Alfie Evans and the end of the myth of the UK as a free country.

[Beskar]

...The problem I see is with the NHS and the courts preventing people from pursuing their own courses of action. Be that to die at home or seek treatment outside the county...

Actually that choice was allowed and wasn't prevented.
As for the latter, I mentioned the Vatican Hospital scam in my post.

But there is the other point will emphasise again, Children have rights. They are not the property of their parents, they are their own persons and as such, their rights should be protected. The state has legal obligations to protect the rights of children, it is why things like child protection services exist too. In this case, the parents might have the best of intentions, but their actions would have caused their child suffering. There was no treatment, only torture. If there was treatment, the courts would have allowed the child to be moved to another country. If there was no reasonable suspicion of suffering either, they would have allowed the child to move. The state is not some cruel apparatus out to screw everyone over, even if that is your ideological belief.

The definition of Tyranny is as follows: "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."
It wasn't cruel, it was reasonable, and the decision was not arbitrary nor was the use of power or control. It was completely justified. As such, the action was not tyrannical. You may have your opinion, but this does not change the facts.

[Fisherking]

Actually that choice was allowed and wasn't prevented.
As for the latter, I mentioned the Vatican Hospital scam in my post.

But there is the other point will emphasise again, Children have rights. They are not the property of their parents, they are their own persons and as such, their rights should be protected. The state has legal obligations to protect the rights of children, it is why things like child protection services exist too. In this case, the parents might have the best of intentions, but their actions would have caused their child suffering. There was no treatment, only torture. If there was treatment, the courts would have allowed the child to be moved to another country. If there was no reasonable suspicion of suffering either, they would have allowed the child to move. The state is not some cruel apparatus out to screw everyone over, even if that is your ideological belief.

The definition of Tyranny is as follows: "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."
It wasn't cruel, it was reasonable, and the decision was not arbitrary nor was the use of power or control. It was completely justified. As such, the action was not tyrannical. You may have your opinion, but this does not change the facts.

So, you find it reasonable and justified that government prevented others form travel outside the UK and see nothing arbitrary in that decision?

Is it typical that you submit your holiday plans to a government body before travel?

It is despotic to dictate to others what they may or maynot do. Why should NHS care once they have made their pronouncement. It was cruel to deny sustenance to the child in order to assure his death. This is merely another example of “child rights” being used to control people. It is arbitrary to even think that such a decision is what is best for the child.

What you cite is governments justification in its arbitrary decision. It was only one governmental body upholding the wishes of another governmental body against the wishes of the parents.

Explain how liberty was upheld. Explain how this is not degrading treatment. Explain how there was fair trial of the facts, because it was only government judges upholding the wishes of NHS, in the absence of a jury only government adjudicates the facts.

The intervention by the NHS and the court served no one in the end. No one was going to be harmed by the child leaving the country. It turned into nothing more than government imposing its will on grieving and desperate parents and it does not present the nation in a good light.

[rory_20_uk]

So, you find it reasonable and justified that government prevented others form travel outside the UK and see nothing arbitrary in that decision?

Is it typical that you submit your holiday plans to a government body before travel?

It is despotic to dictate to others what they may or maynot do. Why should NHS care once they have made their pronouncement. It was cruel to deny sustenance to the child in order to assure his death. This is merely another example of “child rights” being used to control people. It is arbitrary to even think that such a decision is what is best for the child.

What you cite is governments justification in its arbitrary decision. It was only one governmental body upholding the wishes of another governmental body against the wishes of the parents.

Explain how liberty was upheld. Explain how this is not degrading treatment. Explain how there was fair trial of the facts, because it was only government judges upholding the wishes of NHS, in the absence of a jury only government adjudicates the facts.

The intervention by the NHS and the court served no one in the end. No one was going to be harmed by the child leaving the country. It turned into nothing more than government imposing its will on grieving and desperate parents and it does not present the nation in a good light.

Why did they wait 18 months before going? Why did Italy await an equally long time? You honestly think that transporting them by ambulance to a plane, then airlifting them to another country would at that point be helpful? Right at the start that would be OK, but by the end? This was nothing but a PR game.

As has been mentioned, the only "liberty" that they would have got in the USA is the "right" to die from lack of money.

The UK continues to have the freedom to pack one's bags and leave to wherever else in the world one wishes to live. They could have done this at the start and can do it now. They will not be missed.

[Fisherking]

Why did they wait 18 months before going? Why did Italy await an equally long time? You honestly think that transporting them by ambulance to a plane, then airlifting them to another country would at that point be helpful? Right at the start that would be OK, but by the end? This was nothing but a PR game.

