My cousin, who was one of my best friends, died from sepsis. All of her organs shut down, besides her heart. Vegetable. Her mom pulled her from life support knowing she was never going to come back to us really... The doctor explained to us, with a few tears in his eyes, that he considered the heart the dumbest part of your body. Her body was never going to live again, but her heart just kept on pumping. RIP white butterfly.
i know the decision to take him off life support was the merciful thing to do, but i teared up when the father said "over my dead body" even though his child was practically braindead he refused to give up
To be fair it's their legal obligation to recessiate if the guardians request it. The guy not recessiating the child in the first scene was against the law even if he disagrees with the request you need the court order or permission. Those restrictions are in place for good reason.
But you can bet that they will be sending someone in right away to ask if they would be willing to donate organs so their child can live on by saving others and that their loss will not be in vain
It’s not their legal obligation. The decision to offer medical treatment is at the discretion of a doctor and if they do not believe it is their best interest. This episode does a very poor job at depicting the UK health and legal system.
@@callum4387don’t know how the uk works but in the us the govt has 0 say in dnr’s other than signing them sometimes. Only time this would happen here is if someone is at the end of their like or brain dead and has no living relatives.
I hate how they portrayed the court system here (I don't know if there is more detail in the full episode?). When the UK high court makes this sort of ruling, there is a full trial with the parents, specialists, doctors and a committee of people who make the final call. It isn't quick either; it is a slow laborious process that can drag on for months.
@@thebob5240 It would be one thing for this show to represent the US court system this way (as the majority audience is American and can easily separate fact from fiction). Surely there is greater responsibility when portraying a foreign nation? I mean, it would be like a British show only showing a Texan trail with full bias and hoping that it is taken as fictional, instead of furthering a dangerous stereotype (in this case, Europe is full of child killing doctors with no respect for life, as opposed to the American system that offers hope (and a British doctor turning on her own system)). Besides, the high court in these cases of terminally ill, deteriorating children is rarely the bad guy in most people's opinion.
@@badateverything5392 Except all over Europe AND the UK there is such media i guarantee it. I cannot tell you how many people from the UK and Europe have asked the very offensive and personal question of "How many guns do you own?" Assuming that as an American i own dozens of guns or how many people from the UK make jokes about our school shootings or portray the US as full of crazy people who shoot up schools or portray Americans as fat slobs or as arrogant people who don't care about culture or history or both and it makes it hard when we travel since either bad people think were all horrible people so we get the cold shoulder when we actually want to know more or learn. Those stereotypes come from somewhere and i guarantee not all of it comes from tourists or the news. It comes from media at home. While you do have a point saying that a show has a greater "responsibility" to specifically represent the UK system, but in a fictional television show is a bit silly don't you think?
Inlaw's of mine were rich enough to keep their daughter on life support for over a decade (this was some years ago). Her shrunken shrivelled body was almost unrecognizable as human when the organs finally gave out. The poor dear had passed away years ago but the parents could not let go. How cruel.
A wise man once said, "you cannot base every decision on emotion however you cannot make every decision without it." I believe both parties believed they had the child's best interest at state however the plain and simple truth is that this child had no means of recovery. He would never be the same boy he was once before, artificial life support is not without it's inherit risks. In the end, I believe it was best to terminate care as to not prolong this child's suffering any further.
Yep, but the idea that the court can order someone out of life support is crazy. What will be next, overwrite the will of the patient, even if he is self-aware? Mercy killings like some people do to dogs and horses?
@shmuberthadouken That child had parents that could have made the decision to keep trying or to let him go. It wasn't the governments job to do what they did.
Knowing what I know now having had my daughter at 23 weeks and with life limiting illness we fought to have her given everything possible and she was ventilated and spent 4 long months in intensive care and it kills me everyday when we realised that she had hours left we had put her through operations on her heart we put her through painful medical interventions and now looking back I hate my self for allowing her to go through all of that with 10% chance of survival I wish that we had just given her palitive care and not intensive care no I do not. Regret the 4 beautiful but heartbroken months spent beside her day and night seeing her open her eyes for first time 29 days later holding her for the first time the smile she had even through she was in pain I don’t regret having her but I do regret putting through all of what she went through in terms of prolonging her life for our own feelings and not fully understanding what was going to happen in the 4 months we made memories that we hold tight to she passed away peacefully in my arms surrounded by love and she was no longer a baby of earth but a baby of heaven who now forever runs and plays in the gardens of paradise till we reunite again soon
While I cannot imagine how gut wrenching and painful this is for his parents. It is so wrong and horrible to keep someone on life support in a vegetative state. Someone who has already died kept on machines. Nobody should ever be allowed to treat someone like this.
Am speaking as a mom who has been through this my son was on life support and we choose too leave him on it until he felt like coming back too us And he did God is real We didn't give LIFE WHY MUST WE TAKE IT ONLY GOD KNOWS OUR FATE IF YOU ARE GRANTED LIFE THEN LIFE IF YOU'RE ASKED TOO RETURN TOO YOUR MARKER RETURN BUT FOR A COURT A MAN WHO DONT KNOW YOUR STRUGGLE WITH YOUR CHILD TOO RULE TAKE HIM OFF LIFE SUPPORT THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE
Vegetative state is not barin death. Recovery is still possible. You should not assume that just because quality of life is lower mean life is less worth. I had converstaion with my family of 4 and ALL of us agreed to be left on life support in cas ewe ever go into vegetative state. What is wrong and horrible is to demand to unalive people who are in vegetative state - what you advocate for! This boy might be concious but unable to act - and might even want to live. You should NEVER assume person wants to be taken off.
Nobody wants to suffer months of prolonged agony under life support when the end inevitable or the mind is no longer there yet we're so keen to throw this fate at our loved ones.
It's not because people are 'keen' to watch their loved ones suffer! it's because they want to cling desperately to the hope that a miracle will happen, and the loved one will wake up and be fine! :(
If the mind is not there, the person is not in agony. The idea that the courts can make the decision to kill innocent people is quite telling of this society. Mary Daly and her followers always call men and the society they build "necrophilic" in contrast with Women's biophilic tendencies. I am not sure. I remember in 2013 the debate because of parenthood to the shock of male pro-choice representatives opposed giving medical attention to a dying baby if the mother did not want the baby.
You can't shock Asystole, you do your hands only CPR, push that Epi, and make sure you have adequate ventilation to that patient. That's the only thing you can do in that case. I know its a show, but really?
Right???? And no real doctor would act like this. She's too emotional and lack basic idea of what brain dead means. She's so inhumane. She's doing this to feel good about herself as a parent, not the doctor of that child. Pathetic really
@@dryb3301 I agree. Yes it is hard to loose a patient, especially a child. It hits you differently, even more so if you have a child around that patients age yourself, because you think about your kid, but in this case, she was driven too much by her emotions. You always want to do what's best for your patient so they can have the best outcome. That kid is brain dead, hooked up to a ventilator, and already coded once. (he could've coded more then once, but in this clip it was just one time). That kid was going to be a vegetable. Where is the quality of life in that? I get it, its hard, but they should've just let him go sooner then they did.
Even a working mind & beating heart together are not enough to give life. The boy didn’t even have that much. His soul-his true core-was long since gone. This needed to happen.
@@dreadflint I’m being completely logical. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. As stated above, scientifically, we already know that a beating heart & working mind aren’t enough to give a person life. Therefore, logically, there must be another component. A soul is the most common word for it. That energy must come from somewhere, & it must go somewhere when we die. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that much.
There's a difference between being on life support for temporary support and life support with no brain function. My mom had two strokes and had Brain function but she never wanted to go on life support not even for temporary reasons
I think this just needs to be worded correctly. “Yes there’s a 1 in a billion chance he might recover. However there’s a greater chance, based on how human quantify quality of life, and considering the possible spirituality aspect, that you as his parents, for the billion, are condemning him to torturous sort of purgatory. He could also be feeling nothing, but if that’s true you’re wrong, and you’re keeping his shell alive. The real question is “is that one in a billion chance he might wake up (this not accounting for if he wakes up ‘ok’) worth the greater chance that you are prolonging his suffering here on earth?”
For all of you saying that he was just an empty shell and the parents should have just let him go. That they were 6:11 being so Selfish. So you all would just say " hey its fine, unplug my child from Life Support. No big deal." Nobody knows what they would say or do in a Situation. No matter what you all are saying, you can't say 100% that you would not do the same as these Parents did. If you thought that there was a chance of your child waking up and coming back to you.
