The plight of Charlie Gard

RobertKK

I expect lots here heard of the struggle of the parents of Charlie Gard to save his life.
Charlie Gard is a baby that the courts in the UK and Europe refused to allow experimental treatment for mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, by taking him to the US.

They want to take their child to the US for treatment where a child did recover after getting an experimental treatment for the same condition.
The parents were also told they could not bring their child home to die.

Pope Francis got involved and supported the parents saying their child should not be neglected and should receive treatment.

President Trump tweeted:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/881875263700783104

The child is going to die with no treatment, I can't see why the parents were refused to allow their child get treatment.
It doesn't make sense to me.

captbarnacles

This explains it:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/972.html

There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit objectively from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
The Great Ormond Street Team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory - it has never even been tested on mouse models - but it may, or may not, subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all seem to agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is in a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?
It is with the heaviest of hearts but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests that I find that it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that Great Ormond Street Hospital may lawfully withdraw all treatment, save for palliative care, to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

LadyMacBeth_

I can't understand it either, surely he will die without treatment so what's the harm in trying it unless it's extremely painful/invasive but even so, if there is a chance that he could live then his parents should be entitled to make that decision. I also don't understand why the parents are being forced to accept the withdrawal of treatment, am I missing something? There are people who are kept in a vegetative state for years with no hope of recovery, not that I personally agree with that but it is up to the family to decide. Maybe there are different rules in the UK, I tend to only hear about long term coma patient in the US.

hollypink

RobertKK wrote: »

The child is going to die with no treatment, I can't see why the parents were refused to allow their child get treatment.
It doesn't make sense to me.

Those poor parents - what a terrible time this must be for them. The refusal seems to be because the court considers this will cause the baby harm by prolonging his suffering with no likelihood of improving his condition. I can see that but I think it should be the parents call.

From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/03/donald-trump-offers-help-for-terminally-ill-baby-charlie-gard

British courts have already concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely Charlie would suffer significant harm if his suffering was prolonged without realistic prospect of improvement. The experimental therapy, the courts maintained, would produce no effective benefit.

osarusan

I haven't been following this story all that closely.

As I understand it, the NHS wants to switch off his life support, and is of the opinion that the esperimental treatment will have no benefit and will only prolong his suffering. British and European courts have agreed with that position.

But the parents have raised more than a million pounds, and hospitals in the US have offered the treatment for free.

Is the NHS/Court in a position to actually stop Charlie leaving the country (on the grounds that it would cause unnecessary suffering or something like that)...or is it just that they won't finance it?

captbarnacles

From above:

But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all seem to agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is in a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

This treatment cannot improve his current condition, it could possibly keep him alive as he is but even that is very unlikely and his parents do not want him to have to suffer as he is.

Lollipops23

My understanding was that the child is in pain every moment of every day. Uprooting him and putting him through a therapy that more than likely will not work is just dragging it out and putting him through far more stress and pain than is necessary. He should be allowed to slip away gently and surrounded by the his loved ones.

I can't imagine what his parents are going through.

gctest50

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My understanding was that the child is in pain every moment of every day. Uprooting him and putting him through a therapy that more than likely will not work is just dragging it out and putting him through far more stress and pain than is necessary. He should be allowed to slip away gently and surrounded by the his loved ones.

I can't imagine what his parents are going through.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

..................

Uprooting him and putting him through a therapy that more than likely will not work .

it’s a non-harmful, non-invasive oral medication


"They" started the same crap with Ashya King, : ( seems to worked for him, may not work for all )


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/23/ashya-king-now-free-of-cancer-after-proton-therapy-say-parents

.

ohnonotgmail

gctest50 wrote: »

it’s a non-harmful, non-invasive oral medication


"They" started the same crap with Ashya King, : ( seems to worked for him, may not work for all )


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/23/ashya-king-now-free-of-cancer-after-proton-therapy-say-parents

.

the particular therapy proposed for him has apparently never been tried on humans before. he also has structural brain damage. no therapy will reverse that.

gctest50

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the particular therapy proposed for him has apparently never been tried on humans before. .

false

seamus

osarusan wrote: »

Is the NHS/Court in a position to actually stop Charlie leaving the country (on the grounds that it would cause unnecessary suffering or something like that)...or is it just that they won't finance it?

