Possibly, I suppose his blood/brain barrier will deteriorate. He’s more likely to get a pneumonia from the ventilator I would have thought though.Maybe some one with a medical background can explain this to me.
In my mind it's only a matter of time before Archie gets sepesis due to the necrosis of the brain tissue.. Would that be the case?
Brain stem death is legal death. He is dead if his brain is dead. Anything else if your opinion rather than the accepted medical and legal consensus in the UKArchie is not a corpse. He is not legally nor physically dead. His brain is dead. Doing anything to his body is not legally nor physically desecration of a corpse. If it feels like it is due to his permanent loss of conscious, that is a valid personal feeling, but not relevant in determining the course of treatment unless it is your own loved one
Anti-abortion doctors are not forced to refer patients for abortions. But they must refer them back to other GPs. This prevents them from being forced to act against their morals, while not effecting access for patients.
This ought to be similar for any other case in which the
Undignified? Pointless? Upsetting? Maybe, these are subjective personal opinions and value judgements. Cruel? No, he is not capable of suffering.
It is not the place of doctors or nurses to centre their feelings and personal beliefs over that of the patient or family. It is so dangerous that this should be considered in court: that the personal ethical beliefs of staff should be a factor in whether to treat someone. Set aside Archie for a moment and bear in mind that our legal system works on using previous cases for authority. What if in a future case, they use the personal ethical beliefs of staff or their distress at having to do their job as a legal reason not to treat someone who debatably could benefit?
He is a corpse. He is a dead body being artificially kept alive.Archie is not a corpse. He is not legally nor physically dead. His brain is dead. Doing anything to his body is not legally nor physically desecration of a corpse. If it feels like it is due to his permanent loss of conscious, that is a valid personal feeling, but not relevant in determining the course of treatment unless it is your own loved one
Anti-abortion doctors are not forced to refer patients for abortions. But they must refer them back to other GPs. This prevents them from being forced to act against their morals, while not effecting access for patients.
This ought to be similar for any other case in which the
Undignified? Pointless? Upsetting? Maybe, these are subjective personal opinions and value judgements. Cruel? No, he is not capable of suffering.
It is not the place of doctors or nurses to centre their feelings and personal beliefs over that of the patient or family. It is so dangerous that this should be considered in court: that the personal ethical beliefs of staff should be a factor in whether to treat someone. Set aside Archie for a moment and bear in mind that our legal system works on using previous cases for authority. What if in a future case, they use the personal ethical beliefs of staff or their distress at having to do their job as a legal reason not to treat someone who debatably could benefit?
No, what I wrote is legal fact. NOT my opinion.Brain stem death is legal death. He is dead if his brain is dead. Anything else if your opinion rather than the accepted medical and legal consensus in the UK
It's hardly a usual case though? Whilst medics are very likely to have overseen the care of people who have attempted suicide, and do not recover. This is a very bizarre case where a mother is in complete denial that her son is dead. Those medics are having to 'care' for a dead boy, despite knowing this is not compassionate. Then they are being smeared and faced with conspiracy theories.It's fine to care but it's not acceptable for the emotional needs of staff to be centered. They should not have a stake in this and I find it ridiculous that their "distress" from doing their job should be given any credence at all. These people see horrific injuries and tremendous pain on a regular basis and we are supposed to believe that caring for Archie - who is universally agreed to not be suffering - is somehow emotionally damaging them, to the point their precious feelings should be considered in court.
You contradict yourself by saying his brain is dead and then he is not brainstem dead. His brain is liquefying and his spinal cord is rotting. He’s dead. His heart beats and he hasn’t had the formal tests but come on, he is dead. I’m approaching this from the medical POV but I know the legal standpoint is different (I well understand medical law).No, what I wrote is legal fact. NOT my opinion.
He is not dead until the courts say so, which they haven’t as the last is being appealed. The judge strongly advised against ruling anyone dead in that unprecedented manner again.
He was unable to be declared brainstem dead because the tests could not be completed.
Therefore, he is not legally dead.
His body is still alive. It is not a corpse. All kinds of processes would have to be being followed if his body was considered a corpse.
I’m sorry, but you do talk such a lot of utter bollocks.Archie is not a corpse. He is not legally nor physically dead. His brain is dead. Doing anything to his body is not legally nor physically desecration of a corpse. If it feels like it is due to his permanent loss of conscious, that is a valid personal feeling, but not relevant in determining the course of treatment unless it is your own loved one
Anti-abortion doctors are not forced to refer patients for abortions. But they must refer them back to other GPs. This prevents them from being forced to act against their morals, while not effecting access for patients.
This ought to be similar for any other case in which doctors may have ethical concerns that restrict access to care.
Undignified? Pointless? Upsetting? Maybe, these are subjective personal opinions and value judgements. Cruel? No, he is not capable of suffering.
It is not the place of doctors or nurses to centre their feelings and personal beliefs over that of the patient or family. It is so dangerous that this should be considered in court: that the personal ethical beliefs of staff should be a factor in whether to treat someone. Set aside Archie for a moment and bear in mind that our legal system works on using previous cases for authority. What if in a future case, they use the personal ethical beliefs of staff or their distress at having to do their job as a legal reason not to treat someone who debatably could benefit?
