Argue with Adrenochrome Dreams about the benefits of keeping a child's corpse on life support

Adrenochrome Dreams said:
Correct. Nor if you keep it pumping.
Click to expand...
This corpse is talking up valuable space and equipment that could be used to help people who have a chance of recovery.
Adrenochrome Dreams said:
I agree for most, but I don't think his presence is hurting others, except maybe Hollie's A-logs.



Undeniably, but this is "could be used" - it's not causing problems yet. But could in the future if they run out of space/equipment/staff/meds.
Click to expand...
So your telling me people shouldn't take preemptive measures to avoid problems down the line? That seems a little short-sighted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HIVidaBoheme and I hate children?
Unflushable Turd said:
A nice thought experiment, but completely ignorant to the reality of what's happening to Archie's body, and what's to come.

This is why I wish these facebook commenters and internet philosophers would stay in their lane and listen to the fucking medical professionals who've dedicated their careers to understanding human physiology and caring for the very real human beings in front of them.

What's going to happen if treatment continues?... Archie's body will undergo multiorgan failure. His kidneys will stop producing urine as toxic byproducts accumulate, turning his blood acidic. His body will be unable to digest his feeds, leading to vomiting and bloating. His skin will develop necrotic sores. His lungs will continue to fill with thick secretions that have to be suctioned constantly, he might even have to be proned (laid onto his belly) in a last ditch effort to help his lungs get slightly better blood flow and expansion.

But dying on your stomach with your face shoved into the mattress, plastic tubes in every orifice, while nurses frantically push medications into your veins and your parents watch helplessly isn't all that bad, right?
Click to expand...
Is my educational or professional background really of your concern? The irony is that you have actually gotten my professional and informal interests reversed.

I assisted (more so observed) an TICU in the early stages of my career (not the NHS - this was not in the UK). There was a patient with multiple spinal injuries whose case hopeless - it was remarkable she even made it to the hospital. Her husband refused to permit for anything but continued treatment as long as she was still moving, but at that point it was only a matter of time before she coughed up her lungs and her immature fetus came out.

Before that could happen, another patient arrived, one who would almost certainly survive with the proper attention. Being understaffed that day, it was decided to prioritise a viable case before what was essentially the task of helping a dreadfully unfortunate woman die. Still, the husband refused but all words fell an deaf ears, and it ended up falling to me the task of quite literally dragging him away - if things had been done as he wished he would simply have witnessed the grisly aforementioned. The patient was left in the hands of a skeleton team effectively tasked with putting her to sleep. The other patient made a full recovery.

The husband is now in prison; he came back later in the week and tried to stab people (myself amongst them) with a knife. Nobody was seriously injured, but the location and purposeful nature of the assault led the court to sentence him to death. The words of victims carrying weight in such cases, I was successful in begging for his life and the death sentence was reprieved on condition of good behaviour.

Speaking to him some time later, I was told he initially arrived at the hospital expecting and reconciled to finding his wife dead already, and even when preparing for his trial came to comprehend the thorough medical evidence showing that her death was an inevitability. However, being told she was as good as dead whilst seeing her still showing signs of life right in front of him was something different. Being prepared for the worst and suddenly being given a slither of (false) hope, he at the time chose to remain convinced she had been left to die rather than accept that the unfortunate accident decided her fate, and by the time he came to realise otherwise, it was too late for him.

Whilst acknowledging my experiences are a potential source of bias, I am telling you all this in the hopes you might understand something surprisingly overlooked: people don't appreciate being talked down to. Unfortunately, a belief that one's education and experience alone merit a deference to one's opinion is a rampant trend nowadays, especially in highly professionalised disciplines such as law, medicine, and education. Ironically, often the individuals in the middle of the hierarchy of achievement are those who flaunt their qualifications and credentials as signs of authority, whereas those truly attaining the highest levels of knowledge and competence tend to be more self-aware yet capable of getting their ideas across without having to first list their credentials; as I wrote earlier 'the more one knows the more one realises they do not yet know'. What I previously posted was indeed philosophy, as the natural sciences are derived from philosophical reasoning, and any decent scientist (medics included) should have an appropriate sense of humility.

Telling people what is best for them or their loved ones in times of great anxiety and stress is often not received as goodwill but arrogance, unless it is accompanied with adequate instruction. Rather it should be the duty of decent professionals to provide others with as much information as is necessary when they require it. Yes different individuals may require different means and degrees of thoroughness of convincing; some may benefit from explanations as thorough as those for medical students.