They are in a position to stop them.

Parents are guardians of their children, not masters or owners. The parents' duty is to care for the child and look after their best interests.

Where a parent is failing to do that or intends to do something which is directly harmful to the child, then the state has a duty to step in to safeguard that child's best interests. Most countries, including Ireland, have a process where a court can basically take over where a parent is failing - either temporarily or permanently. A good example would be a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion for their child.

Sometimes the best interests of a human being is not prolonging their suffering, and allowing them to die.

Everything I've seen says that what the parents plan on doing amounts to little more than an experiment. I understand their mindset, but it's irrational and unfair on the child - the parents are putting hope and emotion above his best interests.

For me this calls in to question the ethics around the right to die and who gets to make that decision. I believe the parents should be the only people allowed make the decision in this case. It's not a matter for the courts. It must be heartbreaking for them. Unfortunately we sometimes need to look beyond our emotions and to the reality. If this little boy succeeds in receiving the treatment then yes his life maybe prolonged but what sort of a life will that be?

ohnonotgmail

gctest50 wrote: »

false

So his doctors at great ormond street are wrong?

Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory - it has never even been tested on mouse models -

No offence but i will take their word over yours.

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

For me this calls in to question the ethics around the right to die and who gets to make that decision. I believe the parents should be the only people allowed make the decision in this case. It's not a matter for the courts. It must be heartbreaking for them. Unfortunately we sometimes need to look beyond our emotions and to the reality.

Don't the two statements in bold contradict each other though?

SEPT 23 1989

where there is life there is hope

let his parents decide what to do

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

Don't the two statements in bold contradict each other though?

It doesn't sit well with me that the courts are involved. Ultimately the parents should have the choice I believe but it's not a choice I agree with.

Tabnabs

BBC 4 had an interview last week with a doctor who was the head of the Institute of Medical Ethics (although interviewed in a personal capacity). He was deeply troubled at the court ruling and supported the parents right to get the treatment in the USA. It was his view that the parents and not the courts should have the final say in this case and that there were a number of flaws in the court ruling.

This was on the same day that the parents revealed that the hospital would not allow Charlie to be taken home one last time and allowed die in peace and dignity, surrounded by his family.

What a world...

gctest50

seamus wrote: »

..........
Where a parent is failing to do that or intends to do something which is directly harmful to the child, then the state has a duty to step in to safeguard that child's best interests......

A good example would be a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion for their child.
...........

They are not bringing him to a faith healer - they are bringing him to a hospital/clinic in the USA

seamus wrote: »

intends to do something which is directly harmful to the child

It is reasonable to assume a hospital in the USA will not intend to do something harmful to the child

seamus

gctest50 wrote: »

They are not bringing him to a faith healer - they are bringing him to a hospital/clinic in the USA

And that's the bit that'll cause harm.
How do you think he's going to get there?

mahamageehad

It's a terrible case. I do think the fact that it went to court has probably forced the parents to listen to the expert's opinions in a way that they mightn't have before, and I do think it's in the best interests of the child to die in peace and end his suffering.

All that said, I can't understand how the parents can be blocked from this if they have a hospital willing to do it, and the means to finance it. Either way the child is going to die anyway, and if they want to prolong their child's suffering to chase an untested miracle cure, I'm surprised the state can step in to stop them. In most other cases where a person is in chronic, terminal pain, it's not allowed to end their life peacefully, so why is it different here? Is it because it's a baby?

captbarnacles

Tabnabs wrote: »

BBC 4 had an interview last week with a doctor who was the head of the Institute of Medical Ethics (although interviewed in a personal capacity). He was deeply troubled at the court ruling and supported the parents right to get the treatment in the USA. It was his view that the parents and not the courts should have the final say in this case and that there were a number of flaws in the court ruling.

This was on the same day that the parents revealed that the hospital would not allow Charlie to be taken home one last time and allowed die in peace and dignity, surrounded by his family.

What a world...

How exactly was this going to be managed? he is mechanically ventilated.

I wish people would read the case details and the actual judgement instead of going by hysterical social media headlines or the dailymail.

