Bonkers brilliance

[J Dory]

I have a vision of Coco that I resort to on cold dark mornings that is neither old, fat, white or American - I think she might be Moroccan.

I thought we established some time ago that Coco is of Pacific Island ethnic origins?

[Galfon]

Whatever Serj has visoned, it sounds like he'd like Samoa..

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I like olive skinned; Samoan wimin are swarthy, like Edward G Robinson or the Ant Hill Mob.

[BBD]

Coco has hobbit feet



You're welcome

[Coco]

Hardly a surprise when the US health system has such a focus on keeping old, fat, rich, white Americans alive

As opposed to taking terminal babies off life support and not allowing parents to take them home to either pass peacefully, or try anything within their power to help their baby?

Terminal is usually terminal.

I'm sure there are instances of US courts determining the fates of terminally ill patients in the US. A cursory Google search finds the case of Israel Stinson.

It seems the courts decided against the parents wishes and before appeals could be lodged, the child's life support was removed.

At least in cases in the UK, due process and the right to appeal against legal decisions seems to carry quite a bit of weight. I take it your comment referred to Alfie Evans?

Yes it was referring to him.

When I said "anything in their power", I meant the parents power, not the hospital or NHS. I read Italy gave that precious soul citizenship and offered to transport him for further care, free of charge. The hospital (?) would not allow it? Am I misunderstanding this? As a parent, and maybe because I am a woman (who's daughter had to be revived after a car accident), rational or not, I could not live with myself knowing I did not do everything in my power to try to help my child, even my degrees. And calling it a financial burden? The whole thing is absolutely heartbreaking to me. Maybe estrogen is clouding my view.

Digby, for once I have no words.

Sarj and J Dory... bless your hearts. Sarj, I know it was a longshot but I think my gripe is more that life support was taken away before the parents could appeal. The parents seemed to have no say, no rights to get their precious baby to Italy. If I am misunderstanding, please correct me.

Porky.. Foxnewsed? Oi.

Mellsblue... I thought it was a WUM too, imagine my horror when he said it wasn't.

BBD... Flintstone feet. If you are going to tell my deepest darkest secrets, at least make them accurate.

[Digby]

The parents appealed over and over, life support simply wasn't taken away before the parents could do anything. The hysteria though saw all kinds of people with no idea throw in their opinions, including (and frankly with a very different agenda to helping a very sick boy) some who offered hope but oddly turned out to be talking bollocks. All the hysteria managed was to draw some small mobs who achieved little other than to threaten staff working at the hospital for their presumption to treat Alfie and other patients, at worst there were even some physical assaults on nurses/doctors and the like

And this is about money, we could have spent more of it on treating people with a chance, in the end we dragged out spending money on a terminally ill child and spent a fortune on lawyers and court time whilst doing it. I can understand the parents being selfish, but the truth is a lot of money was wasted.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Did RRs just get "Fox Newsed"?

Sort it out FFS.

Over to the sports desk ...

[WaspInWales]

Yes it was referring to him.

When I said "anything in their power", I meant the parents power, not the hospital or NHS. I read Italy gave that precious soul citizenship and offered to transport him for further care, free of charge. The hospital (?) would not allow it? Am I misunderstanding this? As a parent, and maybe because I am a woman (who's daughter had to be revived after a car accident), rational or not, I could not live with myself knowing I did not do everything in my power to try to help my child, even my degrees. And calling it a financial burden? The whole thing is absolutely heartbreaking to me. Maybe estrogen is clouding my view.

Digby, for once I have no words.

Sarj and J Dory... bless your hearts. Sarj, I know it was a longshot but I think my gripe is more that life support was taken away before the parents could appeal. The parents seemed to have no say, no rights to get their precious baby to Italy. If I am misunderstanding, please correct me.

Porky.. Foxnewsed? Oi.

Mellsblue... I thought it was a WUM too, imagine my horror when he said it wasn't.

BBD... Flintstone feet. If you are going to tell my deepest darkest secrets, at least make them accurate.

As a parent myself, I can't begin to understand the turmoil and stress that Alfie's parents went through. It was a heartbreaking case. However, I'm also a firm believer in science and the need for evidence. Specialist doctors from Alder Hey hospital provided irrefutable evidence that Alfie's brain was so severely damaged, there was absolutely no hope of recovery, or even improvement in his condition. Keeping him on life-support was clearly against Alfie's best interest. He had no quality of life and no hope of quality of life.