Yeah like the goverment and doctor wanted to let the boy pass away peacefully cause he had little to zero chance of ever waking up and also they were wasting life support when somebody else could be actually needing it But at the same time that little boy is the son of a mother and a father. He's too young and if he's unplugged that means he wont expierence life and at the same time that's basically asking parents to sacrifice their child when there are no clues that he's genuinely dead and there is the smallest hope of him being alive. A child losing a parent is hard but parents losing a child? I cant even begin to describe how awfull that would be. Letting go of loved ones is hard and harder if they're so young. Can you really call them selfish if they just want their baby boy to wake up, go home and have a good life with him, loving him and raising him? The whole situation is messy but no one is entirely on the wrong here; you can't ask parents who love their son very much and want to be with him and help him if there's any possible chance for him to live to let him die but at the same time the goverment is right when in cases like this is near impossible to wake up and the boy just for having a small part of him alive doesn't mean hes still fully himself cause you need more than just brain to be alive and the treatment could be used in someone who actually needs it.
Logic is more important than emotion. Nobody is saying they can't be upset over the death of their child. But clinging to the false hope that a clearly dead and gone child could somehow recover is illogical and stupid. Although the death of a child is painful, at some point people just have to accept that death is death.
It’s absolutely inhumane to keep anyone alive on life support with 0 chance of recovery and life. I know I wouldn’t want to be left like that if that happened to me. Edit: thanks for the likes 😊
The problem here, at least for the parents, was that the experimental treatments he was receiving gave him a greater than zero chance of recovery. Virtually infinitesimally small, but non-zero, which was enough for them as parents to push for his continued treatment. All of this was a battle fought over a glimmer of hope that they might talk to their son again.
Seeing that episodes take your son off of life support what's the hardest thing they have to do I hope I do not have to face that because I won't be able to handle it😢
As much as I appreciate the sentiment of others “helping you out” when dealing with a difficult decision, I don’t think the government should have this power over what you choose to do (medically) with your child. At least not to the extent of denying them life because they deem it’s best this way. Either way one party or the other is taking a chance and no choice is “the perfect or right choice”, it never is that black and white. Although in most cases I know it wouldn’t be this easy to just come to a conclusion and enforce it the next day (as someone else pointed out, you would have a trial with the parents, doctors, specialists, etc) it still rubs me the wrong way that this is in fact a power the government has over a person just because they are a citizen of X. What one considers cruel somebody else will consider worth the effort. And so so many things will influence our decision: our personal experience, whether one is a doctor or not, the doctor’s experience with such a case, whether you’re a parent or not, how empathic one is, how removed from the situation one is, how their view on life and quality of life is, and such a big and extensive etcetera. Let people make their choices. Also, doctors are very often wrong, not saying that this is the case, but there’s been plenty of instances in which so called specialists have been wrong, so I will always advocate for a person having the right to choose what they deem best for themselves and their children. You can advise and try to make your case if you feel their choice is wrong for whatever reason, but just deciding for them to force your decision is not okey.
I'm all for hoping for a miracle but even I know when you're brain dead there's no hope. I have two small kids and pray to never have to be in a situation like that.
Impossible to be upset at the NHS "calling it" on this kid... after they've funded the kid's treatment up to this point. What this clip doesn't discuss is the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in medical bills the parents would have incurred in the United States. Their lives completely ruined, to watch their son lay in a bed and most likely never actually wake up.
Also this sorta thing wouldn't happen straight away in real life, only if the NHS believes they are fully brain dead or no chance at recovery which has to be decided by commitee and I think it's if the parents are keeping them on life support for prolonged period of time (like a month) or the family isn't allowing doctors to do their job (like preventing the doctors to do tests to decide brain death). Also the second the parents aren't happy with it they can appeal against it and the decision will be delayed until the appeal works itself out. The last major case literally took about 5 months between the kid being brought in unconscious and possibly brain dead to him being removed by a court order.
My guess is that aside from the monetary burden, there are other patients who may also be in need of dire care. It's cruel, I know. Logic tell us it's the right thing to do, but our heart says otherwise.
My cousin had to make the decision to pull the cord, as they say, on her dad and they did it and my uncle, her dad, woke up and lived another five years. He died of a massive heart attack, but in those five years he traveled. He just never know what’s going to happen. I think it should be a parents decision, when a child is concerned to take them off life support not someone else that doesn’t even work in the medical field. Could you imagine if that boy ended up in New Amsterdam and somehow woke up/was better through a medical regiment that they didn’t use in Britain but in the US they had clinical trials saying that certain medicine could help this condition, but because there’s a court order that life-support had to be removed, they wouldn’t let them leave the country. How smart would that be? Like I always say they fight and tooth only when it’s one of their own, but when it’s not one of their own, they could care less.
Surely, this is incorrect. The law ordering him off life support and the parents are shocked. It has to be more than that. Also, transferring him to a hospital in the United States? How can she do that? Is this even allowed?Could he even survive the trip?
The boys soul had left his body long ago. His body was basically just an empty shell. There was no hope of recovery. PERIOD. His parents had to accept that fact and let him go.
Difficult thing to od but so true. It is inhuman and selfish to keep someone alive on life support when had no brain activity and being brain dead will mean no quality of life. I’m just glad my folks would never do this to me. They’d let me go if I had absolutely no chance at recovery.
@@jilla-dr9hu yes but you have to look at it through the parents perspective they dont want to loose their son and for the male doctor to do that in the begining of the video was inhumane its wrong to force them to let go
@@AS-yz2iz when you have no brain activity at all (brain waves or electrical impulses) the you are dead and your soul has left. Even if it hasn't moved on, it would want to if it knows there's no hope for recovery.
Personally if there is an DNR on someone then then the staff have the duty to honor it. After that ppint they're not being ethical, they're playing god with people's lives.
That's another type of case , DNF are done when the patient already gave his concent about not prolonging his life. This is a case about a poor family with a child brain dead but they didn't want to pull the plug BUT the government in UK is the one paying the bills and if there really nothingvthe doctor can do, they can decide to end the treatment(of course, there is a series of procedures to do before that happens), this of course is not happening in the US, because the Medical Insurance companies would move to crush any law like that because they make millions because of it.
I think they shouldn't have to go through that if they paying hospital fees and that what they want i think you should give the parent the right to say when they dont want to keep watching him suffer.
IMO the government should only step in when the patient can't make decisions for themselves AND have no one else to do it for them. Even then I think the right should be given to the patients doctor and not the government itself. While I agree that 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance is extremely low and the child should have been let go, it should have been the parents call. 1 in 1,000,000,000 isn't zero after all. I think if it doesn't hurt the child, there's no reason not to let them try.
If the child is really braindead then it doesnt matter anymore, otherwise the parents are probably right, I mean who can make these decision for someone else?
That’s a very close minded way of looking at it, the child is braindead so he’s not really suffering at all, and the goal isn’t to prolong his life. It’s to at least try and see if he has a chance of living a normal life, to me at least, if there’s a chance it can work, I’ll take it in this case, because If I don’t he’s dead anyway, it’s just a matter of doing everything you can rather than letting them die
@@mrj1897So? It would still be a waste of medical equipment. And come on the chance of the boy having a good quality of life is so low it's not worth to try, as the most likely thing to happen is a terrible quality of life, or death anyway.
@@Odd-Vegan-Singing-TFOL they already said he’s gonna die, and how will it be worse if he’s braindead? It’s a waste for sure, but you’re given an option to, so why not?
It distubs me when people who are completely brain dead are forced to be kept alive. If alive is even the right word. There are worse things then dying. Like being forced to stay alive when completely unaware of your existance.
The woman doctor should lose her medical license. All she did was let her emotions overpower her responsibility as a physician to do what was right for the patient and in the course she tortured the parents even more. Shame on her.
Are you referring to when she revived the child at first? Or when she tried to make a plea case? Because legally speaking she did nothing wrong in either scenario. The first time, since there was no court order yet, the male doctor refusing to revive the child was actually illegal. Because he was ignoring the wishes of the parents to save their son. And to make a plea was fighting for the rights of the parents to save their son.
@@Seek1878 Only after the court order came in to force the child off life support then she was in the wrong. But prior to that, as long as a warrant or a court order is not in effect, doctors have an obligation to save a patients life. The only time that obligation ends is in scenarios like this where it's obvious the patient is not coming back.