Water John

Its a Wisdom of Solomon case. Its not the parents sole call. The child has interests which the law must respect too.

mahamageehad

seamus wrote: »

And that's the bit that'll cause harm.
How do you think he's going to get there?

If transport is inherently the issue, and not the treatment itself, what are the barriers to flying a doctor over from the US to perform the treatment in the UK? I don't know enough about the treatment in this instance.

ohnonotgmail

mahamageehad wrote: »

It's a terrible case. I do think the fact that it went to court has probably forced the parents to listen to the expert's opinions in a way that they mightn't have before, and I do think it's in the best interests of the child to die in peace and end his suffering.

All that said, I can't understand how the parents can be blocked from this if they have a hospital willing to do it, and the means to finance it. Either way the child is going to die anyway, and if they want to prolong their child's suffering to chase an untested miracle cure, I'm surprised the state can step in to stop them. In most other cases where a person is in chronic, terminal pain, it's not allowed to end their life peacefully, so why is it different here? Is it because it's a baby?

you dont think the state should step in to prevent parents from prolonging their childs suffering? And the doctors dont want to end the childs life. they want to withdraw life support and provide palliative care. it is not euthanasia.

The Diddakoi

mahamageehad wrote: »

In most other cases where a person is in chronic, terminal pain, it's not allowed to end their life peacefully, so why is it different here? Is it because it's a baby?

There is a huge difference between euthanasia, and switching off a life support machine.

The baby cannot, and has never been able to, survive without the life support.

Water John

It would be highly unlikely the UK hospital would allow, experimental treatment.

The_Valeyard

Those poor parents. My heart really feels for them. What a position to be in Very hard to be objective in a case like that. But i know if it were my child, I'd move heaven and earth to save them.


Part of me thinks this poor child is in so much pain is it not better to let him go peacefully and without pain. But another part of me thinks if even there was a slight chance that this trip to USA could work, wouldnt you try it?


It is very parents worst nightmare and worse.

seamus

mahamageehad wrote: »

Either way the child is going to die anyway, and if they want to prolong their child's suffering to chase an untested miracle cure, I'm surprised the state can step in to stop them.

Most countries disallow medical experimentation on unconsenting participants. I know that sounds cold, but an "untested miracle cure" on a child is exactly that - a medical experiment on a child.

Consider the magnitude of allowing that, even in isolated extreme cases.

In most other cases where a person is in chronic, terminal pain, it's not allowed to end their life peacefully, so why is it different here? Is it because it's a baby?

It's not different. The state is not ending the child's life, simply refusing to allow suffering to be prolonged.

mahamageehad wrote: »

If transport is inherently the issue, and not the treatment itself, what are the barriers to flying a doctor over from the US to perform the treatment in the UK? I don't know enough about the treatment in this instance.

There would be substantial barriers in such a case. Notwithstanding the doctor not being licensed to practice in the UK, there are many hoops to jump through in order to get approval to use experimental treatments. Just because a treatment is permitted in the US, doesn't mean it's permitted in the UK (and vice-versa). And for experimental treatments, the criteria for using it on a patient are much stricter than for a proven treatments.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

For me this calls in to question the ethics around the right to die and who gets to make that decision. I believe the parents should be the only people allowed make the decision in this case. It's not a matter for the courts. It must be heartbreaking for them. Unfortunately we sometimes need to look beyond our emotions and to the reality. If this little boy succeeds in receiving the treatment then yes his life maybe prolonged but what sort of a life will that be?

It definitely is a matter for the courts sometimes, take Jehovas witnesses for example, sometimes they would choose to let their children die rather than give them lifesaving blood transfusions. Parental rights have limits and parents do not have the right to cause undue suffering to their children, even if their motives are good, if they are disregarding all the best medical advice and there is no hope of a positive outcome, they should let their son die.

Hope is not always positive when it leads people to make bad choices. There are no shortage of snake oil salesmen preying on the hope of distraught parents claiming cures that they cannot deliver. Sometimes parental judgement can be severely impaired and the courts need to step in

gctest50

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So his doctors at great ormond street are wrong?

Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory - it has never even been tested on mouse models -

No offence but i will take their word over yours.

