if the disease was halted, he was already past the point of meaningful recovery in their opinion. They had pretty solid reasons to say that: apparently several major brain structures were completely non-functional.

Secondly the treatment would not deal with the disease. It would merely allow them to keep him alive for longer.

The poor parents did not believe what the doctors were telling them regarding his neurological state. They believed their son looked at them and was asking for help. They believed that he reacted to them. Considering the amount of damage he sustained, this is beyond improbable. It is far, far more likely the poor desperate parents were simply projecting. Any parent would.

Every single specialist the parents appealed to, hoping beyond hope that one of them would come to a different conclusion, agreed that Alfie was completely incapable of response. Stimuli merely set off seizures in his ravaged brain.

Alfie had a lot of those. They would happen spontaneously, and he went through a series of them while they were doing an assessment on him to see how the conditions of travel would affect him.

External stimuli set them off, the hospital staff concluded. He would be suffering them more or less continuously while travelling. So they decided they would not release him for travel. I believe that it was at this stage the courts became involved.

It is a really sad case, and a very difficult one. On the one side the health-care professionals had a very strong case: the amount of neurological damage was so great that there was no possibility of Alfie ever regaining consciousness. Travel would mean a lot of seizures, and even if by some miracle the progression of the disease would stop, there was no hope if him ever not being in a vegetative state.

Personally, I would have concluded that while it was a great nonsense to subject the poor kid to treatment which would include surgery, I doubt that there was enough left of Alfie to register any of it anyway, so they might as well have allowed it. Maybe it would have made the parents feel ever so slightly better, given them a better sense of closure. Any little bit of solace for two people in such awful circumstances should be allowed.

But since the possibility of suffering could not be ruled out, and there was no reasonable hope of achieving anything for Alfie by running that risk, I do understand why the courts ruled the way they did, and why the Hospital involved the court.

Of course right-wing simpletonians such as yourself are happy to denounce the court's ruling as Draconian (Calling it Orwellian is stupid: it does not simply mean dystopian) because it provides a welcome break from telling each other how all of Birmingham is a mooslim no-go zone for the police, fuming about Hillaries emails, and worrying about Obama-care death panels.

But when you actually take the time to look at what happened and read the judgement, then you will see that both the Hospital and the Courts really tried to handle every aspect of this case with the greatest care and sensitivity. They really did their best, and tried to give as much leeway to the parents as they possibly could.

Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #32
Parents should get to decide about medical care for their children.

Not courts.  Or doctors.

Period.

End of story.

  • uncool
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #33
Parents should get to decide about medical care for their children.

Not courts.  Or doctors.

Period.

End of story.
Holy shit no.

Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #34
And no, I'm not saying the courts should NEVER intervene in ANY situation. 

There are obvious situations in which parents are intentionally doing harm to their children and the courts should intervene.

This case was obviously not like that.

Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #35
Parents should get to decide about medical care for their children.

Not courts.  Or doctors.

Period.

End of story.
Holy shit no.
Holy shit yes.

Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #36
Orwell, here we come.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #37
Orwell, here we come.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Because you have never read a single thing Orwell wrote
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #38
Parents should get to decide about medical care for their children.

Not courts.  Or doctors.

Period.

End of story.
Holy shit no.
Holy shit yes.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins
And no, I'm not saying the courts should NEVER intervene in ANY situation. 

There are obvious situations in which parents are intentionally doing harm to their children and the courts should intervene.
In other words: Holy shit no.

Also courts should intervene in situations in which parents are UNintentionally doing harm to their children.
Like ignoring life-saving advice from doctors in favor of quack remedies they found on the internet, or their cult leader told them about.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #39
Parents should get to decide about medical care for their children.

Not courts.  Or doctors.

Period.

End of story.

That is because you are a simpleton who only likes the simplest of stories.

But consider:

- Every child of a Jehovas witness who needs a transfusion should not get one and die.
- Those idiots who tried to cure a severe pneumonia with vegetable smoothies should have been allowed to let their kid die. Or did the poor kid actually die? I forget.
- Those parents who were giving their kid bleech enemas to treat autism, causing extreme pain and distress, were fine
- Every case of munchausen-by-proxy, ever, should not be stopped.

We could go on. But I suppose that if child-brides don't bother you, this won't either.

Quote
Orwell, here we come.

That still doesn't mean what you think it means.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #40
Dave, no one with sanity, compassion, or basic knowledge of the human brain is going to agree with you here. You're spouting uninformed nonsense.

  • JonF
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #41
Why did a court even get involved at all?  When I was raising my kids *I* and *my wife* made the decisions regarding their treatment.
Again ... THIS is my question.  ^^^^ in bold.
Because there was evidence that the parents were not deciding in the best interest of the child.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #42
Parents should get to decide about medical care for their children.

Not courts.  Or doctors.

Period.

End of story.
::) Parents can be wrong.   Criminally so.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/meningitis-trial-verdict-1.3552941
While you were getting your PhD in virology, I got my PhD in truth detection. :wave:  Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #43
Parents should get to decide about medical care for their children.

Not courts.  Or doctors.

Period.

End of story.
Even if they are killing the child?

Parents Convicted After Refusing Treatment in Daughter's Pneumonia Death Said It Was 'God's Will'

One of way too many incidents.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #44
Orwell, here we come.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Because you have never read a single thing Orwell wrote
Not down and out in Paris and London for sure.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #45
Parents should get to decide about medical care for their children.

Not courts.  Or doctors.

Period.

End of story.
Even when that "care" includes procedures and treatments that are clearly injurious if not outright abusive? When they refuse treatments that are clearly called for and have a high rate of success? When they actually abuse, physically, sexually, emotionally, nutritionally, etc?

Yep, good old black and white Bluffy.
All < some > none forever!
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #46
Orwell, here we come.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Because you have never read a single thing Orwell wrote
Wouldn't make much difference if he had. At least using his usual techniques.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #47
Dave, no one with sanity, compassion, or basic knowledge of the human brain is going to agree with you here. You're spouting uninformed nonsense.
It's his job.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #48
What I want to know is what Bluffy thinks of his god who simply sat by and let this all happen.
For that matter, his god caused it.
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
Re: Alfie Evans
Reply #49
Parents should get to decide about medical care for their children.

Not courts.  Or doctors.

Period.

End of story.
It's painfully obvious that you have not given any serious thought to this issue.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.