UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Da Boss**

No, I'm sorry. To me, that absolutely is the point. It's central to why I would make this argument.

**BaronIveagh**

Da Boss wrote:
No, I'm sorry. To me, that absolutely is the point. It's central to why I would make this argument.

Then you're making the wrong argument as there are about three kids around the corner from me who have a similar condition but are up and around, though most do die.

**whembly**

reds8n wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Act_1989

watching their child killed in front of them by "disinterested experts".

Much better to have them shot by a murderous classmate and then send thoughts and prayers instead and then cash another cheque from the NRA.

Holy gak, there's all kinds of intersectionality here... are you trying to break the internets?
A) I hereby declare that you're trying to "Godwin'ed" a thread because you don't have good answers... but, we gotta give a different name... "thoughts and prayer'ed"... "NRA'ed"... need help ya'll!

B) I find it disturbing that you mock "thoughts and prayers".... why would you object to a group of people who, at a minimum, are empathetic and wants some higher beings to send good vibes.
C) The NRA is the largest gun safety training organization who doesn't spend no where NEAR at the top of political scene.

..we colloquially refer ANY state operated/empowered entity as the "Government".

and then scream from the rooftops if someone uses the term "assault rfile"...

It's a meaningless term meant to be "scary" by control advocate.

Facts matters.

I think we all can agree that killing someone's child is the worst thing you can do to a human being.

nope.

O.o

, the experts and the courts can properly intervene. That isn't the case over Alife...

yes it is.

Specifically why do you believe it so? Or, do you simply trust the doctors and judge??

**A Town Called Malus**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
No, I'm sorry. To me, that absolutely is the point. It's central to why I would make this argument.

Then you're making the wrong argument as there are about three kids around the corner from me who have a similar condition but are up and around, though most do die.

You have three kids around the corner whose brain deteriorated and have been on life support for two years?

**Howard A Treesong**

whembly wrote: So, back to Alfie Evans: So, in the US...we do not give parents the right to decide for their children BECAUSE they always make the correct choice. We give them that right because they care more about the child's welfare than the experts do. Obviously, that's not what happened here... and I'm curious as to how you feel about how this whole thing transpried.

You don’t know what some parents are like then. They don’t care for their child’s welfare more than experts, nor are they capable of making the ‘correct’ choice based on evidence and reason. The religious nuts that would kill their kids by preventing them having blood transfusions and other routine operations demonstrates that you can’t blindly trust parents to have their children’s best interests at heart.

That’s not the case here, but let’s not pretend that being a parent gives you some unquestioned position of judgment on medical treatment of your child, often being so close makes it impossible to make a reasoned choice. That medical experts are capable of that because they have the expertise and the ability to be impartial doesn’t make them ‘disinterested’. I think a lot of those working in the NHS would be offended to be described as disinterested in their patients’ treatment and welfare.

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:

Specifically why do you believe it so? Or, do you simply trust the doctors and judge??

This case has been seen by many doctors and many judges (initial case judge, higher court judge, supreme court judge, ECHR judges and appeals judges). All of them sided with Alfie's welfare over the parents wishes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
whembly wrote:I think a lot of those working in the NHS would be offended to be described as disinterested in their patients’ treatment and welfare.

All of those who I have had the pleasure to meet in a lifetime of NHS use would be. That's the renal teams at St George's, Guy's, St. Thomas' and the Evelina Children's hospital in London, Kent and Canterbury hospital in Canterbury, St. Richard's in Chichester, Southampton Hospital and Southmead Hospital in Bristol.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

whembly wrote:

The Italian government and hospital system was offering to pay for additional treatment and palliative care. The organization in question is the Italian national health care system (heh) and the government of Italy was attempting to facilitate the transfer (heh).

By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent?
Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???

They weren't offering treatment though, just to continue with palliative care, there is no cure to the condition he had, the area of his brain that contributes to voluntary control was gone all that was left was the area at the base that controls the most basic functions of life and even that was only working properly with help, what was there to gain from keeping him alive apart, it certainly wasn't for his good which is the only thing that comes into it for doctors. The courts didn't decide to kill Alfie they decided to let him pass on knowing he had no hope of recovery.

I really feel sorry for the parents and can understand how they were unwilling to let go, but it's reasons like this when the courts should have a role because in many cases people don't think rationally about their children as they will always hold onto a small bit of hope. The way some people online have been acting however is disgusting, threatening medical staff, trying to break into the hospital and protesting outside, who's this meant to be helping? There were other kids in that hospital scared hearing the crowds outside why weren't they thinking of them too. A lot of what I have seen online appears to be people jumping on a bandwagon looking for attention, if they truly cared about the lives of others they'd be better donating some money each month to research into illness instead of going around making peoples jobs harder than they already are. And the idea that everyone in the NHS is involved with some cult like plans to kill people for scientific research would be hilarious if people weren't actually believing it.

