This could be an interesting topic.
Some background reading:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf
Alfie was born seemingly healthy but was noted to have developmental delays fairly early on. At 6 months of age, he was MRId and a neurological disorder was indicated. Two weeks after the MRI he was admitted to the hospital with a respiratory virus and what was believed to be febrile convulsions (fever induced seizures). His seizures worsened. The seizures were epileptic in nature, not febrile. Neurology was consulted. EEG monitoring was ordered and he was put on anti-convulsive drugs. His condition worsened. He had pneumonia and severe encephalopathy. He coded. His care team prepared his parents for the worst. Extraordinary work by the care team saved his life.
He fought off the infection. However, his EEG exams did not show improvement and remained the same since that time. He was in a coma.
An external review of his charts was ordered. His EEGs showed no activity except when was seizing since January of 2017. His MRIs revealed a progressive degenerative neurological disorder. His brain was, at the time of his passing, mostly CSF and water where his brain should have been. To put it bluntly, the seizures liquified much of his brain, and that continued every time he had a seizure, which was his only response to stimuli. Even had it been possible to stop the seizures, and he did not respond well to a variety of top drugs meant to do just that, he would not recover. He had already lost too much. All experts who had seen his charts in depth agreed his condition was "catastrophic and untreatable." His doctors decided it was no longer in Alfie's best interests to continue care.
Alfie's parents, in their understandable distress, did not accept this. They sought avenues to have him remain on life support. Their appeals resulted in a lot of public outcry. Bambino Gesu, a Vatican run hospital, offered to take him.
The courts in the UK weighed Alfie's interests against those of his parents, and decided it was to his benefit to remain in the UK to die comfortably.
Read the link I posted above. They'll tell you all you need to know about how the judge reached his decision. I had a hard time finding fault with his reasoning.
The question I want to discuss is, in cases like this, how far does parental authority stretch when weighed against the interests of the patient? After looking into the case in depth, I personally find my self with the state on this one.
Anyone need anything cleared up? If not, what say you?
Some background reading:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf
Alfie was born seemingly healthy but was noted to have developmental delays fairly early on. At 6 months of age, he was MRId and a neurological disorder was indicated. Two weeks after the MRI he was admitted to the hospital with a respiratory virus and what was believed to be febrile convulsions (fever induced seizures). His seizures worsened. The seizures were epileptic in nature, not febrile. Neurology was consulted. EEG monitoring was ordered and he was put on anti-convulsive drugs. His condition worsened. He had pneumonia and severe encephalopathy. He coded. His care team prepared his parents for the worst. Extraordinary work by the care team saved his life.
He fought off the infection. However, his EEG exams did not show improvement and remained the same since that time. He was in a coma.
An external review of his charts was ordered. His EEGs showed no activity except when was seizing since January of 2017. His MRIs revealed a progressive degenerative neurological disorder. His brain was, at the time of his passing, mostly CSF and water where his brain should have been. To put it bluntly, the seizures liquified much of his brain, and that continued every time he had a seizure, which was his only response to stimuli. Even had it been possible to stop the seizures, and he did not respond well to a variety of top drugs meant to do just that, he would not recover. He had already lost too much. All experts who had seen his charts in depth agreed his condition was "catastrophic and untreatable." His doctors decided it was no longer in Alfie's best interests to continue care.
Alfie's parents, in their understandable distress, did not accept this. They sought avenues to have him remain on life support. Their appeals resulted in a lot of public outcry. Bambino Gesu, a Vatican run hospital, offered to take him.
The courts in the UK weighed Alfie's interests against those of his parents, and decided it was to his benefit to remain in the UK to die comfortably.
Read the link I posted above. They'll tell you all you need to know about how the judge reached his decision. I had a hard time finding fault with his reasoning.
The question I want to discuss is, in cases like this, how far does parental authority stretch when weighed against the interests of the patient? After looking into the case in depth, I personally find my self with the state on this one.
Anyone need anything cleared up? If not, what say you?