@@Seek1878 Again until a warrant was given ordering for life support to be turned off. Doctors have to keep patients on it if it's what the family wants. I've heard of cases where doctors turned off life support against the parents wishes and they got sued over it. Likewise in Texas, there was a case where a pregnant woman was brain dead and even the husband wanted to turn off life support and let her go. But because she was pregnant, the Texas Supreme Court ordered for the hospital to keep her on life support for the entire pregnancy; they weren't even allowed to deliver prematurely they had to wait until at least 36 weeks. They were forced to keep a camera on the body at all times for the court to monitor the pregnancy to make sure the staff didn't disobey orders. Because the court threatened to arrest all the doctors and nurses and even the dead woman's husband for the murder of an unborn child if they turned off life support before it was time. The doctors had to turn the woman essentially into a puppet: attaching her limbs to robots that would move the body around like a living person to 'stimulate the fetus'. It caused a huge controversy and this was before Roe was overturned.
A stopped heart cant be restarted... Y they keep peddling this lie idk.... Only an arrhythmic heart can be briught back ti rhythm... Once the heart stops its over... Its gone.
yes. medical care is completely free in the UK, no insurance, no bills, etc BUT the government can pull the plug or refuse 'unneeded' surgeries whenever they choose too.
I don’t care. If the court doesn’t agree The government cannot decide when a family Hass to give up on their family member, if they don’t wanna give up hope and they believe that one day their family member will wake up and they’re hoping for a miracle and they decide to keep their family member on life-support for two years but then realize that they are better off off life support then it took them two years to realize it but you can’t force somebody to make that decision they have to come to the decision on their own I have never been in this position God for bid any of my family members were in a coma and brain dead I would probably do what these parents were doing I would want to keep them on life-support and just hold onto the hope that maybe one day they would wake up even though my rational brain tells me it’s impossible my emotional brain would not be willing to let go just yet and it might take me some time to realize hey it is time to let them go the fact that this government is literally forcing them to unplug their kid before they’re ready is disgusting if the child is brain dead then he’s not really feeling any pain it’s scientifically proven that if you’re brain dead you don’t feel pain so realistically it’s not inhumane or unjust to the kid but what they’re doing is taking away time for family to process loss which is very harmful in the end I have never even heard of this kind of law But it disgusts me that it exists every family has a different amount of time that it takes to process grief and loss some families might realize three hours after the doctors told him that there’s no chance of them waking up that it’s better to unplug them. Some families might take a year. Some might even take longer than that, but everybody has their own amount of time it takes to realize that unplugging them is the best thing to do. The thing is, you cannot force them to make the decision
I've heard of stories of them being wrong and the person making a recovery. And regardless, it should be up to the parents not a government. It's sickening to see
@@sackettfamily4685 True. In cases such as this however, there is absolutely positively no hope whatsoever. Not with diseases such as what his character had. At least not now. Maybe not ever. His soul had left his body long ago, all that was left was an empty shell. They needed to let him go so they can finally grieve and eventually move on. That's just the way it is. PERIOD.
@YourRandomBAD I'm not saying that I agree with what the government of the UK does. I don't. I think the parents should be allowed to exhaust all their options, even to the point of being brought to complete financial debt if the want to, to save their son. However, personally, I believe that they are just delaying the inevitable. Sooner or later they would have had to pull he plug and let him go. His body, in this case, really and truly was an empty shell and there was no hope for recovery. The longer they waited to accept that, the worse it would be when they finally did let him go. To continue to hope for a miracle, one that will never come, is wrong. They needed to accept that he was gone and let his body rest.
@YourRandomBAD even if one day there was a treatment that reversed all the damage to his brain, the damage itself would have erased any and all memories and experiences and his original personality. He would essentially be reset to zero. He'd have no memory of who he or his parents are.
Obviously this is based on the Alfie Evans case… but in that case, the parents were represented in the court, too. Don’t the parents have the right to be heard in court before ‘the government’ gets their court order? 🤷♀️
Most people in a vegetative state do not survive it. He was no longer alive. Yes, his heart was still beating, but he was basically brain dead keeping someone on life-support with no chance recovery practically dead. The government will not allow it. You’re wasting life support that could be helping someone else who has a chance of surviving you’re wasting equipment. They had to learn the hard way that his son is no longer there with them. He’s just an empty shell. He was gone long ago, and on life-support.
Socialized medicine means the government decides who is treated and by what means and at what time. You are not a person, you are a number. This number sees Dr X. In order to see a different doctor you have to move and hope a doctor there will be able to take you on.
He was the first, there was another baby after him they denied feeds too and highly drugged him so he didn't know, but he still cried of hunger. I followed both cases. They should of let them both go longer. As I remember Alfie still knew his parents were there and the other baby communicated with smiles and watched his parents. Everyone's bodies go when they are ready. I understand a do not resuscitate order but not killing them. Wasn't it Italy tried to get Alfie? I know USA said he could come too.
@@growinggenerationshomestea516 Except the court refused to allow anyone to remove Alfie - a British citizen - from the country. Just like in this episode - except in real life the court case took over a year, not an hour!
@@justShhhhhh Yes, I do understand that perspective. But the entire concept of the justice system is that both sides have the right to be represented in court. These parents should have had the chance to have their say on the record - just like Alfie's parents did. The court would have still issued the same ruling, but the parents' opinions would have been heard, at least. I know this is just a TV show, but it's extraordinarily traumatizing that they did not even have a chance to speak to the court. :(
In a case like this, it had to be done. There's no way to revive that boy, and prolonging his passing will only hurt the parents more. It was an act of mercy. Even in the US, the state can force a hospital to pull the plug on someone on life support once the body starts deteriorating.
It's sad but realistically the boy would have never recovered, and there are more cases of people refusing treating and dying because they can't afford the US exorbitant costs of treatment, UK healthcare system is far from great but more people have chances than the US
Well here's the thing. The government, as awful as it is for the family, was in the right. The boy was dead. He was nothing but a soulless husk essentially. It was inhumane to keep him alive any longer when the rest of his body wanted to die. I know this would be a hard and tragic decision, but ultimately the parents weren't thinking logically and who could blame them? But the government did make the right call.
Sharpe and the parents were wrong. That is not a child, that is a hollow, empty shell. It is devoid of humanity. To prolong the suffering of it is the peak of cruelty.
@@sassafrasstree7449 well no its a contradiction to appeal to suffering for a thing that is without humanity/life/is a husk, whatever word we want to use. If there is no "humanity" left, there's nothing there to suffer, it's like saying a plant suffers because you forgot to water it. Furthermore if there was a thing of value there that had the capacity to suffer, I actually changes whether or not we should "kill" it/end it. That's not to say pulling the plug in these circumstances isn't the right thing to do (more often than not it is) but it not on the basis of a thing even lacking the capacity to suffer, that is suffering. It's entirely an nonsense statement.
I have to wonder how they would react if that father start taking retribution against those directly responsible for the order to remove his child from lifesupport?
Nobody with an ounce of actual experience of working in a hospital environment could fail to see all the inaccuracies in these scenes. I know it's only a TV show but it completely ruins any sense of immersion.
This is absolutely criminal. It’s their child, and they should be allowed to make the call. No should be able to order them to do this. That’s straight up wrong.
They're keeping alive, and I know this is horrible to say, a lump of meat. The poor kid had no chance of recovery, his mind was gone, he was already dead.
@@intorainbowzOGHow is this torture? How is this “inhumane” if the child truly is brain dead then suffering is not possible. The only way the child could suffer is if they had some sort of consciousness and if that is so (though it seems not) then recovery would be possible. Either way it makes no sense and the government should not be so heavy handed and involved in the parent’s decisions.
Pretty sure any organ team will tell you heart rates go up and the patient who doesn't get put to sleep or any meds show signs of feeling being cut open. Several people quit after 1-2 surgeries for this reason. I know 2 people who woke up fine after being declared brain dead.
@@snakebitepellehueok so your heart does beat even when hooked up to machines. Life support includes ventilators and other functions to support your body for what your brain can not regulate. There is a difference between brain death which is clinically dead and you can not recover no matter what you do, and a coma, which ranges quite a lot but the key factor is there is still some level of brain activity. People can certainly still suffer while in a coma or I believe brain death, even if it is just their body suffering and not them as a whole
They made the right decision. The kid was already dead; keeping him on life support is cruel and inhumane. Hospitals should reserve the right to pull the plug on brain dead patients even if it's against the wishes of the families.
They made them so posh British it's actually laughable. I've not heard anyone call someone "mam" well ever, in real life! 😅 Also our police cars don't sound like that.
i feel like people should be allowed 6 months from the time their loved one was diagnosed as brain dead to come to terms with what has happened and say goodbye. 6 months is a reasonable amount of time to allow someone to be kept on life support without it being cruel and it gives the loved ones a timeline for how long they are allowed to keep the body alive.