**BaronIveagh**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

You have three kids around the corner whose brain deteriorated and have been on life support for two years?

Longer on life support, though less brain deterioration (brain tumors) than Alfie. Two of the three have since been decannulated, but the third one still needs a vent when asleep. One of the ones up and about is permanently deaf though.

And if you think that England's system works, I point out that Ashya King's parents had to kidnap their own child from the Hospital when they threw up the same roadblocks Alfie's doctors did. In that case though the High Court ruled in favor of the family, and he was successfully treated in Poland, and is alive to this day,

It took NHS about two years to admit they'd been wrong in that case.

**whembly**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
whembly wrote:I think a lot of those working in the NHS would be offended to be described as disinterested in their patients’ treatment and welfare.

All of those who I have had the pleasure to meet in a lifetime of NHS use would be. That's the renal teams at St George's, Guy's, St. Thomas' and the Evelina Children's hospital in London, Kent and Canterbury hospital in Canterbury, St. Richard's in Chichester, Southampton Hospital and Southmead Hospital in Bristol.

I didn't mean to convey they were disinterested in their patient's treatment and welfare... I meant it as experts in position of power reviewing the facts at hand dispassionately and without regards to parents' wishes.

**BaronIveagh**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Southampton Hospital

Funny, didn't the High Court rule that these guys were NOT acting in the patient's best interests in 2014? Something about a Europe wide manhunt when the parents took their kid and fled because NHS didn't offer the treatment they wanted for their son, even though when they fled, that treatment saved his life?

**whembly**

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
whembly wrote:

The Italian government and hospital system was offering to pay for additional treatment and palliative care. The organization in question is the Italian national health care system (heh) and the government of Italy was attempting to facilitate the transfer (heh).

By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent?
Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???

They weren't offering treatment though, just to continue with palliative care, there is no cure to the condition he had, the area of his brain that contributes to voluntary control was gone all that was left was the area at the base that controls the most basic functions of life and even that was only working properly with help, what was there to gain from keeping him alive apart, it certainly wasn't for his good which is the only thing that comes into it for doctors. The courts didn't decide to kill Alfie they decided to let him pass on knowing he had no hope of recovery.

Then why would the court care if he'd pass there or continued receiving palliative care in Italy delaying the inevitable? I mean, this wouldn't be such a hot issue if his parents COULDN'T find any other hospital to help.

I really feel sorry for the parents and can understand how they were unwilling to let go, but it's reasons like this when the courts should have a role because in many cases people don't think rationally about their children as they will always hold onto a small bit of hope. The way some people online have been acting however is disgusting, threatening medical staff, trying to break into the hospital and protesting outside, who's this meant to be helping? There were other kids in that hospital scared hearing the crowds outside why weren't they thinking of them too. A lot of what I have seen online appears to be people jumping on a bandwagon looking for attention, if they truly cared about the lives of others they'd be better donating some money each month to research into illness instead of going around making peoples jobs harder than they already are. And the idea that everyone in the NHS is involved with some cult like plans to kill people for scientific research would be hilarious if people weren't actually believing it.

You can see how this is an emotional issue...right?

The crux of it is thus: The UK experts/court refused a parent's request to move their son to another hospital for treatment, regardless how hopeless the situation appears. This is stuff of nightmares for parents...

**gianlucafiorentini123**

BaronIveagh wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

You have three kids around the corner whose brain deteriorated and have been on life support for two years?

Longer on life support, though less brain deterioration (brain tumors) than Alfie. Two of the three have since been decannulated, but the third one still needs a vent when asleep. One of the ones up and about is permanently deaf though.

Then they have very little in common with the problems faced in this case:
i) They have obviously been able to diagnose their conditions, which was unable to be done in this case therefore there was no way to treat him to make him better.
ii) They're up and about so clearly still have a brain that is still functioning relatively well, Alfie didn't the scans should his brain had been essentially ''wiped out'' there is no recovery from that.

**reds8n**

whembly wrote:
P
B) I find it disturbing that you mock "thoughts and prayers"..

I find it disturbing that this is ever pushed as being of any use in a solution at all.

wants some higher beings to send good vibes.

A I don't believe in God/gods
B nor do I believe "good vibes" are of any use whatsoever in a situation like this.