The parents quite rightly appealed the High Court and Supreme Court decisions a number of times, but they could not provide any evidence to counter the evidence from the doctors. It wasn't as if the machines were simply switched off by doctors refusing to help. They had done all they could. However, through a combination of misinformation and emotive public interference, I think the parent's became deluded and it resulted in an ugly public stand-off which saw doctors and nurses from Alder Hey hospital assaulted and verbally abused.

As for moving Alfie to Rome for 'treatment'. That would've just been continued life-support with still no hope of recovery and/or improvement. I'm not sure how anyone could think that would've been good for the lad.

It was a sad case. As are cases of that nature.

I think there's also misconceptions in the US about the NHS. They are under incredible financial strains and have staff/management issues, but the decisions they make with regards to treatment are made on ethical grounds. They save people on a daily basis, care and provide treatment for people for years and help them recover and rehabilitate. They are not some sinister organisation making decisions to end life support for cost issues.

[Digby]

I think there's also misconceptions in the US about the NHS. They are under incredible financial strains and have staff/management issues, but the decisions they make with regards to treatment are made on ethical grounds. They save people on a daily basis, care and provide treatment for people for years and help them recover and rehabilitate. They are not some sinister organisation making decisions to end life support for cost issues.

There are plenty of decisions made based on costs. Hospitals are on occasions more likely to perform actions that result in them being able to bill for larger sums of cash, and not to offer treatments for which they can bill for smaller sums. This isn't based on my observations but talking to medical and (I think crucially) accountancy staff within the NHS. I don't fwiw think cost was a big driver in the treatment and then merely care offered to Alfie

[WaspInWales]

I think there's also misconceptions in the US about the NHS. They are under incredible financial strains and have staff/management issues, but the decisions they make with regards to treatment are made on ethical grounds. They save people on a daily basis, care and provide treatment for people for years and help them recover and rehabilitate. They are not some sinister organisation making decisions to end life support for cost issues.

There are plenty of decisions made based on costs. Hospitals are on occasions more likely to perform actions that result in them being able to bill for larger sums of cash, and not to offer treatments for which they can bill for smaller sums. This isn't based on my observations but talking to medical and (I think crucially) accountancy staff within the NHS. I don't fwiw think cost was a big driver in the treatment and then merely care offered to Alfie

Yes, in hindsight, it probably wasn't the best statement to make, as the NHS does indeed make treatment and business decisions based on cost. Things like the type of medication it will use. My point was that the decision to withdraw life support is made on ethical grounds and the best interest of the patient.

[Digby]

I think there's also misconceptions in the US about the NHS. They are under incredible financial strains and have staff/management issues, but the decisions they make with regards to treatment are made on ethical grounds. They save people on a daily basis, care and provide treatment for people for years and help them recover and rehabilitate. They are not some sinister organisation making decisions to end life support for cost issues.

There are plenty of decisions made based on costs. Hospitals are on occasions more likely to perform actions that result in them being able to bill for larger sums of cash, and not to offer treatments for which they can bill for smaller sums. This isn't based on my observations but talking to medical and (I think crucially) accountancy staff within the NHS. I don't fwiw think cost was a big driver in the treatment and then merely care offered to Alfie

Yes, in hindsight, it probably wasn't the best statement to make, as the NHS does indeed make treatment and business decisions based on cost. Things like the type of medication it will use. My point was that the decision to withdraw life support is made on ethical grounds and the best interest of the patient.

If anything I think we veer too much toward protecting life for the sake if it, which if one is going to fall one side of the fence isn't without merit

I think the NHS needs to take a huge look at just how much of its budget it spends on the final 1-2 months of the lives of its customers, imo giving up a lot of treatment options in those circumstances to pursue more of a care agenda would free up monies to be spent in other treatment areas with much better chances of seeing a return, and actually enable them to vastly improve care options

[Coco]

I think there's also misconceptions in the US about the NHS. They are under incredible financial strains and have staff/management issues, but the decisions they make with regards to treatment are made on ethical grounds. They save people on a daily basis, care and provide treatment for people for years and help them recover and rehabilitate. They are not some sinister organisation making decisions to end life support for cost issues.

There are plenty of decisions made based on costs. Hospitals are on occasions more likely to perform actions that result in them being able to bill for larger sums of cash, and not to offer treatments for which they can bill for smaller sums. This isn't based on my observations but talking to medical and (I think crucially) accountancy staff within the NHS. I don't fwiw think cost was a big driver in the treatment and then merely care offered to Alfie

Yes, in hindsight, it probably wasn't the best statement to make, as the NHS does indeed make treatment and business decisions based on cost. Things like the type of medication it will use. My point was that the decision to withdraw life support is made on ethical grounds and the best interest of the patient.