At this point, the welfare of the child is not as strong as the welfare of the parents, no? He's gone, we know he's gone - so why in gods name make this so difficult for his parents?
While the government shouldn't have the right to terminate someone's life support, that still doesn't change the fact that the boy was clinically dead. His soul had left his body long ago and said body was just an empty shell. He was dead and there was no saving him. PERIOD.
@@joshuahudson2170 I read about that case. Just as with this fictionalized version, the child had been brain dead for months. His soul had already moved on to heaven and all that was left was an empty shell. The current "treatments" do not work, and probably will not work for a long time (if ever). It was wrong for them to keep him alive when there is no hope whatsoever.
@@joshuahudson2170 Currently, with virtually all degenerative neurological conditions, there is no hope of recovery. At best all we can do right now is delay the inevitable with drugs. Sooner or later those conditions always take their victims. There are no exceptions. Once they reach the final stages it's better to make them comfortable and let them die peacefully and with some manner of dignity.
Even though the government shouldn’t have the right to control someone’s medical decisions and it should be the family, the family needed to let him go already. Difficult to say goodbye but he was already gone. There was absolutely no chance of any kind of recovery. He had no brain activity so all that was left was his body. This was inhumane and cruel
Ik that 1. It’s a show 2. It’s for the best 3. Inhumane to keep someone like that But something about seeing like ten cops show up to ensure a kid dies doesn’t sit right with me.
Maybe, however that still doesn't change the fact that the child was braindead and was never going to recover. PERIOD. His soul had long ago left his body there is no reason to keep what was basically an empty shell alive.
@@freedomwriter1995 I've personally known "brain dead" people wake up and be ok.......2 x actually. No one's opinions matter but the family. It never will change your opinion doesn't matter. No government, public agency or medical professional has the right, ever, period! 2 infants in UK have been taken off vents, denied food and loaded on pain meds so they don't feel hunger or death. They both looked around and communicated. They both had degenerative things they would not get better from. The judge deemed to not prolong what would happen and burden the system. It's cruel!
You'd keep your child in a vegetative state when he/she is clearly brain dead and has their heart give out multiple times? I've heard disturbing stories about parents keeping their brain dead children on life support for years. And by the time the courts forces the hospital to pull the plug, the organs have started to decompose. At some point keeping brain dead people on life support is considered cruel and inhumane.
In this case the courts were in the right to make that decision. The boy was brain dead; there's no saving him. And if the parents aren't willing to see reason and do the right thing by letting him go, the hospital should reserve the right to pull the plug even if the parents don't want to. But only when they have indisputable proof the child is a lost cause like being brain dead.
@@gaarastar57 The simple fact that you've been fooled and conned doesn't make you an idiot. What makes you an idiot is when you BLATANTLY REFUSE to look at the truth and make the conscious decision to believe the lies.
Spoken like an ignorant american. The USA for profit healthcare system is a global embarassment, cancer patients regularly lose their homes or go bankrupt. Surgeries are denied because people can't pay for them. No one would in th UK would trade the NHS for what th USA has. And I hope you never use medicaid or medicare if you're so scared of "socialized" medicine lol."
In this case they're stopping two people from keeping their brain dead child's body alive. All they're doing is keeping a shell of their child alive, for weeks. How long would they have gone using free medical aid to keep a shell going if allowed to continue? It's not easy to say goodbye to a loved one, but they have to accept and try to recover. It's the action that makes sense when there's no chance of recovery
@@bluebirbas it's not the decision that gives me pause, it's that it's mandated. I guess if the "state's" paying a larger share, that's the rub, they get a larger say in the decision-making process. It's a delicate balance.
lol in the USA with overpriced healthcare surgeries and treatments are regularly denied. No one in the UK would trade the NHS for the American for profit system.
What are you talking about? The kid is brain dead there is nothing the parents can do to revive him. And at that point putting him on life support is cruel and inhumane. I've heard of cases of parents defying court orders to keep their brain dead child on life support for years. By the time the courts force the hospital to pull the plug, the kids organs have started to rot away.
Brain death means that the person is gone and there is no coming back from that. Not sure why they made everyone else look like the bad guys without any sympathy.
My cousin, who was one of my best friends, died from sepsis. All of her organs shut down, besides her heart. Vegetable.
Her mom pulled her from life support knowing she was never going to come back to us really... The doctor explained to us, with a few tears in his eyes, that he considered the heart the dumbest part of your body. Her body was never going to live again, but her heart just kept on pumping. RIP white butterfly.
Dumbest but the strongest. Im studying the heart, a very powerful muscular organ, despite the abuse we put it through. His little heart did it's job.
That facility harvested ur friends organs
My condolences for your loss
i know the decision to take him off life support was the merciful thing to do, but i teared up when the father said "over my dead body" even though his child was practically braindead he refused to give up
Not practically, certified braindead. He had not had neurologic function in over a day.
Right thing or not, it should have been the parents decision. The government took that RIGHT from them.
To be fair it's their legal obligation to recessiate if the guardians request it. The guy not recessiating the child in the first scene was against the law even if he disagrees with the request you need the court order or permission. Those restrictions are in place for good reason.
But you can bet that they will be sending someone in right away to ask if they would be willing to donate organs so their child can live on by saving others and that their loss will not be in vain
It’s not their legal obligation. The decision to offer medical treatment is at the discretion of a doctor and if they do not believe it is their best interest.
This episode does a very poor job at depicting the UK health and legal system.
Try being a Parent, then you say that again.
@@callum4387don’t know how the uk works but in the us the govt has 0 say in dnr’s other than signing them sometimes. Only time this would happen here is if someone is at the end of their like or brain dead and has no living relatives.
I hate how they portrayed the court system here (I don't know if there is more detail in the full episode?). When the UK high court makes this sort of ruling, there is a full trial with the parents, specialists, doctors and a committee of people who make the final call. It isn't quick either; it is a slow laborious process that can drag on for months.
It's how they portray law in any show taking a very long laborious process into 15-30 minutes and often times it's also the bad guy.
@@thebob5240 It would be one thing for this show to represent the US court system this way (as the majority audience is American and can easily separate fact from fiction). Surely there is greater responsibility when portraying a foreign nation? I mean, it would be like a British show only showing a Texan trail with full bias and hoping that it is taken as fictional, instead of furthering a dangerous stereotype (in this case, Europe is full of child killing doctors with no respect for life, as opposed to the American system that offers hope (and a British doctor turning on her own system)). Besides, the high court in these cases of terminally ill, deteriorating children is rarely the bad guy in most people's opinion.
@@badateverything5392 Except all over Europe AND the UK there is such media i guarantee it. I cannot tell you how many people from the UK and Europe have asked the very offensive and personal question of "How many guns do you own?" Assuming that as an American i own dozens of guns or how many people from the UK make jokes about our school shootings or portray the US as full of crazy people who shoot up schools or portray Americans as fat slobs or as arrogant people who don't care about culture or history or both and it makes it hard when we travel since either bad people think were all horrible people so we get the cold shoulder when we actually want to know more or learn. Those stereotypes come from somewhere and i guarantee not all of it comes from tourists or the news. It comes from media at home. While you do have a point saying that a show has a greater "responsibility" to specifically represent the UK system, but in a fictional television show is a bit silly don't you think?
Brutal. No parent should have to bury their child
So you want a child to live years being disabled and absolutely no good quality of life?
Wow, how not nice.
I meant that its not the natural course of life when a child dies, I dont think a parent ever revovers
@@Odd-Vegan-Singing-TFOLthat’s not what she means.
@@Odd-Vegan-Singing-TFOLyou're so dumb you didn't even understand what that person is talking about
Inlaw's of mine were rich enough to keep their daughter on life support for over a decade (this was some years ago). Her shrunken shrivelled body was almost unrecognizable as human when the organs finally gave out. The poor dear had passed away years ago but the parents could not let go. How cruel.
If I was that young u better not turn me off either!
There’s always that chance
A wise man once said, "you cannot base every decision on emotion however you cannot make every decision without it." I believe both parties believed they had the child's best interest at state however the plain and simple truth is that this child had no means of recovery. He would never be the same boy he was once before, artificial life support is not without it's inherit risks. In the end, I believe it was best to terminate care as to not prolong this child's suffering any further.
That is not your decision to make for anyone else other than yourself.
@@ajc-ff5cmyes but if your in that state, you cant make the decision for yourself
Yep, but the idea that the court can order someone out of life support is crazy. What will be next, overwrite the will of the patient, even if he is self-aware? Mercy killings like some people do to dogs and horses?