Neither does any secularly based legal system

It's a meaningless term meant to be "scary" by control advocate.

Like death panels or socialist country or etc etc etc

I think we all can agree that killing someone's child is the worst thing you can do to a human being.

nope.

O.o

**BaronIveagh**

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

Then they have very little in common with the problems faced in this case:
i) They have obviously been able to diagnose their conditions, which was unable to be done in this case therefore there was no way to treat him to make him better.

Conversely though you don't know if the condition is irreversible or not either.

I grant that it's unlikely, but I also feel that in this case it would have been better to allow the parents to take the boy elsewhere and seek alternate treatments, etc. Particularly when treatment etc was not going to be picked up by the British taxpayer.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

whembly wrote:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
whembly wrote:

The Italian government and hospital system was offering to pay for additional treatment and palliative care. The organization in question is the Italian national health care system (heh) and the government of Italy was attempting to facilitate the transfer (heh).

By what reasonable authority does this UK hosptial/court have to prevent this transfer? Why was it NOT enough that both Alfie parents AND the Italian government/hospitals were willing to transfer Alfie??? Does the British (and EU?) courts have a mandate to protect Italian taxpayers from their own decisions? Are they worried about some dangerous precedent?
Is there something more to this ordeal that I'm not getting???

They weren't offering treatment though, just to continue with palliative care, there is no cure to the condition he had, the area of his brain that contributes to voluntary control was gone all that was left was the area at the base that controls the most basic functions of life and even that was only working properly with help, what was there to gain from keeping him alive apart, it certainly wasn't for his good which is the only thing that comes into it for doctors. The courts didn't decide to kill Alfie they decided to let him pass on knowing he had no hope of recovery.

Then why would the court care if he'd pass there or continued receiving palliative care in Italy delaying the inevitable? I mean, this wouldn't be such a hot issue if his parents COULDN'T find any other hospital to help.

Because they weren't offering treatment, the journey to Italy probably would have killed him. We don't know if he was suffering or not, if he was keeping him alive would just continue to put him through that and if not he is not benefitting in anyway at all. There was no outcome that benefited him.

I really feel sorry for the parents and can understand how they were unwilling to let go, but it's reasons like this when the courts should have a role because in many cases people don't think rationally about their children as they will always hold onto a small bit of hope. The way some people online have been acting however is disgusting, threatening medical staff, trying to break into the hospital and protesting outside, who's this meant to be helping? There were other kids in that hospital scared hearing the crowds outside why weren't they thinking of them too. A lot of what I have seen online appears to be people jumping on a bandwagon looking for attention, if they truly cared about the lives of others they'd be better donating some money each month to research into illness instead of going around making peoples jobs harder than they already are. And the idea that everyone in the NHS is involved with some cult like plans to kill people for scientific research would be hilarious if people weren't actually believing it.

You can see how this is an emotional issue...right?

The crux of it is thus: The UK experts/court refused a parent's request to move their son to another hospital for treatment, regardless how hopeless the situation appears. This is stuff of nightmares for parents...

Of course it an emotional issue and my heart goes out to his parents completely no one should have to go through what they have, but their rights shouldn't trump Alfie's.

The situation did not appear hopeless it was hopeless. The courts refused it because while the parents have the right to want the best for their child, but what they think is best and what is actually best is not always the same thing.

**BaronIveagh**

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
but what they think is best and what is actually best is not always the same thing.

The converse is also true. I'd have died if my parents had listened to my doctor when I was small. Instead I'm alive to irritate you guys.

**A Town Called Malus**

BaronIveagh wrote:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
but what they think is best and what is actually best is not always the same thing.

The converse is also true. I'd have died if my parents had listened to my doctor when I was small. Instead I'm alive to irritate you guys.

But with Alfie it wasn't just one doctor, it was a whole team of specialist consultants who had been caring for him for years.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

BaronIveagh wrote:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

Then they have very little in common with the problems faced in this case:
i) They have obviously been able to diagnose their conditions, which was unable to be done in this case therefore there was no way to treat him to make him better.

Conversely though you don't know if the condition is irreversible or not either.

I grant that it's unlikely, but I also feel that in this case it would have been better to allow the parents to take the boy elsewhere and seek alternate treatments, etc. Particularly when treatment etc was not going to be picked up by the British taxpayer.

His brain tissue was dead you can't reverse that, when cells in the brain die they literally turn to a liquid it's even got it's own name. The Italian hospital was not offering an alternate treatment they were simply saying that they'd keep the machine going.

