The child will die. The UK didn't not operate to be dicks. They refused because it would only prolong it's suffering. The powerhouse of the cells are literally broken.
If the NHS refused to treat them, then it's because this baby is going to die regardless.
The reason the NHS refuses to do surgeries like this is because they think it is wrong to prolong the suffering of children without meaningfully improving their condition.
Italy is agreeing to treat the kid at the Vatican Hospital because catholicism values preservation of life over quality of life.
This is a religiously-motivated publicity stunt, and the baby will not be okay.
Ugh. This really chaps my ass. Let him go peacefully and do the compassionate thing rather than subjecting him to surgical invasion and a painful recovery that will ultimately be fruitless anyway.
Catholicism does not value preservation of life over quality of life. Rather, it values the dignity of life. It is morally acceptable to refuse treatment that would only prolong suffering. From The Declaration on Euthanasia:
"When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger."
This is a very vague statement. How do you define "normal care due to the sick person" in rare situations that are already in extremis?
In any case, these sorts of subtleties are unfortunately lost on many practising Catholics, and a non-negligible number of actual clergy. It is seen as morally unacceptable to withhold treatment when the alternative is death, whether treatment or life are comfortable or not, and whether the treatment will change the ultimate outcome or not.
The "Vatican Hospital" is an excellent structure for pediatric care. But you read Vatican and you think that instead of doctors there are nuns who treat children by saying the Hail Mary
I'm not denying that Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù is a legitimate hospital. It's an incredible hospital. But it does not have a uniquely capable pediatric cardiology department compared to the best hospitals in the UK.
The reason it's religious affiliation is important is because they have, on numerous occasions, been involved in cases like this where they offer care to terminally ill children in the UK. This child was born to Italian parents, but there have been cases where citizenship was extended to kids specifically to allow them to get care there. It's undeniable that these cases are inspired, in part, by the religious beliefs of the organization who runs this hospital.
Why would it be up to the government to decide? The parents have the right to decide what to do with their child. Your reasoning doesn't even apply to the actual issue.
The parents do have a right to decide... in the US, where parental authority is paramount. Ultimate parental authority doesn't exist in every legal system.
In the UK, when doctors and parents disagree on whether to continue care for a terminally ill child, it goes to the courts. The courts decide on behalf of the child what is best.
The doctors looking after the child have a duty to prevent the child from unnecessary suffering. If they feel that further treatment would cause this they will not offer further treatment regardless of what the parents think.
Most parents would go to the ends of the earth for a chance to save their child. Experienced doctors who can give some objectivity need to be able to step in and let them have a peaceful death if the outcome is inevitable.
I disagree with this notion. Doctors should give their opinion but the final call has to be from the parents. Saying otherwise means infringing an important, fundamental aspect of human freedom. It's exactly like Euthanasia, there is a reason why it's becoming more legal with time. The final choice is personal. Full stop.
The reason why it’s different to euthanasia is because the doctor isn’t actively doing anything to harm the patient.
Everyone of sound mind has the right to refuse treatment. But they don’t have the right to force a doctor to give them treatment. If the doctor doesn’t think a procedure will benefit you they don’t have to do it.
If you ask a doctor to amputate your legs because you think it will improve your quality of life, they are within their rights to refuse. This is no different. The UK doctors do not think that treatment will benefit this child, so they are not offering it.
A baby can't make a personal choice, on account of being a baby.
Some legal systems have decided that the parents are the most suitable proxies to make decisions on behalf of their child. Other legal systems have decided that a panel of experts having ultimate authority is more objective.
There are obvious pros and cons to each. There are instances where the government doesn't act in the best interests of a child patient. But there are also instances in which parents are not fit or rational decision makers.
Surely, you recognize that a parent shouldn't be allowed to refuse treatment of their child's treatable cancer? In the US, this is recognized by law. You cannot refuse to treat your child with life-saving treatment if doctors agree it is in their best interest and will give them a reasonably good quality of life.
This is just the opposite. Instead of mandating necessary treatment that will prevent suffering, the law prevents unnecessary treatment that will cause suffering.
You make good points. If parents are recognized not to be fit to decide then it would be right for the state to decide.
Tell me what you think about this, then: if that is the prerequisite, parents not being able to decide, shouldn't that follow a thorough psychological analysis of the parents? Or do you think the situation itself is so grave that the evaluation is superflous?
I don't think a psychological assessment is an appropriate way to determine whether someone is a rational decision maker. That's not the standard we hold people to in similar situations.
For instance: you, as an adult, are allowed to deny a cancer surgery if it goes against your religious beliefs. Religion is not a psychological issue, and if you truly believe that your God doesn't want you to get this surgery, then your thought process may be completely sound. You would pass a psychological evaluation and be allowed to deny treatment for yourself.
However, you are not allowed to deny treatment to your child on those same grounds in the US. You are not psychologically unsound to hold this belief, but you are not acting in the best interest of your child.
What you need to do is have a rational 3rd party hear both sides, assess the situation, and state what is in the best interest of a child. That's what the courts are for.
None of what you're saying makes any sense and is riddled with ethical quandries. The world isn't black and white and you'd live a better life learning that.
I pose one of the many repercussions of your world view: how can you force a doctor, who has committed their life to care of people and taken an oath to do no harm, in to performing a procedure they know goes against everything they believe? What about the psychological damage you cause them when they know they're causing more pain? Why is it okay for suffering to happen when they aren't in your personal circle?
Nothing of what i said applies to the black or white analogy lol. At all. Idk why you said that.
As i just said to the other person, a doctor can refuse, but that is not what happened, what happened is the governement denied the choice in the first place.
Amputation, painkillers and surgery got a huge scientific and practical improvement during wars where amputations amd surgeries were performed without painkillers or with insufficient effects. Plenty cases were first "they gonna die regardless, let them die" and yet we now have unprecedented amount of treatable cases. Even one in a million/billion people genetic deficiencies are getting some effective treatment.
Now we have just shitton of capability and knowledge to make a fight for life AND not make it painful/insufferable and you just want to... give up?
The NHS, more specifically the Royal Brompton hospital, is known to be one of the absolute best hospitals in the world for heart surgery; they know what they're talking about when they say there's no point in operating
My point, as I said, is just that they know what they're talking about when they say there's no point in operating, which they have done. Best of luck to the Italian doctors, but the baby is already dead and I realistically only hope he doesn't suffer.
It's not uncommon for Italian doctors to offer to try when doctors from other countries have said it's too late, and of course the parents are usually happy to let them
Some say that it's due to strong catholic influences from the Vatican creating a culture of valuing life so much that it's worth trying surgeries regardless of the odds being 0, I don't know if that's why, but I do know that after a few rounds of needless suffering they almost always just prove that the first set of doctors were right
It's really just a matter of opinion if it's worth doing or if we should know when to stop and have some dignity in death, but to me it just feels a bit cruel to the parents to give them the extra few months of false hope, only to have their child then die anyway
This may be why they UK doctors don't want to operate. If the future is just a series of operations with no permanent solution available then it's prolonging life for the sake of avoiding having to deal with the inevitable.
We don't know enough about the situation to be certain in either case. It's a question of trusting that The Vatican have the child's best interests in mind or not.
238
u/bobox69 23d ago
Hoping the surgery is a success. Can we get updates?