Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

Sepsis is not a incurable terminal disease. If there was a cure or a treatment the calculus changes, but that's not the case here. Even the Italy trip, as I understand it from the article, was not a cure or treatment, just a prolonging of life. Might be because I don't have kids, but it seems selfishly cruel to prolong suffering to cling To the kid.


As to making financial decisions when the state pays I do think they should have some say. That's where courts and the like get involved, I assume.

[Josquius]

A teenage girl died a few years ago of sepsis because her doctor didn't recognise the signs early enough and then refused to transfer her (down the corridor) when the parents thought she might have sepsis, believing he knew better.

The child had a right to try whatever might give her a chance to survive, being an infant that decision for her had to be made by the parents and it should have been respected.

If nothing else than to avoid the state making a life or death decision on behalf of someone else.

I don't how where the two situations compare. A doctor being shit and allowing a kid to die due to not spotting a basic problem vs. this case of a kid who has been intensely studied, had every possible treatment thrown at her, and has been the subject of a court case.

I'd say parents control over their kids should only stretch a certain distance. I don't know the details of this case but I assume experts had looked at it and said flying her to Italy would only cause suffering and bring nothing good.

We spend a lot of money prolonging the life of terminally ill adults whose only wish is to die and they are denied of that. Apparently with infants its the other way around.

Only up to a certain level- a bar which I believe is quite a bit lower than for a kid.

[Tamas]

Sepsis is not a incurable terminal disease. If there was a cure or a treatment the calculus changes, but that's not the case here. Even the Italy trip, as I understand it from the article, was not a cure or treatment, just a prolonging of life. Might be because I don't have kids, but it seems selfishly cruel to prolong suffering to cling To the kid.


As to making financial decisions when the state pays I do think they should have some say. That's where courts and the like get involved, I assume.

I mentioned the sepsis case to indicate a diagnosis can be wrong.

[Sheilbh]

We spend a lot of money prolonging the life of terminally ill adults whose only wish is to die and they are denied of that. Apparently with infants its the other way around.

It isn't euthanasia or assisted suicide. The same approach is taken with terminally ill adults, unlike children they don't normally have people suing the hospitals over it. It's about withdrawal of care and the legal frame is what's in the best interests of the patient.

In this case according to the courts on evidence Indi Gregory is intubated, has little awareness of the world and extremely limited quality of life - but experiences "frequent pain, multiple times a day, as a result of the various medical interventions and displayed reaction to painful stimuli with crying, increased heart rate, wincing and gasping". There's no evidence or medical reason to think her situation would improve - which included evidence from national and international experts in treating this type of disease. No Italian doctor from the Roman hospital has assessed her or prepared a treatment plan, but it would include further invasive treatment.

The reason it ends up in the courts - and we should reform because I think lawyers don't help this situation - is normally when doctors and parents disagree on what's in the best interests of the child to withdraw treatment. It goes to the courts to assess "best interests" (and they have ruled against doctors). Again that is a decision with doctors and family with adult patients, but it rarely ends up in the courts. I don't think it's the right approach that it ends up in the courts or that they always get it right, but I think it is right that the way of looking at it is what's the best interests of the child, rather than just being a decision for the parents even if keeping their child alive - without a hope of treatment - is just keeping them in pain.

As to making financial decisions when the state pays I do think they should have some say. That's where courts and the like get involved, I assume.

No. It's nothing to do with money.

The legal reason the courts get involved is basically when there is an argument between doctors and parents over what is in the best interests of the child/patient.

[HVC]

Sepsis is not a incurable terminal disease. If there was a cure or a treatment the calculus changes, but that's not the case here. Even the Italy trip, as I understand it from the article, was not a cure or treatment, just a prolonging of life. Might be because I don't have kids, but it seems selfishly cruel to prolong suffering to cling To the kid.


As to making financial decisions when the state pays I do think they should have some say. That's where courts and the like get involved, I assume.

I mentioned the sepsis case to indicate a diagnosis can be wrong.

With a PR nightmare case like this you'd bet that if the docs were wrong specialists would be crawling out of the woodwork claiming errors in prognosis'.

And again that's where the court comes in. And while doctors can be wrong, the state provides means of challeging their prognosis. But failing that what good is it doing the child to give aid to parental delusions?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I was interested in the Nick Gibb story; a rare tory success story but also one I had not heard before. I don't count myself as a political nerd but know more about British politics than most. The question arises, therefore, how can a democracy progress when the overwhelming majority of the citizens are unaware of competent government behaviour? The past few years has been particularly dire with performative statements receiving far more attention than actual policies.

[HVC]

As to making financial decisions when the state pays I do think they should have some say. That's where courts and the like get involved, I assume.