**BaronIveagh**

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

His brain tissue was dead you can't reverse that, when cells in the brain die they literally turn to a liquid it's even got it's own name. The Italian hospital was not offering an alternate treatment they were simply saying that they'd keep the machine going.

Actually there are treatments that can reverse that, thought they're illegal in many nations due to the horror of stem cells

A Town Called Malus wrote:

But with Alfie it wasn't just one doctor, it was a whole team of specialist consultants who had been caring for him for years.

Um, Alfie checked into the hospital at 6 months and died at 23 months so there's no 'years' here.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

BaronIveagh wrote:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

His brain tissue was dead you can't reverse that, when cells in the brain die they literally turn to a liquid it's even got it's own name. The Italian hospital was not offering an alternate treatment they were simply saying that they'd keep the machine going.

Actually there are treatments that can reverse that, thought they're illegal in many nations due to the horror of stem cells

Are they being used to currently treat patients? From my understanding we can use use pluripotent stem cells to form neurons in a pitri dish but we've been unable to actually to use it to repair damage in a human subject or even animals(?) and even at that there's the potential problem that we cannot generate true neurons as the iPSC have been somatic in nature and appear to retain an epigenetic memory so there's a risk of them retaining a preference for their previous cell type.

**Steve steveson**

BaronIveagh wrote:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

His brain tissue was dead you can't reverse that, when cells in the brain die they literally turn to a liquid it's even got it's own name. The Italian hospital was not offering an alternate treatment they were simply saying that they'd keep the machine going.

Actually there are treatments that can reverse that, thought they're illegal in many nations due to the horror of stem cells

No there aren't. There is no way to reveres the brain damage we are talking about. There is some promising research in to the possibility of stem cell therapy treating some types of minor brain injury. Not repairing the 70% of lost white matter.

**BaronIveagh**

Steve steveson wrote:

No there aren't. There is no way to reveres the brain damage we are talking about. There is some promising research in to the possibility of stem cell therapy treating some types of minor brain injury. Not repairing the 70% of lost white matter.

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

Are they being used to currently treat patients? From my understanding we can use use pluripotent stem cells to form neurons in a pitri dish but we've been unable to actually to use it to repair damage in a human subject or even animals(?) and even at that there's the potential problem that we cannot generate true neurons as the iPSC have been somatic in nature and appear to retain an epigenetic memory so there's a risk of them retaining a preference for their previous cell type.

Surgeons in Zhengzhou started human testing using Embryonic stem cells to treat neural degeneration from diseases such as Parkinson's in May of 2017, injecting lab grown ES-cell-derived neuronal-precursor cells directly into the subjects brains. They also started testing for their use in macular degeneration cases.

They had to make it work in monkey's before China would allow them to proceed in human testing.

While no one has, as of yet, managed 70% of a brain, it's likely not far off.

Lund University in Sweden claims to have a similar process that will be ready for testing soon, as do the Australians, who are cooperating with the Chinese trials.

**r_squared**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-43906796

A United Ireland is definitely one way of sorting out the border issue and customs union problems. But I think we've still got a long way to go, no matter if Republicans start using Londonderry or not.

**BaronIveagh**

r_squared wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-43906796

A United Ireland is definitely one way of sorting out the border issue and customs union problems. But I think we've still got a long way to go, no matter if Republicans start using Londonderry or not.

Now there's a problem that makes regenerating 70% of a brain look easy.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

BaronIveagh wrote:Surgeons in Zhengzhou started human testing using Embryonic stem cells to treat neural degeneration from diseases such as Parkinson's in May of 2017, injecting lab grown ES-cell-derived neuronal-precursor cells directly into the subjects brains. They also started testing for their use in macular degeneration cases.

They had to make it work in monkey's before China would allow them to proceed in human testing.

While no one has, as of yet, managed 70% of a brain, it's likely not far off.

Lund University in Sweden claims to have a similar process that will be ready for testing soon, as do the Australians, who are cooperating with the Chinese trials.

You do realise that they haven't even published any data and other scientists have expressed doubts about the safety of the trial? Even if they do manage to replace the cells lost during Parkinson that is a very long way from recreating the majority of the brain.

You're talking about keeping a child in a vegetative state possibly in pain in the hopes that there MAY be a move forward in a treatment for a disease he doesn't even have.

**BaronIveagh**

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

You do realise that they haven't even published any data and other scientists have expressed doubts about the safety of the trial? Even if they do manage to replace the cells lost during Parkinson that is a very long way from recreating the majority of the brain.

You're talking about keeping a child in a vegetative state possibly in pain in the hopes that there MAY be a move forward in a treatment for a disease he doesn't even have.