@shmuberthadouken That child had parents that could have made the decision to keep trying or to let him go. It wasn't the governments job to do what they did.
"why did you save him?"
Lady you were practically asking her too.
Not practically, she was directly asking her to restart his heart.
Knowing what I know now having had my daughter at 23 weeks and with life limiting illness we fought to have her given everything possible and she was ventilated and spent 4 long months in intensive care and it kills me everyday when we realised that she had hours left we had put her through operations on her heart we put her through painful medical interventions and now looking back I hate my self for allowing her to go through all of that with 10% chance of survival I wish that we had just given her palitive care and not intensive care no I do not. Regret the 4 beautiful but heartbroken months spent beside her day and night seeing her open her eyes for first time 29 days later holding her for the first time the smile she had even through she was in pain I don’t regret having her but I do regret putting through all of what she went through in terms of prolonging her life for our own feelings and not fully understanding what was going to happen in the 4 months we made memories that we hold tight to she passed away peacefully in my arms surrounded by love and she was no longer a baby of earth but a baby of heaven who now forever runs and plays in the gardens of paradise till we reunite again soon
I'm so sorry for your loss. Yet if you had done nothing, and not taken that 10% chance, you'd regret it now because you'd always wonder "what if"
Don't doubt the decision you made, no one knows how things will work out. I'm so sorry for what you had to go through.❤
I wouldn’t regret that one moment
No Way
Parents do anything to keep their babies alive!
I have 5 and grandbabies. Never would I not try
And she will be healthy, happy and pain free when you see her again ! As will my son ! ❤
While I cannot imagine how gut wrenching and painful this is for his parents. It is so wrong and horrible to keep someone on life support in a vegetative state. Someone who has already died kept on machines. Nobody should ever be allowed to treat someone like this.
Am speaking as a mom who has been through this my son was on life support and we choose too leave him on it until he felt like coming back too us
And he did
God is real
We didn't give LIFE
WHY MUST WE TAKE IT
ONLY GOD KNOWS OUR FATE
IF YOU ARE GRANTED LIFE THEN LIFE IF YOU'RE ASKED TOO RETURN TOO YOUR MARKER
RETURN
BUT FOR A COURT A MAN WHO DONT KNOW YOUR STRUGGLE WITH YOUR CHILD TOO RULE TAKE HIM OFF LIFE SUPPORT THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE
Vegetative state is not barin death. Recovery is still possible. You should not assume that just because quality of life is lower mean life is less worth. I had converstaion with my family of 4 and ALL of us agreed to be left on life support in cas ewe ever go into vegetative state. What is wrong and horrible is to demand to unalive people who are in vegetative state - what you advocate for! This boy might be concious but unable to act - and might even want to live. You should NEVER assume person wants to be taken off.
New Amsterdam we need new seasons of your show please.
This happened to my friend on may 4 2023 not exactly but kinda but I know he’s in a better place, in heaven riding his four wheeler
Nobody wants to suffer months of prolonged agony under life support when the end inevitable or the mind is no longer there yet we're so keen to throw this fate at our loved ones.
It's not because people are 'keen' to watch their loved ones suffer!
it's because they want to cling desperately to the hope that a miracle will happen, and the loved one will wake up and be fine! :(
@@dmf1301 yes, we can't let others go
But people need to get over the idea of miracles. @@dmf1301
If the mind is not there, the person is not in agony. The idea that the courts can make the decision to kill innocent people is quite telling of this society. Mary Daly and her followers always call men and the society they build "necrophilic" in contrast with Women's biophilic tendencies. I am not sure. I remember in 2013 the debate because of parenthood to the shock of male pro-choice representatives opposed giving medical attention to a dying baby if the mother did not want the baby.
Their boy was already dead. She simply made it even more horrible and hard to accept.
You can't shock Asystole, you do your hands only CPR, push that Epi, and make sure you have adequate ventilation to that patient. That's the only thing you can do in that case. I know its a show, but really?
I know right
@@RayRayfrfr That's why I have the worst time watching medical or firefighter related TV shows.
Right???? And no real doctor would act like this. She's too emotional and lack basic idea of what brain dead means. She's so inhumane. She's doing this to feel good about herself as a parent, not the doctor of that child. Pathetic really
@@dryb3301 I agree. Yes it is hard to loose a patient, especially a child. It hits you differently, even more so if you have a child around that patients age yourself, because you think about your kid, but in this case, she was driven too much by her emotions. You always want to do what's best for your patient so they can have the best outcome. That kid is brain dead, hooked up to a ventilator, and already coded once. (he could've coded more then once, but in this clip it was just one time). That kid was going to be a vegetable. Where is the quality of life in that? I get it, its hard, but they should've just let him go sooner then they did.
i mean, technically if the EKG isnt set sensitive enough it could be just fine V-fib, but your right
Even a working mind & beating heart together are not enough to give life. The boy didn’t even have that much. His soul-his true core-was long since gone. This needed to happen.
Keep your religious beliefs to yourself. They have no reason to be brought into a logical situation.
@@dreadflint I’m being completely logical. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. As stated above, scientifically, we already know that a beating heart & working mind aren’t enough to give a person life. Therefore, logically, there must be another component. A soul is the most common word for it. That energy must come from somewhere, & it must go somewhere when we die. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that much.
There's a difference between being on life support for temporary support and life support with no brain function.
My mom had two strokes and had Brain function but she never wanted to go on life support not even for temporary reasons
I think this just needs to be worded correctly. “Yes there’s a 1 in a billion chance he might recover. However there’s a greater chance, based on how human quantify quality of life, and considering the possible spirituality aspect, that you as his parents, for the billion, are condemning him to torturous sort of purgatory. He could also be feeling nothing, but if that’s true you’re wrong, and you’re keeping his shell alive. The real question is “is that one in a billion chance he might wake up (this not accounting for if he wakes up ‘ok’) worth the greater chance that you are prolonging his suffering here on earth?”
For all of you saying that he was just an empty shell and the parents should have just let him go. That they were 6:11 being so Selfish.
So you all would just say " hey its fine, unplug my child from Life Support. No big deal."
Nobody knows what they would say or do in a Situation.
No matter what you all are saying, you can't say 100% that you would not do the same as these Parents did.
If you thought that there was a chance of your child waking up and coming back to you.
Yeah like the goverment and doctor wanted to let the boy pass away peacefully cause he had little to zero chance of ever waking up and also they were wasting life support when somebody else could be actually needing it
But at the same time that little boy is the son of a mother and a father. He's too young and if he's unplugged that means he wont expierence life and at the same time that's basically asking parents to sacrifice their child when there are no clues that he's genuinely dead and there is the smallest hope of him being alive.
A child losing a parent is hard but parents losing a child? I cant even begin to describe how awfull that would be. Letting go of loved ones is hard and harder if they're so young. Can you really call them selfish if they just want their baby boy to wake up, go home and have a good life with him, loving him and raising him?
The whole situation is messy but no one is entirely on the wrong here; you can't ask parents who love their son very much and want to be with him and help him if there's any possible chance for him to live to let him die but at the same time the goverment is right when in cases like this is near impossible to wake up and the boy just for having a small part of him alive doesn't mean hes still fully himself cause you need more than just brain to be alive and the treatment could be used in someone who actually needs it.
Logic is more important than emotion. Nobody is saying they can't be upset over the death of their child. But clinging to the false hope that a clearly dead and gone child could somehow recover is illogical and stupid. Although the death of a child is painful, at some point people just have to accept that death is death.
Check out a case in the 1990's in Florida Terry Shivo
It’s absolutely inhumane to keep anyone alive on life support with 0 chance of recovery and life. I know I wouldn’t want to be left like that if that happened to me.
Edit: thanks for the likes 😊
The problem here, at least for the parents, was that the experimental treatments he was receiving gave him a greater than zero chance of recovery. Virtually infinitesimally small, but non-zero, which was enough for them as parents to push for his continued treatment. All of this was a battle fought over a glimmer of hope that they might talk to their son again.
I’ve been a registered nurse 35 years. It happens all the time. Nothing new about it. In the end, they end up dying anyways.
When Human Medicine isn't rigging the game, the very powers that be decides to play the game with admin codes! Lifespan now heading to 20.
@@XSilver_WaterX ??????