I was just about to write the same. As a medical lawyer and ethicist I've been reading these with nothing short of incredulity. The idea that the views of people who are literally trained to practise medicine with the utmost respect for medical ethics (dignity being one pillar of that) should be considered irrelevant is baffling. Those staff know that boy is dead, forcing them to perform futile interventions on him is not only 'upsetting', it goes against every ethical code they agree to uphold when they work in medicine. The views of some nutter mother who has, in my opinion, made it perfectly clear she understands neither the medical nor legal issues here, are the ones that I would consider irrelevant.I’m sorry, but you do talk such a lot of utter bollocks.
No, not the medical views but the personal ethical beliefs.I was just about to write the same. As a medical lawyer and ethicist I've been reading these with nothing short of incredulity. The idea that the views of people who are literally trained to practise medicine with the utmost respect for medical ethics (dignity being one pillar of that) should be considered irrelevant is baffling. Those staff know that boy is dead, forcing them to perform futile interventions on him is not only 'upsetting', it goes against every ethical code they agree to uphold when they work in medicine. The views of some nutter mother who has, in my opinion, made it perfectly clear she understands neither the medical nor legal issues here, are the ones that I would consider irrelevant.
The brain stem tests could not be performed. You’ve posted about this before so I’m not sure why you’re pretending not to know.Sorry, you are saying he is not dead until the courts say so.
When did brain stem death being a legal form of death stop being a thing? I’ve missed this bit!
Imagine if brain stem death is no longer a legal form of death and people need to legally be declared dead within court - that will cause a whole load of issues. The added stress, emotion, needless trauma to the families it would cause! Plus financial cost, lack of trust, issues like this case, etc…
Respecting the dignity of a patient is NOT a personal ethical belief. It is woven into the syllabus of all nursing and medical degrees. If you disagree with that, take it up with the NMC and GMC, but in the meantime, what you think of it is neither here nor there.No, not the medical views but the personal ethical beliefs.
There are a lot of people twisting my words because apparently anything that disrupts their unbridled hatred for a delusional bereaved mother makes me just as bad as her.
Okay so if he’s not dead remove the ventilator, remove the machines and the medication and let him show us he isn’t dead. Doctors and nurses are people who have patients interests as their best intentions, keeping a boys heart beating for the sake of his mother is not his best intention.Archie is not a corpse. He is not legally nor physically dead. His brain is dead. Doing anything to his body is not legally nor physically desecration of a corpse. If it feels like it is due to his permanent loss of conscious, that is a valid personal feeling, but not relevant in determining the course of treatment unless it is your own loved one
Anti-abortion doctors are not forced to refer patients for abortions. But they must refer them back to other GPs. This prevents them from being forced to act against their morals, while not effecting access for patients.
This ought to be similar for any other case in which doctors may have ethical concerns that restrict access to care.
Undignified? Pointless? Upsetting? Maybe, these are subjective personal opinions and value judgements. Cruel? No, he is not capable of suffering.
It is not the place of doctors or nurses to centre their feelings and personal beliefs over that of the patient or family. It is so dangerous that this should be considered in court: that the personal ethical beliefs of staff should be a factor in whether to treat someone. Set aside Archie for a moment and bear in mind that our legal system works on using previous cases for authority. What if in a future case, they use the personal ethical beliefs of staff or their distress at having to do their job as a legal reason not to treat someone who debatably could benefit?
Isnt death usually decided by the medical staff caring for a patient? Its a doctor that usually signs a death certificate, then the courts will ratify that decision.No, what I wrote is legal fact. NOT my opinion.
He is not dead until the courts say so, which they haven’t as the last is being appealed. The judge strongly advised against ruling anyone dead in that unprecedented manner again.
He was unable to be declared brainstem dead because the tests could not be completed.
Therefore, he is not legally dead.
His body is still alive. It is not a corpse. All kinds of processes would have to be being followed if his body was considered a corpse.
Correct and the law is set up this way to protect those patients from parents who are too upset or emotional to be able to recognise their child's best interests. This is just one in a list of cases that shows why that protection is, sadly, often needed.Okay so if he’s not dead remove the ventilator, remove the machines and the medication and let him show us he isn’t dead. Doctors and nurses are people who have patients interests as their best intentions, keeping a boys heart beating for the sake of his mother is not his best intention.
Dignity is a matter of opinion, it is not legally defined.Respecting the dignity of a patient is NOT a personal ethical belief. It is woven into the syllabus of all nursing and medical degrees. If you disagree with that, take it up with the NMC and GMC, but in the meantime, what you think of it is neither here nor there.
Exactly. And exactly the reason why families are never actually the ones making big big decisions (ie to sign a DNAR or to withdraw life sustaining treatment). Clinicians will obviously include them in their decision making and take on their beliefs / feelings, but never burden them with making the final call as they are vulnerable and not able to rationalise what is medically in the best interest for the patient because they are, understandably, too emotionally invested.Correct and the law is set up this way to protect those patients from parents who are too upset or emotional to be able to recognise their child's best interests. This is just one in a list of cases that shows why that protection is, sadly, often needed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?