No. It's nothing to do with money.

The legal reason the courts get involved is basically when there is an argument between doctors and parents over what is in the best interests of the child/patient.

I guess that a general point on my feelings seperate from this case, based of tamas' comment.

*edit I guess I'm merging points. I'm tired.  Point 1 the state should have some financial say in wasting resources since it's paying. Point 2 courts can be involved so that parents have a say and prevent the state from being too fiscally motivated.

[HVC]

I was interested in the Nick Gibb story; a rare tory success story but also one I had not heard before. I don't count myself as a political nerd but know more about British politics than most. The question arises, therefore, how can a democracy progress when the overwhelming majority of the citizens are unaware of competent government behaviour? The past few years has been particularly dire with performative statements receiving far more attention than actual policies.

Schools aren't sexy* or clickbaity

*well, maybe catholic schools

[Josquius]

The schools are a success story?

[HVC]

The schools are a success story?

Moving up 21 places in ranking seems impressive.

[Josquius]

The schools are a success story?

Moving up 21 places in ranking seems impressive.

I have no idea what this is talking about.
Sounds sus.

[HVC]

The schools are a success story?

Moving up 21 places in ranking seems impressive.

I have no idea what this is talking about.
Sounds sus.

Just going by what sheilbh posted. Remember, not every conservative is a mustach twirler

[Sheilbh]

I was interested in the Nick Gibb story; a rare tory success story but also one I had not heard before. I don't count myself as a political nerd but know more about British politics than most. The question arises, therefore, how can a democracy progress when the overwhelming majority of the citizens are unaware of competent government behaviour? The past few years has been particularly dire with performative statements receiving far more attention than actual policies.

Yeah - although I suppose part of that is inevitable. Opposition and attention will focus on the failures, especially when I think this is possibly the only success

My understanding is that this is backed in research and other jursidictions doing similar, but the English government went in on this in a big way. There's Gove's structural reforms which have broadly worked but on the curriculum the big successes have come from the shift to phonics teaching for literacy and "knowledge rich" curriculum. That basically means lots of facts. You learn grammar in English, in history you learn dates, the maths and science curriculum is also more rigorous. As I say this is a policy where there is a lot of academic research saying it works.

But those education reforms are not popular with the unions or Guardian readers like me. It sounds conservative and old-fashioned and you'll see lots about "rote learning" not "skills based learning". The evidence in the UK and internationally is that it works and - in particular - that it's actually really good for social mobility. But it's not popular. It's a bit like that Tory headteacher. Education is not a big focus at the minute for Labour but I wouldn't be surprised if they do undo a lot of the reforms because it doesn't seem progressive.

It is, however, part of why English schools are doing better in international comparisons, have overtaken Scottish schools and - in particular - have far better results from a social mobility perspective. Kids on free school meals do a lot better and are far more likely to go into higher education than in Scotland. I think it sort of makes sense to me - without facts/"knowledge" you can't learn skills in the abstract. It's also what the posh schools teach.

But see Jos' response - on the objective measure of PISA rankings English schools have vastly improved in the last 13 years. But it's associated with Gove, teachers don't like it and the vibes are off.

Edit: And also, frankly, see the reaction to Sunak proposing that maths stays mandatory until 18/you leave school - which is absolutely standard in most of the world and we're an outlier in allowing kids to drop maths at 16 (assuming they stay in school). But it's portrayed as some tech-bro ludditism aimed at destroying the arts.

[Josquius]

Ah. As I suspected. So the UK is doing better on those international rankings that say the Japanese school system / exam taking citizen factory are the best in the world?

Really looking at the wrong metrics there.

edit- ah no. Its worse. China is number 1.
I notice Estonia is number 2 however...now that seems something worth studying. I know nothing about the Estonian system.
 I know Finland is often praised for performing well in such things whilst balancing it with actual education. Wonder if the Estonians have similar.

The schools are a success story?

Moving up 21 places in ranking seems impressive.

I have no idea what this is talking about.
Sounds sus.

Just going by what sheilbh posted. Remember, not every conservative is a mustach twirler

This isn't about the  Tories being good or evil. Its about schools in the UK being shit and from all I've seen showing no signs of that changing.

Though I will say about the only good thing Sunak has ever said are his talks about education reform towards more European lines, and I hope that survives his ousting.

[HVC]

Edit: And also, frankly, see the reaction to Sunak proposing that maths stays mandatory until 18/you leave school - which is absolutely standard in most of the world and we're an outlier in allowing kids to drop maths at 16 (assuming they stay in school). But it's portrayed as some tech-bro ludditism aimed at destroying the arts.

As a person educated in Canada, that's insane. What classes are mandatory after 16?