As has been mentioned, the only "liberty" that they would have got in the USA is the "right" to die from lack of money.

The UK continues to have the freedom to pack one's bags and leave to wherever else in the world one wishes to live. They could have done this at the start and can do it now. They will not be missed.

I have said time and again that I had no problem with the NHS’s decision to treat or not to treat the patient. My only problem was their seeking of a court decision to prevent the patient or his family from going elsewhere.

However, I do take issue with your apparent ignorance of medicine in the US. In large part the reason hospital care is so expensive in the US is to make up for those unable to pay and there still are charity hospitals there, even ones who specialise in children and hopeless cases.

Apparently that right to pack one’s bags only seems to apply before seeking medical treatment from the NHS.

[rory_20_uk]

I have said time and again that I had no problem with the NHS’s decision to treat or not to treat the patient. My only problem was their seeking of a court decision to prevent the patient or his family from going elsewhere.

However, I do take issue with your apparent ignorance of medicine in the US. In large part the reason hospital care is so expensive in the US is to make up for those unable to pay and there still are charity hospitals there, even ones who specialise in children and hopeless cases.

Apparently that right to pack one’s bags only seems to apply before seeking medical treatment from the NHS.

As was explained the child has rights and the experts thought the parents were not enforcing them. The whole rule of law thing? On this side of the pond we still have this old fashioned attachment to it.

And healthcare in the USA to choose one of many graphs that demonstrate the same thing:



The costs are not defensible in any way whatsoever. They are categorically the worst in the world - some cost more for better results, some cost less for worse results. And then there's the USA. That there are a few charity hospitals does not mean everything is OK.

No, people can leave the UK whenever they want except when they are putting the well-being of others at risk which is a pretty rare occurrence. They can move to all sorts of other countries and in general find out how much worse the other countries are (the Nordics and New Zealand excepted).

[Fisherking]

rory, the child welfare issue is an absurdity in this case as it was with the others. They were going to another first world country, even a member of the EU, as is the UK for the time being. If there is no issue of people going to those countries on holiday there should not be an issue of them going there for medical treatment, providing the government of the UK is not paying for it.

All of this just seems to point to bureaucratic arrogance or deep seated insecurity on the part of the NHS. I am at a loss for logical explanation other than that.

Government “experts” testifying to government positions should not inspire confidence in anyone. They take the position that preserves their jobs and personal wellbeing.

As to the cost of US healthcare you will get no argument from me. Still, lifesaving care is not refused there due solely on ability to pay.

[rory_20_uk]

Let's start at the basics.

Primum non nocere

Yes things are often not this clear these days but this is why we rely on experts whether the risks outweigh the benefits. The experts - which neither you no I are and have access to none of the salient information. Treatment should be based on need and not the ability to pay.

This wasn't lifesaving care that's the point! Treatment was viewed as futile. Further intensive things are then a form of torture. It really is very simple.

And I have had a patient who after having a stoke on the plane to the USA was then treated to the absolute limit of her health insurance and was then stuck back on a plane as soon as her insurance ended even though this was against the advice of the treating physician in the USA.

[Husar]

If there is no issue of people going to those countries on holiday there should not be an issue of them going there for medical treatment, providing the government of the UK is not paying for it.

Isn't that the issue?

Were they willing to pay for the transporting costs or should the hospital have just taken all the tubes out and given them the child for their trip? In the latter case he might've died just as well before they even got to the car, in the first case the government would have had to pay for a trip that the government saw as essentially useless while the mnoney might have been missing for more hopeful cases. Or would the other hospital have paid for the transport costs?

[Montmorency]

All of this just seems to point to bureaucratic arrogance or deep seated insecurity on the part of the NHS. I am at a loss for logical explanation other than that.

Government “experts” testifying to government positions should not inspire confidence in anyone. They take the position that preserves their jobs and personal wellbeing.

Do you believe that government review tends to arbitrarily find in favor of whatever the state is doing? That's doubtful, and a distinct issue here.

Finding out whether the NHS/courts are being arbitrary here depends on knowing what the law says, and how it has been applied and invoked elsewhere. Facially, the Charlie Gard case suggests the process is consistent at least - but perhaps you would say it has to do with bureaucratic bias by the same token.

Or maybe you have a more general concern with accountability in the framework? (Just because juries are made up of private citizens does not mean they are appropriate for decision-making.)

We'll take a look later.