I agree about the misconceptions (about NHS), I am a firm believer that if you aren't or haven't experienced it for yourself, there is a great chance you are not fully understanding it. I think this is a huge reason why Americans just can't get on board with it, coupled with how irresponsible a lot of citizens feel our govt is with our tax money.

[morepork]

Experienced what? A child that fails to meet cognitive and motor milestones while their brain atrophies faster than Huntington's disease? Who are these armchair critics of a health system that seem to think they know what the fuck MRI even stands for? If by "most Americans" you mean religious ignoramus thundercunts like Mike Hukabee and Ted Cruz, then do one.

[Coco]

Experienced what? A child that fails to meet cognitive and motor milestones while their brain atrophies faster than Huntington's disease? Who are these armchair critics of a health system that seem to think they know what the fuck MRI even stands for? If by "most Americans" you mean religious ignoramus thundercunts like Mike Hukabee and Ted Cruz, then do one.

No no... experienced how the NHS works, benefits of it, pros and cons learned by personal experience.

[BBD]

Experienced what? A child that fails to meet cognitive and motor milestones while their brain atrophies faster than Huntington's disease? Who are these armchair critics of a health system that seem to think they know what the fuck MRI even stands for? If by "most Americans" you mean religious ignoramus thundercunts like Mike Hukabee and Ted Cruz, then do one.

No no... experienced how the NHS works, benefits of it, pros and cons learned by personal experience.

chiropodists?

[Coco]

Experienced what? A child that fails to meet cognitive and motor milestones while their brain atrophies faster than Huntington's disease? Who are these armchair critics of a health system that seem to think they know what the fuck MRI even stands for? If by "most Americans" you mean religious ignoramus thundercunts like Mike Hukabee and Ted Cruz, then do one.

No no... experienced how the NHS works, benefits of it, pros and cons learned by personal experience.

chiropodists?

Proctologist?

[morepork]

Code name: Penis Stalion. one day we will catch up Coco, and all hell will break lose.

[Stom]

Experienced what? A child that fails to meet cognitive and motor milestones while their brain atrophies faster than Huntington's disease? Who are these armchair critics of a health system that seem to think they know what the fuck MRI even stands for? If by "most Americans" you mean religious ignoramus thundercunts like Mike Hukabee and Ted Cruz, then do one.

No no... experienced how the NHS works, benefits of it, pros and cons learned by personal experience.

French guy dislocated his shoulder playing underwater hockey with me. Paramedics couldn't get it back in. So we went to hospital. Doctor was Indian, spoke with a half Indian, half Gog accent at the speed of light. Poor frenchie just looked at me with fear in his eyes when the doc explained what would happen. Couldn't understand a word.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

When I was much younger I had the dubious pleasure of undergoing a jejunal biopsy. The procedure was explained to me, by an English doctor, in clear and concise detail. That Frenchman had a fecking good day, let me tell you.

[Coco]

Code name: Penis Stalion. one day we will catch up Coco, and all hell will break lose.

The code name piques my interest, I cannot lie.

[BBD]

No no... experienced how the NHS works, benefits of it, pros and cons learned by personal experience.

chiropodists?

Proctologist?

sounds like a pain in the arse

[Coco]

chiropodists?

Proctologist?

sounds like a pain in the arse

Hobbit feet.... sigh.

[BBD]

...but TWO breakfasts!

[Coco]

...but TWO breakfasts!

..... but hobbit feet.

[Sandydragon]

United 93 'myth' ??

Shot down over an unpopulated region of Pennsylvania, apparently. Rumsfield let it slip in one of his speeches. Makes sense, since it was already known the Twin Towers had been hit by then, and Flight 93 was well off course. That's precisely what the military would be required to do.

You appear to be confusing current protocols with how to deal with a hijacked aircraft with what was in place in 2001. Protocols then were to get the aircraft on the ground, the idea of using the aircraft as a guided missile wasnt Seen as a high risk as terrorist groups didn’t use that as a MO.
Given the fragmentary response to 9/11 and th utter confusion amongst decision makers, it’s highly unlikely that anyone made the conscious decision to order a passenger jet to be shot down. The evidence from the day points to the passengers attempting to fight back. Anything else is a myth.