Page 6 | Alfie Evans 7

Panda81 · 27/04/2018 14:47

Where are you seeing that fennel?

Efrig · 27/04/2018 15:05

Why was my post deleted?

fenneltea · 27/04/2018 15:19

It was on the AA facebook page, but seems to have vanished now.

user1457017537 · 27/04/2018 15:29

Puzzledandpissedoff TE said in the statement he read out that “no more statements will be issued or interviews given”.
I obviously thought no more information would be forthcoming I apologise for getting it wrong.

MyPuppyIsADick · 27/04/2018 15:30

The Gards have weighed in now.

DoryNow · 27/04/2018 15:31

Another excellent article. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/nhs-palliative-care-alfie-evans-die-with-dignity

MirandaWest · 27/04/2018 15:34

There are so many more members of AA than there ever were for Charlie Gard.

CommunistLegoBloc · 27/04/2018 15:51

The Gards have weighed in because Stephen Woolfe is calling for a law in Alfie’s name, when they have spent a year trying to set one up in Charlie’s name. Their statement makes that very clear - they’re defining that territory as theirs, whilst expressing sympathy.

user1457017537 · 27/04/2018 15:59

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

youarenotkiddingme · 27/04/2018 16:01

That's a very good letter from AH. I'm glad they've released a statement.

Such a difficult case and situation that's affected many people extremely deeply.

MrsOH2004 · 27/04/2018 16:06

What is the law they are trying to get?

CommunistLegoBloc · 27/04/2018 16:09

One that gives parents the right to overrule the courts and medical professionals it would seem. It’s scary stuff and I can’t see how it would pass - how do you decide who is eligible to do so? Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood products for their children? Parents wanting to put their children through painful and pointless procedures? Parents refusing the best medical care for their children because they know better? Nope nope nope.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 27/04/2018 16:10

I obviously thought no more information would be forthcoming I apologise for getting it wrong

There's absolutely no need to apologise; many have taken TE's statement in good faith and we're clearly not allowed to make comments about its reliability or otherwise

So I won't make any on here

FrancisUnderwood · 27/04/2018 16:12

This must all be very triggering for the Gards, just as they were grieving.

DoryNow · 27/04/2018 16:19

puzzled

Efrig · 27/04/2018 16:24

Children are citizens in their own right and are not the property of their parents. The court system exists to protect them and they have the right to be protected. Children are not pets or property.

PaintedHorizons · 27/04/2018 16:29

I agree, Efrig and it horrifies me to think that we might erode the protection that children already have by mean of a new law based on a couple of widely misunderstood cases.

DoryNow · 27/04/2018 16:30

Exactly Efrig, shame more people can't see that !
< not referring to anyone in particular honest>

CakeOfThePan · 27/04/2018 16:31

communist thats the issue isn't it, how do you differentiate between parents? It would also potentially mean parents of children who were being abused or neglected could take them out of hospital/ refuse treatments

SomeDyke · 27/04/2018 16:32

"Where are you seeing that fennel?"

It was reported in the Mail. But even if the report is correct, it is only what his brother said he said, not the father saying it himself. So, hearsay at best.

youarenotkiddingme · 27/04/2018 16:34

If we make a law that parents have more autonomy over the medical care of their children than the medical experts.
Aren't we paving the way for this also extending into abuse and social care?

If we make this law we give parents more say in the best interests of their child and risk giving more autonomy to everyone who can't make that decision. This can include those with addiction problems or who don't naturally have the lamenting skills required to safeguard their child.

It feels like such a step backwards from every child matters that was introduced.

TheShapeofYou · 27/04/2018 16:39

Thank you to everyone posting on these threads, and to MNHQ for letting them stand. They are so informative and, in my opinion, are helping to dispel myths around this case. The Guardian article written by the NHS palliative care doctor earlier is very good indeed so I've shared it on my social media.

@prettybird just to say, your post about your Mum made me well up. I lost my Mum a few years ago so it resonated with me. She was in/out of a coma and in intensive care for two months, then did a tour of the hospital at various wards before her 59 year old body had had enough surgeries and procedures and gave up. We as a family agreed to put her on the now defunct Liverpool Care Pathway, as the medical team advised that was the kindest and best route for her. She took a good few days to pass, but was (mostly) comfortable and absolutely pain free. The palliative care team were AMAZING (as were the ITU staff who I had dealt with daily for eight weeks).

Anyway, thanks for sharing your story. I agree we definitely need to talk about death more.

GherkinSnatch · 27/04/2018 16:52

I can't see how that sort of law would pass - it would be different if it was universally agreed that the children had been let down at some point in the procedure, but the flash points in these cases seem to occur when there is a fundamental disagreement between the care providers and the parents, at which point the courts get involved to ensure that the rights of the child are being upheld/CAFCASS guardians are involved etc.

If anything it would make more sense for there to be a law for these sort of cases to be dealt with anonymously like in family court to prevent the situation being manipulated, and for legal aid to be made available to families in these sort of situations so they can get proper advice and support rather than getting preyed on by agenda-driven leeches.

youarenotkiddingme · 27/04/2018 16:52

My man had COPD and heart failure. She has portable oxygen but managed ok.
One day she was admitted to hospital with a collapsed lung and we were told she probably wouldn't survive the night. They reinstated her lung and started AB to treat the infection. The following day she appeared better and discussions were started about her care needs if she went home.
Then her lung collapsed again and she needed a chest drain.
Again she recovered better than expected but discussion was had about the drain needing to remain in situ (probably permanently) and discharging her to a care home or hospice.
Then she appeared to rally round.
The following day she deteriorated badly. Further discussion was had. My nan and her children all agreed they didn't want her to keep being kept alive for her health to deteriorate again within 24 hours. She signed an advanced directive.
The infection then showed signs of worsening despite the AB and it was agreed to stop treatment that would save her life by prolong her suffering.
The hospital asked if her children (my Mum and her siblings) wanted to stay with her. All 7 of them!
They stayed the night in a private room with her and she survived until the following evening.

The hospital staff were compassionate, honest, respectful of wishes and protecting dignity. My nan got to decide how and when she went and I've always gained comfort from that.

TheShapeofYou · 27/04/2018 17:01

If anything it would make more sense for there to be a law for these sort of cases to be dealt with anonymously like in family court to prevent the situation being manipulated, and for legal aid to be made available to families in these sort of situations so they can get proper advice and support rather than getting preyed on by agenda-driven leeches

This with bells on!