I wouldn't want to be let go
Seeing that episodes take your son off of life support what's the hardest thing they have to do I hope I do not have to face that because I won't be able to handle it😢
As much as I appreciate the sentiment of others “helping you out” when dealing with a difficult decision,
I don’t think the government should have this power over what you choose to do (medically) with your child. At least not to the extent of denying them life because they deem it’s best this way. Either way one party or the other is taking a chance and no choice is “the perfect or right choice”, it never is that black and white. Although in most cases I know it wouldn’t be this easy to just come to a conclusion and enforce it the next day (as someone else pointed out, you would have a trial with the parents, doctors, specialists, etc) it still rubs me the wrong way that this is in fact a power the government has over a person just because they are a citizen of X. What one considers cruel somebody else will consider worth the effort. And so so many things will influence our decision: our personal experience, whether one is a doctor or not, the doctor’s experience with such a case, whether you’re a parent or not, how empathic one is, how removed from the situation one is, how their view on life and quality of life is, and such a big and extensive etcetera. Let people make their choices. Also, doctors are very often wrong, not saying that this is the case, but there’s been plenty of instances in which so called specialists have been wrong, so I will always advocate for a person having the right to choose what they deem best for themselves and their children. You can advise and try to make your case if you feel their choice is wrong for whatever reason, but just deciding for them to force your decision is not okey.
I'm all for hoping for a miracle but even I know when you're brain dead there's no hope. I have two small kids and pray to never have to be in a situation like that.
Impossible to be upset at the NHS "calling it" on this kid... after they've funded the kid's treatment up to this point. What this clip doesn't discuss is the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in medical bills the parents would have incurred in the United States. Their lives completely ruined, to watch their son lay in a bed and most likely never actually wake up.
It wasn’t the NHS it was the taxpayers.
Also this sorta thing wouldn't happen straight away in real life, only if the NHS believes they are fully brain dead or no chance at recovery which has to be decided by commitee and I think it's if the parents are keeping them on life support for prolonged period of time (like a month) or the family isn't allowing doctors to do their job (like preventing the doctors to do tests to decide brain death). Also the second the parents aren't happy with it they can appeal against it and the decision will be delayed until the appeal works itself out. The last major case literally took about 5 months between the kid being brought in unconscious and possibly brain dead to him being removed by a court order.
This is horrifying.
The fact that the government can make that call? Absolutely horrifying.
My guess is that aside from the monetary burden, there are other patients who may also be in need of dire care.
It's cruel, I know. Logic tell us it's the right thing to do, but our heart says otherwise.
NHS
They’re in England
So they just refuse care
Parents have no way to get care w/o insurance or a buttload of money
If they didn't you would end up with buildings full of vegetables..
@@captainpoppleton wow
If ur gma or son was there
Would u want the building full then?
Medical ethics where parents rights to medical decisions for their children end and Dr and Government take over
My cousin had to make the decision to pull the cord, as they say, on her dad and they did it and my uncle, her dad, woke up and lived another five years. He died of a massive heart attack, but in those five years he traveled. He just never know what’s going to happen. I think it should be a parents decision, when a child is concerned to take them off life support not someone else that doesn’t even work in the medical field. Could you imagine if that boy ended up in New Amsterdam and somehow woke up/was better through a medical regiment that they didn’t use in Britain but in the US they had clinical trials saying that certain medicine could help this condition, but because there’s a court order that life-support had to be removed, they wouldn’t let them leave the country. How smart would that be?
Like I always say they fight and tooth only when it’s one of their own, but when it’s not one of their own, they could care less.
I can't imagine what they're feeling, but I dont think I can force my child in that situation. It's pure torture honestly.
You cant shock asystoly, wouldnt do anything, flatline means CPR and Suprarenin until regain of shockable rythm.
Surely, this is incorrect. The law ordering him off life support and the parents are shocked. It has to be more than that. Also, transferring him to a hospital in the United States? How can she do that? Is this even allowed?Could he even survive the trip?
Is his based on the real UK story of the child Alfie?
Probably.
wow very confusing not knowing this was all in the UK
Has anyone mentioned if the child has severe and irreversible brain damage? If so then what quality would he have being a live?
pueden obligarte a desconectar a una persona solo porque el gobierno lo dice? desde cuando?
"So why did you save him?"
Because she has a legal obligation to save a life unless ordered otherwise?
The boys soul had left his body long ago. His body was basically just an empty shell. There was no hope of recovery. PERIOD. His parents had to accept that fact and let him go.
Difficult thing to od but so true. It is inhuman and selfish to keep someone alive on life support when had no brain activity and being brain dead will mean no quality of life. I’m just glad my folks would never do this to me. They’d let me go if I had absolutely no chance at recovery.
@@jilla-dr9hu yes but you have to look at it through the parents perspective they dont want to loose their son and for the male doctor to do that in the begining of the video was inhumane its wrong to force them to let go
Actually neither you nor I know if/or when the boy's soul had left his body. We're not God.
@@AS-yz2iz when you have no brain activity at all (brain waves or electrical impulses) the you are dead and your soul has left. Even if it hasn't moved on, it would want to if it knows there's no hope for recovery.
Pmsmsmsmsmsmsmsmsmsmsmssmsmsmsmsmsmsmsmsmsmmsmsmsmsmsmsmsmsmwmwmwmwmwmwmwmsmsmmsmsmwmwmwmwmwmwmwmwmwmmwmwmmmwmwmwmmmmmwmwmwmmwwmmwmwmwwmmwwmmwsmmsmsmsmsmwmwmwmwmwmwmwmwmwwmwmwmwmwmwmwmwmwmwwm
So Sharpe gave those parents false hope
I don't understand what law is this?
Personally if there is an DNR on someone then then the staff have the duty to honor it. After that ppint they're not being ethical, they're playing god with people's lives.
That's another type of case , DNF are done when the patient already gave his concent about not prolonging his life. This is a case about a poor family with a child brain dead but they didn't want to pull the plug BUT the government in UK is the one paying the bills and if there really nothingvthe doctor can do, they can decide to end the treatment(of course, there is a series of procedures to do before that happens), this of course is not happening in the US, because the Medical Insurance companies would move to crush any law like that because they make millions because of it.
I think they shouldn't have to go through that if they paying hospital fees and that what they want i think you should give the parent the right to say when they dont want to keep watching him suffer.
This is the UK, where healthcare is funded by taxes, not private citizens. Keeping the boy alive is eating up limited taxpayer funds.
IMO the government should only step in when the patient can't make decisions for themselves AND have no one else to do it for them. Even then I think the right should be given to the patients doctor and not the government itself. While I agree that 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance is extremely low and the child should have been let go, it should have been the parents call. 1 in 1,000,000,000 isn't zero after all. I think if it doesn't hurt the child, there's no reason not to let them try.
Could you please correct the misleading word "painkillers" in the previous post, Bloom wasn't addicted to painkillers. p.s. love the show
The government SHOULD be able to step in, in cases like this. Parents treating their children so cruelly and inhumanely should not be allowed.
If the child is really braindead then it doesnt matter anymore, otherwise the parents are probably right, I mean who can make these decision for someone else?
That’s a very close minded way of looking at it, the child is braindead so he’s not really suffering at all, and the goal isn’t to prolong his life. It’s to at least try and see if he has a chance of living a normal life, to me at least, if there’s a chance it can work, I’ll take it in this case, because If I don’t he’s dead anyway, it’s just a matter of doing everything you can rather than letting them die
@@mrj1897 How can a chance work if someone is brain dead, your brain is dead, you are a gone and there is no coming back from it.
@@mrj1897So? It would still be a waste of medical equipment. And come on the chance of the boy having a good quality of life is so low it's not worth to try, as the most likely thing to happen is a terrible quality of life, or death anyway.
@@Odd-Vegan-Singing-TFOL they already said he’s gonna die, and how will it be worse if he’s braindead?
It’s a waste for sure, but you’re given an option to, so why not?
It distubs me when people who are completely brain dead are forced to be kept alive.
If alive is even the right word.
There are worse things then dying.
Like being forced to stay alive when completely unaware of your existance.
The woman doctor should lose her medical license. All she did was let her emotions overpower her responsibility as a physician to do what was right for the patient and in the course she tortured the parents even more. Shame on her.
Are you referring to when she revived the child at first? Or when she tried to make a plea case? Because legally speaking she did nothing wrong in either scenario. The first time, since there was no court order yet, the male doctor refusing to revive the child was actually illegal. Because he was ignoring the wishes of the parents to save their son. And to make a plea was fighting for the rights of the parents to save their son.
@@TimberlakeTigerGirl She did do wrong.
@@Seek1878 Only after the court order came in to force the child off life support then she was in the wrong. But prior to that, as long as a warrant or a court order is not in effect, doctors have an obligation to save a patients life. The only time that obligation ends is in scenarios like this where it's obvious the patient is not coming back.