You're trying to spread what looks like poor understanding as teh truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuth

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory - it has never even been tested on mouse models -

Fine healthy looking mouse :

LadyMacBeth_

If the child is in constant pain then I do feel that prolonging his agony is not the best choice, though I don't feel I know enough about this experimental therapy to comment on it. I wonder why the hospital won't allow the parents to take the child home to die though? Palliative care can be set up from home and his suffering would end, as the hospital proposes ending treatment anyway. Maybe they think the parents will actually take him to the US, rather than home.

mahamageehad

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you dont think the state should step in to prevent parents from prolonging their childs suffering? And the doctors dont want to end the childs life. they want to withdraw life support and provide palliative care. it is not euthanasia.

My understanding is that withdrawing life support will end the child's life? In that respect is basically is euthanasia no? I have said that I think that the child should be allowed to die peacefully, I'm just wondering about the legal mechanics of this ruling and any potential knock-on effects.

alf66 wrote: »

There is a huge difference between euthanasia, and switching off a life support machine.

The baby cannot, and has never been able to, survive without the life support.

It still feels a tad slippy slope to me to.

Water John wrote: »

It would be highly unlikely the UK hospital would allow, experimental treatment.

So, would they be allowed to do this experimental treatment in a private home? Or due to the mechanical ventilation, is there no way of taking the child from the hospital alive so it's not actually a possibility? Seamus has mentioned a number of other barriers in his previous post so it seems that my initial point here is no longer valid in any case.

seamus wrote: »

Most countries disallow medical experimentation on unconsenting participants. I know that sounds cold, but an "untested miracle cure" on a child is exactly that - a medical experiment on a child.

Consider the magnitude of allowing that, even in isolated extreme cases.

It's not different. The state is not ending the child's life, simply refusing to allow suffering to be prolonged.

There would be substantial barriers in such a case. Notwithstanding the doctor not being licensed to practice in the UK, there are many hoops to jump through in order to get approval to use experimental treatments. Just because a treatment is permitted in the US, doesn't mean it's permitted in the UK (and vice-versa). And for experimental treatments, the criteria for using it on a patient are much stricter than for a proven treatments.

Don't get me wrong Seamus, in a case where a treatment hasn't even been tested on mice and doctors appear to have unanimously agreed that it won't be beneficial, it seems like the right call by the courts. However, regarding your point about patient consent, in this case the parents are the legal guardians and they are giving consent on behalf of the child. This type of consent is accepted in many other scenarios, I'd be curious as to why the parents are overruled in this specific case.

Given a scenario where a baby was suffering from cancer and the parents refused to allow the doctors to perform chemo or whatever treatment was needed in favour of aromatherapy, would the state step in there too?

captbarnacles

gctest50 wrote: »

You're trying to spread what looks like poor understanding as teh truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuth




Fine healthy looking mouse :

It has never been tested on Charlie Gard's condition and according to a doctor in US may not even cross the Blood Brain barrier.

Water John

Yes the state will act in the case of children. It seems to to rarely act, but can do, in the case of adults.
Some adults don't make wise choices. Steve Jobs would possibly be alive today, if had not opted solely for the alternative medicine route.

Guy:Incognito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For me this calls in to question the ethics around the right to die and who gets to make that decision. I believe the parents should be the only people allowed make the decision in this case. It's not a matter for the courts. It must be heartbreaking for them. Unfortunately we sometimes need to look beyond our emotions and to the reality. If this little boy succeeds in receiving the treatment then yes his life maybe prolonged but what sort of a life will that be?

Parents are not doctors and will usually let their emotions take charge which can result in prolonging suffering. They can't be allowed to just inflict suffering on a child because they happen to have given birth to them. You'll find someone somewhere in the world that will tell you they can cure anything you've got, just by doing a bit of googling. Con men and charlatans will gladly take money of people .


Most people will say "don't let me end up like that , pull the plug" when talking about life in a vegetative state, but often when they are responsible for someone else, will see no issue leaving them like that or worse, prolonging it with intervention, just because they don't want the person to die.

