Long story short, the kid is dying of an incurable disease. The parents have secured Italian citizenship and transportation and don’t want him to die. Hospital took him off life support, and he’s survived that and they waited 23 to give him nourishment. Authorities are presently not allowing him to leave, claiming they want him to “die with dignity”.
I say let the kid go to Italy, especially since he can survive off life support. It is no worse than having him stay in that hospital.
Does this mean the parents want to transport their in-practical-terms-dead child to another country just because in that country it takes longer for the machines to be turned off?
It’s all desperately sad for all concerned. It’s comparable to other similar cases recently: the question isn’t whether he lives or dies, but what is the least painful and undignified way for the inevitable to happen, and I can’t see how anybody who wasn’t in the courtroom and heard all the evidence is in a position to go behind the judges’ reasoning.
Least of all those nominal “Christians” who think it’s right and decent to threaten the hospital staff with publishing their home addresses, and disrupting the care given to other patients.
Well, unplugging, AFAIK, won’t make a difference. He’s surviving without the machines, which I don’t think was expected. I’m sure Italy would make more of an effort than the bare minimum to keep him alive of course.
I agree that it is probably best for all involved to allow the child to die with dignity, but as long as the parents are willing to pay for the treatment, and transportation either through their own funds or through money raised by donations, they can do what they want. The child is beyond the point of suffering so if they want to cart his body around with them and hook it up to a bunch of machines, that’s their business, but it seems a waste, and I hope the family doesn’t bankrupt themselves for a temporary glimmer of false hope.
I don’t know why the UK refuses to allow him to be sent to Italy. I know they’ve stated they want him to die with dignity, but if Italy is willing to keep him plugged in longer and he can survive for a good amount of time off the machines, it seems a bit strange to say they are just looking out for the kid by not allowing him to go.
Why can’t they just take the kid home? The hospital is not treating him, why does he need to stay there?
Because some judge thinks he knows better than the parents whats best for their kid. I say who the hell his he to define what “dying with dignity” means? Bare minimum care ensures suffering, if there’s any to be had. If they really wanted the kid not to suffer, they’d actively kill him instantly in a painless way. I think they would if they could get away with it.
Like the Terry Schiavvo case, it’s depressing, especially since there is no one with bad intentions in the mix.
Everyone knows there is nothing to be done, and the kid is going to finish dying sooner or later. The parents are in denial, which is unfortunate but understandable, the doctors and hospitals don’t want to waste money trying to fix the unfixable, which is also understandable, and the media are treating it as grief porn.
How does a society handle euthanasia when the next of kin doesn’t consent? Any answer at all has as many downsides as up. “We don’t want to let you go to Italy because we want your kid to die”.
Regards,
Shodan
Letting the kid go to Italy won’t cost the UK a dime, and everybody dies sooner or later. I am not convinced the parents are in denial, they don’t want their kid in the “care” of an institution that has tried (and failed) to kill their kid. This is also different than the Shaivo case because her next of kin (her husband) was okay with it.
If the kid could talk right now (and think straight), what do you think he would want? (And, why isn’t that always the first thing people think of?)
I understood the ruling to let the kids die, sadly it would have been best for the parents.
If he’s alive off the machines though, they should be allowed to take him to Italy, in a nasty way it makes sense, the journey mIght be too much, finish him off and allow parents to grieve and move on.
He can’t, which is why they asked his next of kin. And there we are.
The kid is going to die. He cannot be cured. Nothing can fix that - it can only be postponed, to no one’s benefit.
Regards,
Shodan
If he was able to talk and think straight (which would be exceptional for a two year old… but I digress), that would run counter to his diagnosis and I can say with pretty good confidence that he’d say “I want to live”.
I think the parents would take exception to that statement. But, hey, we know what’s best for them too.
Have they lost parental rights, I wonder? Terry Schiavo was an adult, that’s a whole other thing. People write down your wishes now, and tell everybody who may have a voice at your end of life-time.
Saying they tried to kill the kid is still denial. The kid was already dying, and they stopped waiting on him to get better. He was expected to die, but didn’t, so now the parents have false hope. The only reason to take the child to Italy is if there is something they can do in Italy to save the child. So that is also denial.
It is denial all over the place, including your denial that taking the child to Italy won’t benefit the parents. The kid will still die, and Italy will become the ones who “killed” him.
As I understand it, the hospital in Italy is a Children’s Hospital that may have access to other experts. They are willing to take the case. Why not have another set of experts look at the boy? Likely nothing will change, but it can’t hurt anything. He’s surviving off of life support at this point. What difference does it make to the UK if he leaves?
It’s hardly the best format - and the author is mightily pissed off by the time he posts it - but this twitter thread hits most of the relevant legal points
he posts this as a summary
I see that noted medical ethicist Ted Cruz has weighed in. He can go fuck himself.
“Killing the kid” was a poor choice of words, I concede that. “Letting him die against next of kin wishes (and failing)” is better.
If you actually believe he’s suffering, then a humane kill is the right call (and, IMO, depriving food is NOT humane!). Will anybody do that? Nope, I don’t think so.
If you don’t believe he’s suffering, then it makes no difference to anyone but the parents. Let him go home, let him go to Italy, what does it matter? And *they *should decide whats best “for them” (even if that includes denial and “false hope”) thanks very much.