@@TimberlakeTigerGirl Doctors have an obligation to do no harm. And prolonging existence on machines can be doing harm.
@@Seek1878 Again until a warrant was given ordering for life support to be turned off. Doctors have to keep patients on it if it's what the family wants. I've heard of cases where doctors turned off life support against the parents wishes and they got sued over it. Likewise in Texas, there was a case where a pregnant woman was brain dead and even the husband wanted to turn off life support and let her go. But because she was pregnant, the Texas Supreme Court ordered for the hospital to keep her on life support for the entire pregnancy; they weren't even allowed to deliver prematurely they had to wait until at least 36 weeks. They were forced to keep a camera on the body at all times for the court to monitor the pregnancy to make sure the staff didn't disobey orders. Because the court threatened to arrest all the doctors and nurses and even the dead woman's husband for the murder of an unborn child if they turned off life support before it was time. The doctors had to turn the woman essentially into a puppet: attaching her limbs to robots that would move the body around like a living person to 'stimulate the fetus'.
It caused a huge controversy and this was before Roe was overturned.
The government was in the right. Parents weren't rational and just prolonging pain.
A stopped heart cant be restarted... Y they keep peddling this lie idk.... Only an arrhythmic heart can be briught back ti rhythm... Once the heart stops its over... Its gone.
Good on the government for doing the right thing when the parents were too cowardly to do so. Thank you 🙏
They're not coward they're iust don't have to the gut to do so,
you wouldn't know the pain how much the parents care for their sons if that was your
The female doctor is being absolutely ridiculous.
Is this an actual law in the UK?
yes. medical care is completely free in the UK, no insurance, no bills, etc BUT the government can pull the plug or refuse 'unneeded' surgeries whenever they choose too.
And can take forever to get actual care
Yes they did that with Archie some time ago
His brain was dead but parents refused to turn him off
They lost court battle
@@hannahyoung6762Yikes! That's communism
@@echofoxtrot2.051It really isn't. This is an extremely nuanced issue and respectfully you have no idea what you are talking about.
Amazing how selfish some people are, put yourself in the patients place
Goofy, the kid has been gone for a while.
Wanna hear a joke?
The system works
😂
I don’t care. If the court doesn’t agree The government cannot decide when a family Hass to give up on their family member, if they don’t wanna give up hope and they believe that one day their family member will wake up and they’re hoping for a miracle and they decide to keep their family member on life-support for two years but then realize that they are better off off life support then it took them two years to realize it but you can’t force somebody to make that decision they have to come to the decision on their own I have never been in this position God for bid any of my family members were in a coma and brain dead I would probably do what these parents were doing I would want to keep them on life-support and just hold onto the hope that maybe one day they would wake up even though my rational brain tells me it’s impossible my emotional brain would not be willing to let go just yet and it might take me some time to realize hey it is time to let them go the fact that this government is literally forcing them to unplug their kid before they’re ready is disgusting if the child is brain dead then he’s not really feeling any pain it’s scientifically proven that if you’re brain dead you don’t feel pain so realistically it’s not inhumane or unjust to the kid but what they’re doing is taking away time for family to process loss which is very harmful in the end I have never even heard of this kind of law But it disgusts me that it exists every family has a different amount of time that it takes to process grief and loss some families might realize three hours after the doctors told him that there’s no chance of them waking up that it’s better to unplug them. Some families might take a year. Some might even take longer than that, but everybody has their own amount of time it takes to realize that unplugging them is the best thing to do. The thing is, you cannot force them to make the decision
Semi vegetative?
If there is no brain function then there is no hope. PERIOD.
I've heard of stories of them being wrong and the person making a recovery. And regardless, it should be up to the parents not a government. It's sickening to see
@@sackettfamily4685 True. In cases such as this however, there is absolutely positively no hope whatsoever. Not with diseases such as what his character had. At least not now. Maybe not ever. His soul had left his body long ago, all that was left was an empty shell. They needed to let him go so they can finally grieve and eventually move on. That's just the way it is. PERIOD.
@YourRandomBAD I'm not saying that I agree with what the government of the UK does. I don't. I think the parents should be allowed to exhaust all their options, even to the point of being brought to complete financial debt if the want to, to save their son. However, personally, I believe that they are just delaying the inevitable. Sooner or later they would have had to pull he plug and let him go. His body, in this case, really and truly was an empty shell and there was no hope for recovery. The longer they waited to accept that, the worse it would be when they finally did let him go. To continue to hope for a miracle, one that will never come, is wrong. They needed to accept that he was gone and let his body rest.
@YourRandomBAD it's wrong to give false hope.
@YourRandomBAD even if one day there was a treatment that reversed all the damage to his brain, the damage itself would have erased any and all memories and experiences and his original personality. He would essentially be reset to zero. He'd have no memory of who he or his parents are.
Restarting his heart was the wrong thing to do and made everything 10x worse
Obviously this is based on the Alfie Evans case… but in that case, the parents were represented in the court, too.
Don’t the parents have the right to be heard in court before ‘the government’ gets their court order? 🤷♀️
Most people in a vegetative state do not survive it. He was no longer alive. Yes, his heart was still beating, but he was basically brain dead keeping someone on life-support with no chance recovery practically dead. The government will not allow it. You’re wasting life support that could be helping someone else who has a chance of surviving you’re wasting equipment. They had to learn the hard way that his son is no longer there with them. He’s just an empty shell. He was gone long ago, and on life-support.
Socialized medicine means the government decides who is treated and by what means and at what time. You are not a person, you are a number. This number sees Dr X. In order to see a different doctor you have to move and hope a doctor there will be able to take you on.
He was the first, there was another baby after him they denied feeds too and highly drugged him so he didn't know, but he still cried of hunger. I followed both cases. They should of let them both go longer. As I remember Alfie still knew his parents were there and the other baby communicated with smiles and watched his parents. Everyone's bodies go when they are ready. I understand a do not resuscitate order but not killing them. Wasn't it Italy tried to get Alfie? I know USA said he could come too.
@@growinggenerationshomestea516 Except the court refused to allow anyone to remove Alfie - a British citizen - from the country.
Just like in this episode - except in real life the court case took over a year, not an hour!
@@justShhhhhh Yes, I do understand that perspective.
But the entire concept of the justice system is that both sides have the right to be represented in court. These parents should have had the chance to have their say on the record - just like Alfie's parents did. The court would have still issued the same ruling, but the parents' opinions would have been heard, at least.
I know this is just a TV show, but it's extraordinarily traumatizing that they did not even have a chance to speak to the court. :(
What is more moral, to peacefully end their suffering or keep them alive but functionally dead?
and people wonder why the us doesnt want that kind of healthcare system
In a case like this, it had to be done. There's no way to revive that boy, and prolonging his passing will only hurt the parents more. It was an act of mercy.
Even in the US, the state can force a hospital to pull the plug on someone on life support once the body starts deteriorating.
It's sad but realistically the boy would have never recovered, and there are more cases of people refusing treating and dying because they can't afford the US exorbitant costs of treatment, UK healthcare system is far from great but more people have chances than the US
Lmfao they're shocking asystole.
UK law is crazy.
Personally, I hope the parents sue the British government. I know I would.
Well here's the thing. The government, as awful as it is for the family, was in the right. The boy was dead. He was nothing but a soulless husk essentially. It was inhumane to keep him alive any longer when the rest of his body wanted to die. I know this would be a hard and tragic decision, but ultimately the parents weren't thinking logically and who could blame them? But the government did make the right call.
They legally can't. The government has the authority to do such things when they know that the patient can not be revived.
That goes to show you have no rights in the UK
People please be quiet
Sharpe and the parents were wrong.
That is not a child, that is a hollow, empty shell. It is devoid of humanity. To prolong the suffering of it is the peak of cruelty.
How can you prolong the suffering of a “hollow shell” it makes no sense.
A hollow shell can't have suffering. I hope you never have kids
I agree. Its selfish of the parents. They weren't ready. Who the hell is?
@@Spfahx stop nit picking and learn metaphors.
@@sassafrasstree7449 well no its a contradiction to appeal to suffering for a thing that is without humanity/life/is a husk, whatever word we want to use. If there is no "humanity" left, there's nothing there to suffer, it's like saying a plant suffers because you forgot to water it.
Furthermore if there was a thing of value there that had the capacity to suffer, I actually changes whether or not we should "kill" it/end it.
That's not to say pulling the plug in these circumstances isn't the right thing to do (more often than not it is) but it not on the basis of a thing even lacking the capacity to suffer, that is suffering. It's entirely an nonsense statement.