I grant they have not published yet (it's still ongoing, so....) and even if they did, it would never be legal in the US or England, so that the conservatives in both places can shout how moral they are, and that God wants the sick to suffer as they offend him somehow. (which is why I generally discard scientists in the US decrying how dangerous it is, as some of them also decry all forms of stem cell research as the work of Satan and murder for profit.

Again, as you pointed out earlier, we don't know what disease he actually has, and while I grant that you're correct in that a treatment specific to his rather more significant damage is likely a long way off, the nature of the damage is similar enough that the Parkenson's treatment if administered when his condition first manifested, it might have at least slowed, or even stopped the degeneration. Further, that the judge made his decision based on something that's only partially true.

I don't think this discussion will ever have an end, as Americans and Canadians tend to be more optimistic than people in England, and thus both have very different outlooks on what constitutes good medicine.

**Herzlos**

It very much is the point. There's no doubt about what his future recovery would look like; there's nothing to recover.

He got over pneumonia that no-one was expecting, but he can't grow back his brain, and even if the technology existed in the future he'd essentially spent his entire life in a hospital bed so would have real issues with growth, bone strength, muscle wastage and so on.

If he could feel anything, he'd have suffered. He has zero chance of improving.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Um, Alfie checked into the hospital at 6 months and died at 23 months so there's no 'years' here.

That's 1.5 years.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Not the point though and you know it.

**Kilkrazy**

Well, this case has been up and down through the UK and ECHR courts twice.

It has been thoroughly examined from legal and medical points of view in the light of current knowledge. The conclusions were always the same.

No doubt there will be similar cases in the future, and we will see what happens as medical science advances and perhaps finds a way to cure such illnesses.

**A Town Called Malus**

BaronIveagh wrote:
.

While no one has, as of yet, managed 70% of a brain, it's likely not far off. .

That isn't how the brain works. Restoring small parts damaged by Alzheimers is leaps and bounds below restoring almost an entire brain.

And once you inject the cells, you have no idea whether they will be attacked again by the disease.

So all you could end up doing is regrowing and having the brain deteriorate over and over again for someones entire life as they have to continually undergo invasive procedures. They would have no quality of life. Not to mention that each time you're trying to restore it it may not perfectly recreate the previous connections so you could end up with a person with a completely different personality and memories from before the procedures as their brain is no longer wired in the same way.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Actually there are treatments that can reverse that, thought they're illegal in many nations due to the horror of stem cells

The UK has embryonic stem cell research.

So does France. Italy does not.

So the parents would not have been able to get stem cell treatments for their kid in Italy even if it worked.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Southampton Hospital

Funny, didn't the High Court rule that these guys were NOT acting in the patient's best interests in 2014? Something about a Europe wide manhunt when the parents took their kid and fled because NHS didn't offer the treatment they wanted for their son, even though when they fled, that treatment saved his life?

No they didn't.
The parents wanted to take their kid to the Czech Republic to undergo proton therapy as they mistakenly believed it was less dangerous than conventional radiotherapy. When it was denied (the NHS didn't pay for proton therapy at the time as it was too expensive for the same risks and benefit of conventional radiotherapy for this particular form of cancer. It did pay for it for other forms of cancer where there was a benefit in the form of less dosage to the areas around the target) the parents took their child and fled to Spain.

There they were arrested and their child, who in this time had not been receiving any treatment for their cancer, was sent to a local hospital to receive therapy. The case then went to court which ruled they could go and get proton therapy in the Czech Republic.

The court did not rule that the hospital was wrong about the lack of benefit of proton therapy over radiotherapy, just that the kid could go and get the proton therapy.

The actions of the parents delayed their child receiving treatment when acting within a strict time window is incredibly important to prevent the cancer returning and they did so based on incorrect information.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/05/ashya-king-prague-proton-beam-therapy-court-ruling

**r_squared**

Home ownership was the lynch pin in Thatchers strategy to secure a generation of Conservative voters. The theory being that if people have a stake in the country, and are tied in to the capitalist ideology through home ownership, then they will be life long Tory supporters. It worked, neo-liberalism and home ownership forced Labour to transform itself and the country has been voting centrist blue ever since.

So, now that the baby boomers are dying off and with them a life of compartivive wealth from secure employment, weighty pensions and cheap home ownership and with generation X Scooping up the last of the remnants of that bounty, what are millennials left with?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/28/proportion-home-owners-halves-millennials

What does that mean for the continued domination of Tory ideology? An entire generation without a stake in the future and with none of the advantages of the previous generations, and without the Tories able to buy them off, are we looking at a generational shift in political ideals?