In retrospect, had the aforementioned husband been permitted to witness his wife's death, however horrific and dreadful an experience it might have been, without care having been withdrawn and he himself confined to a distant corridor, he may have been able to come to terms with what happened without anyone having suffered knife wounds or imprisonment. He went over the ledge because he was not allowed to accept death on the terms and evidence acceptable to him. Proper care is not merely looking after a patient, but also all those in the patient's life.

Hollie does not seem to be the sort of person to barge into a hospital wielding a machete, but if Archie goes in a manner which leaves her army in doubt, they can - and regrettably it is likely that they will - besiege the NHS and the legal system with lawsuits ranging from negligence to murder. There also needs to be an inquiry into Archie's accident, and having the most important witnesses in a state of mind where they think all of the national institutions are against them is not going to benefit anyone.

That Archie's expiration going on like this would not be pleasant is without question. Although those responsible for his care are justified in thinking that putting an end to all this prior to it reaching that point is doing everyone a favour, it should be abundantly clear by now that Hollie et al. are not prepared to accept that Archie is gone in such a manner. It appears that they would accept that if Archie expired whilst on LS and receiving all treatment available that all that can be done has been done. As unpleasant as it may sound, the shock of experiencing Archie's expiration on those terms, however tragic and horrid, might be what those people need to cope with what has happened without permanently lingering 'what-ifs'. Minimising controversy and increasing certainty is also in the public's interest.

A quick note on dignity: it is a subjective concept which is understood differently depending on tradition, culture, and class. A person taking their final breaths in an aesthetically pleasing manner is 'dignified' to some but to others a mere spectacle to make the living feel better (similar to how in war there are those cultures where it is possibly to surrender with honour facing certain defeat whereas others consider the act of fighting to the death against hopeless odds paramount to the expression of 'national dignity'). Objectively, one has dignity when they have respect, and surely few decent people will deem the boy less worthy of respect if his final moments are spent struggling on LS?
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: purpleflurp, SeaVulture, Vibromatic Heart Bed and 5 others
@oldclocknewclock can't quote your post but I agree.

It is part of the hospital's job to deal with grief properly. It is important to get it right, because all citizens of this country are ultimately patients at some point, and getting it wrong could impact mental health for these family members. It also impacts their trust in doctors and medicine in the future.

Your post reminds of stories from the old days where new mothers weren't allowed to see or hold their severely deformed babies, which were taken away to die. They thought it was for the best, but these women never had closure and were permanently traumatised.

Also agree that many doctors talk down to patients and don't give them any autonomy. So many people don't believe that laypeople should have thoughts, speech, opinions or choices on their own bodies. All this shit about doctors and nurses being selfless angels is so unrealistic, they are humans, and not all of them are nice. Not all of them get it right when delivering the worst news.

Fareal said:
If you think what’s happening to Archie right now isn’t harmful to his family and friends, I am not sure you quite understand what is happening here. With the best will in the world, ICU care is not gently mopping fevered brows. It is a range of invasive and (in those patients who aren’t brain stem dead) painful procedures to force a body to stay alive. Every dignity that can be given to the patient is given to them. But not much is possible.

ICU is not a high tech morgue. It does not exist to delay the terrible, terrible moment when someone’s baby is lowered into the earth. It is there to try and snatch back from the brink those kids who can be snatched back. Archie is not one of those kids.

And that bed is needed. PICU - in fact all ICU care - is modelled as a 100% capacity facility. That means every ICU bed in Britain is in use at all times. If someone who is barely clinging to life needs to come in immediately, anyone who can be stepped down to enhanced HDU will be. As soon as Archie’s body is removed tomorrow, the room will be immediately disinfected and a new kid will be brought in. I promise you, someone needs that bed.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of what goes on in ICUs thanks. There is nothing unusual happening to Archie's body that doesn't happen to other life support patients. The only difference is the prognosis.

It is a fair point that this is not the intent for intensive care, but there will always be debate as to where the line is drawn.

I was a visitor at an ITU for a week recently, and only 4 beds were taken, with an entire bay of about 12 empty beds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Disagree
Reactions: Mystic Meg
What I witnessed was contradictory to his claims,. Are laypeople on gossip forums not permitted visual observations of their surroundings?

In fact all UK hospitals have been empty since Covid. Nurses have been in trouble for taking photos of proof of empty wards and corridors in the past 2 years, while the media and government were whipping up hysteria about overflowing hospitals due to the coof.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Catmannjew and Genesis Does
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back