The best interests of the patient is what should come first, regardless of who they are and in a lot of cases , the best thing for someone is to be let die .

osarusan

mahamageehad wrote: »

My understanding is that withdrawing life support will end the child's life? In that respect is basically is euthanasia no?

Euthanasia is not simply the withdrawal or withholding of life support, which happens quite a bit.

mahamageehad wrote: »

Given a scenario where a baby was suffering from cancer and the parents refused to allow the doctors to perform chemo or whatever treatment was needed in favour of aromatherapy, would the state step in there too?

Yes they would.

A (famous) example of state intervention was the boy who needed a blood transfusion that his Jehovah's Witness parents would not allow on religious grounds, but was given it anyway after state intervention.

If I remember correctly, he was temporarily made a ward of the court, received the transfusion, then returned to the guardianship of his parents.

seamus

mahamageehad wrote: »

However, regarding your point about patient consent, in this case the parents are the legal guardians and they are giving consent on behalf of the child. This type of consent is accepted in many other scenarios, I'd be curious as to why the parents are overruled in this specific case.

Well, consent is not absolute. In legal terms, there are specific things that you cannot consent to, even as an individual.

The barrier is obviously higher for a child (or indeed anyone who is under your care), in that your intention must be in the best interests of the child, or at the very least should not be harmful to the child.

Providing consent on the child's behalf is not exactly the same as providing consent on your own behalf. The consent you can provide on behalf of a child is limited to those things which are in the child's best interests.

Take money as an example. If you receive a large sum of money, it goes in to your bank account and you can do what you like with it, you can take it all out and throw it in the sea if you want, regardless of whether it's in your best interests.

If your child receives a large sum of money, the state holds it in trust. You can apply for some of the funds for specific purposes that are in the child's best interests, but you don't have full control over the funds. In that case, you have much more limited power of consent on behalf of the child than you do for yourself.

gctest50

alf66 wrote: »

....


The baby cannot, and has never been able to, survive without the life support.

false

Guy:Incognito

Seeing as euthanasia is being brought in to it, it very much should be legalised anyway. Forcing someone to stay alive and suffer when all they want to do is end it, is barbaric.


Withdrawing care that is keeping someone alive isn't euthanasia anyway. Euthanasia is bringing death quicker than it would naturally occur. Switching off artificial means of life support is just letting nature take its course. Theoretically, life support could keep the child alive for 90 years. But who would want that?

The Diddakoi

gctest50 wrote: »

False.

Apologies...I stand corrected.

ohnonotgmail

mahamageehad wrote: »

My understanding is that withdrawing life support will end the child's life? In that respect is basically is euthanasia no? I have said that I think that the child should be allowed to die peacefully, I'm just wondering about the legal mechanics of this ruling and any potential knock-on effects.

turning off life support is not euthanasia.

ohnonotgmail

gctest50 wrote: »

false

that was only for the first month or so of the childs life.

gctest50

captbarnacles wrote: »

It has never been tested on Charlie Gard's condition .....

That's a long way from " omg never been tried on humans before "

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the particular therapy proposed for him has apparently never been tried on humans before......

He is so severe it ain't going to be great though

Here's one that did improve :

ohnonotgmail

gctest50 wrote: »

That's a long way from " omg never been tried on humans before "




He is so severe it ain't going to be great though

Here's one that did improve :

http://imgur.com/a/n6K3F

he has irreversible brain damage. there is no cure for his condition.

mahamageehad

osarusan wrote: »

Euthanasia is not simply the withdrawal or withholding of life support, which happens quite a bit.

Yes they would.

A (famous) example of state intervention was the boy who needed a blood transfusion that his Jehovah's Witness parents would not allow on religious grounds, but was given it anyway after state intervention.

If I remember correctly, he was temporarily made a ward of the court, received the transfusion, then returned to the guardianship of his parents.

Yeah, I completely forgot about the Jehovah blood thing. Makes perfect sense when put like that!

seamus wrote: »

Well, consent is not absolute. In legal terms, there are specific things that you cannot consent to, even as an individual.

The barrier is obviously higher for a child (or indeed anyone who is under your care), in that your intention must be in the best interests of the child, or at the very least should not be harmful to the child.