I have to wonder how they would react if that father start taking retribution against those directly responsible for the order to remove his child from lifesupport?
Would probably not be the first
They would arrest and charge him. Simple.
The poor kid was gone a long time ago.
Nobody with an ounce of actual experience of working in a hospital environment could fail to see all the inaccuracies in these scenes. I know it's only a TV show but it completely ruins any sense of immersion.
This is absolutely criminal. It’s their child, and they should be allowed to make the call. No should be able to order them to do this. That’s straight up wrong.
this pos doctor he did this gladly
They're keeping alive, and I know this is horrible to say, a lump of meat. The poor kid had no chance of recovery, his mind was gone, he was already dead.
even though i disagree with the parents decision, the government shouldn’t have a say in that
Yes it should. The government is the one in charge of healthcare and the parents are just prolonging the kid's suffering.
No government should be allowed to end a child's life agaisnt the parents' wishes. PERIOD.
No parent should be allowed to torture their dead child for their comfort. EVER
@@intorainbowzOGHow is this torture? How is this “inhumane” if the child truly is brain dead then suffering is not possible. The only way the child could suffer is if they had some sort of consciousness and if that is so (though it seems not) then recovery would be possible. Either way it makes no sense and the government should not be so heavy handed and involved in the parent’s decisions.
Pretty sure any organ team will tell you heart rates go up and the patient who doesn't get put to sleep or any meds show signs of feeling being cut open. Several people quit after 1-2 surgeries for this reason. I know 2 people who woke up fine after being declared brain dead.
@@intorainbowzOG If a person was truly dead, you couldn't torture them. Nor are dead people's hearts beating EVEN if they were hooked up to machines.
@@snakebitepellehueok so your heart does beat even when hooked up to machines. Life support includes ventilators and other functions to support your body for what your brain can not regulate. There is a difference between brain death which is clinically dead and you can not recover no matter what you do, and a coma, which ranges quite a lot but the key factor is there is still some level of brain activity. People can certainly still suffer while in a coma or I believe brain death, even if it is just their body suffering and not them as a whole
Maybe God wasn't done yet
If the UK can actually do that, whoever is a citizen does not need enemies, the government is already there to play this role
They made the right decision. The kid was already dead; keeping him on life support is cruel and inhumane. Hospitals should reserve the right to pull the plug on brain dead patients even if it's against the wishes of the families.
The parents were the enemies here, prolonging their son's suffering for a delusion.
They made them so posh British it's actually laughable. I've not heard anyone call someone "mam" well ever, in real life! 😅 Also our police cars don't sound like that.
i feel like people should be allowed 6 months from the time their loved one was diagnosed as brain dead to come to terms with what has happened and say goodbye. 6 months is a reasonable amount of time to allow someone to be kept on life support without it being cruel and it gives the loved ones a timeline for how long they are allowed to keep the body alive.
That's 6 months that life support systems are being wasted on a dead person.b
At this point, the welfare of the child is not as strong as the welfare of the parents, no? He's gone, we know he's gone - so why in gods name make this so difficult for his parents?
They can't be coddled endlessly.
If the man standing in front of the ambulance had been struck dead that would have been right. He was in process of committing murder.
While the government shouldn't have the right to terminate someone's life support, that still doesn't change the fact that the boy was clinically dead. His soul had left his body long ago and said body was just an empty shell. He was dead and there was no saving him. PERIOD.
@@freedomwriter1995 This episode is based on a real case where the mind in question was very much alive.
@@joshuahudson2170 I read about that case. Just as with this fictionalized version, the child had been brain dead for months. His soul had already moved on to heaven and all that was left was an empty shell. The current "treatments" do not work, and probably will not work for a long time (if ever). It was wrong for them to keep him alive when there is no hope whatsoever.
@@joshuahudson2170 Currently, with virtually all degenerative neurological conditions, there is no hope of recovery. At best all we can do right now is delay the inevitable with drugs. Sooner or later those conditions always take their victims. There are no exceptions. Once they reach the final stages it's better to make them comfortable and let them die peacefully and with some manner of dignity.
Even though the government shouldn’t have the right to control someone’s medical decisions and it should be the family, the family needed to let him go already. Difficult to say goodbye but he was already gone. There was absolutely no chance of any kind of recovery. He had no brain activity so all that was left was his body. This was inhumane and cruel
To take that choice away is unbelievable!!
In this case it's the right thing to do. The boy is brain dead theres nothing they can do. And forcing him to stay on life support is cruel.
You shouldn't hav a choice to torture your kid for your own needs.
Ik that
1. It’s a show
2. It’s for the best
3. Inhumane to keep someone like that
But something about seeing like ten cops show up to ensure a kid dies doesn’t sit right with me.
I think it's based on a real case of this that happened last year. Except the kid was fully brain dead and had actually started to rot
No government has the right. Looks like yourube removed Comments.
Maybe, however that still doesn't change the fact that the child was braindead and was never going to recover. PERIOD. His soul had long ago left his body there is no reason to keep what was basically an empty shell alive.
There are many families who care for members who are brain dead or comatose. Some are children.
@@freedomwriter1995 I've personally known "brain dead" people wake up and be ok.......2 x actually. No one's opinions matter but the family. It never will change your opinion doesn't matter. No government, public agency or medical professional has the right, ever, period! 2 infants in UK have been taken off vents, denied food and loaded on pain meds so they don't feel hunger or death. They both looked around and communicated. They both had degenerative things they would not get better from. The judge deemed to not prolong what would happen and burden the system. It's cruel!
lol you're delusional. Comments are right here.
The government was in the right here.
Its sick the government can have that much control. If im paying the hospital bill and its my child “over my dead body” is what i would say to
But they don’t pay
It all goes from peoples taxes
You'd keep your child in a vegetative state when he/she is clearly brain dead and has their heart give out multiple times? I've heard disturbing stories about parents keeping their brain dead children on life support for years. And by the time the courts forces the hospital to pull the plug, the organs have started to decompose.
At some point keeping brain dead people on life support is considered cruel and inhumane.
You're not paying the bill, the NHS is. So shut it lol
And that right there is why Americans fought so hard against Socialized Healthcare. 😢
In this case the courts were in the right to make that decision. The boy was brain dead; there's no saving him. And if the parents aren't willing to see reason and do the right thing by letting him go, the hospital should reserve the right to pull the plug even if the parents don't want to. But only when they have indisputable proof the child is a lost cause like being brain dead.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
@@gaarastar57 The simple fact that you've been fooled and conned doesn't make you an idiot. What makes you an idiot is when you BLATANTLY REFUSE to look at the truth and make the conscious decision to believe the lies.
Spoken like an ignorant american. The USA for profit healthcare system is a global embarassment, cancer patients regularly lose their homes or go bankrupt. Surgeries are denied because people can't pay for them. No one would in th UK would trade the NHS for what th USA has. And I hope you never use medicaid or medicare if you're so scared of "socialized" medicine lol."
The law, sir, is euthanasia. In this rare case I prefer the US System.
In this case they're stopping two people from keeping their brain dead child's body alive. All they're doing is keeping a shell of their child alive, for weeks. How long would they have gone using free medical aid to keep a shell going if allowed to continue? It's not easy to say goodbye to a loved one, but they have to accept and try to recover. It's the action that makes sense when there's no chance of recovery
@@bluebirbas it's not the decision that gives me pause, it's that it's mandated. I guess if the "state's" paying a larger share, that's the rub, they get a larger say in the decision-making process. It's a delicate balance.
@@craftsandstuff3349 if the parents are willing to take responsibility, let them use up their money
@@bluebirbas You shouldn't be able to torture your kid just bcause you have money.
The US system is BS.
This is what happens when you have a corrupt government running the show.
Unfortunately due to free healthcare, I can say I am sad but not surprised to see this happen.
lol in the USA with overpriced healthcare surgeries and treatments are regularly denied. No one in the UK would trade the NHS for the American for profit system.
This is why one must take custody of their child from the government after birth. Situations like these are so hard.
What are you talking about? The kid is brain dead there is nothing the parents can do to revive him. And at that point putting him on life support is cruel and inhumane. I've heard of cases of parents defying court orders to keep their brain dead child on life support for years. By the time the courts force the hospital to pull the plug, the kids organs have started to rot away.
lol what?
Brain death means that the person is gone and there is no coming back from that. Not sure why they made everyone else look like the bad guys without any sympathy.
That is definitely inhumane. If that was me I would want them to pull the plug asap
The why did you bring him back?
Idk. A lawsuit from the parents perhaps?