Providing consent on the child's behalf is not exactly the same as providing consent on your own behalf. The consent you can provide on behalf of a child is limited to those things which are in the child's best interests.

Take money as an example. If you receive a large sum of money, it goes in to your bank account and you can do what you like with it, you can take it all out and throw it in the sea if you want, regardless of whether it's in your best interests.

If your child receives a large sum of money, the state holds it in trust. You can apply for some of the funds for specific purposes that are in the child's best interests, but you don't have full control over the funds. In that case, you have much more limited power of consent on behalf of the child than you do for yourself.

Very interesting, and very clear. Thanks Seamus!

Neyite

The baby has had no brain function for over 7 months. He is being kept artificially alive on life support. There is irreversible brain damage at cellular level and GOSH believe that he can feel pain. It's a case that's at the point of palliative care now. The parents and family of that baby are wasting what precious time they might have with their son on crusading on FB.

The Doctor in the US admitted that the treatment was not likely to help much however if the parents brought the baby as when he initially was asked he did not know the extent or severity of the condition. Moving a person on life support from a hospital bed to ambulance to aeroplane (not forgetting a pressurised cabin to factor in) is an incredible risk to the patient. The baby is not fit to fly.

GOSH did look into whether or not they could do the treatment in the hospital but as it's not gone through lots of the clinical trials they were not able to. Now clinical staff are getting called murderers by FB warriors. People have tweeted Donald Trump. Accused the hospital of covering up and have picketed Buckingham Palace yesterday 'to get the Queen to do something" Have a look at the muppets on the FB page. Paediatric staff are being harassed going into work.

I cannot imagine how it must be to lose a child. I don't even want to imagine. But when a loved one gets to the point where there is only pain and suffering and there is nothing more that medical staff can do, it's just cruel to prolong that pain.

ohnonotgmail

Neyite wrote: »

The baby has had no brain function for over 7 months. He is being kept artificially alive on life support. There is irreversible brain damage at cellular level and GOSH believe that he can feel pain. It's a case that's at the point of palliative care now. The parents and family of that baby are wasting what precious time they might have with their son on crusading on FB.

The Doctor in the US admitted that the treatment was not likely to help much however if the parents brought the baby as when he initially was asked he did not know the extent or severity of the condition. Moving a person on life support from a hospital bed to ambulance to aeroplane (not forgetting a pressurised cabin to factor in) is an incredible risk to the patient. The baby is not fit to fly.

GOSH did look into whether or not they could do the treatment in the hospital but as it's not gone through lots of the clinical trials they were not able to. Now clinical staff are getting called murderers by FB warriors. People have tweeted Donald Trump. Accused the hospital of covering up and have picketed Buckingham Palace yesterday 'to get the Queen to do something" Have a look at the muppets on the FB page. Paediatric staff are being harassed going into work.

I cannot imagine how it must be to lose a child. I don't even want to imagine. But when a loved one gets to the point where there is only pain and suffering and there is nothing more that medical staff can do, it's just cruel to prolong that pain.

the irony about trumps involvement is that trump is the same guy who cut off medical coverage for his nephews son because he fell out with his nephew.

Neyite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the irony about trumps involvement is that trump is the same guy who cut off medical coverage for his nephews son because he fell out with his nephew.

Massive irony there but it's going over their heads.

Oh it gets worse though. FB warriors are naming the lead clinicans in the case, and houding them and even phoning Scotland Yard ffs. It's a grotesque circus.

captbarnacles

Bloody hell. The consultants and doctors will be better able to treat the other very sick children in GOSH without this rubbish but nevermind they want their crusade.

mahamageehad

Neyite wrote: »

...

GOSH did look into whether or not they could do the treatment in the hospital but as it's not gone through lots of the clinical trials they were not able to. Now clinical staff are getting called murderers by FB warriors. People have tweeted Donald Trump. Accused the hospital of covering up and have picketed Buckingham Palace yesterday 'to get the Queen to do something" Have a look at the muppets on the FB page. Paediatric staff are being harassed going into work.

...

Whatever about everyone's right to an opinion, this is disgusting. Social media has become a tool to whip people into a frenzy over nothing, and people harassing or abusing staff who have dedicated their lives to helping others just turns my stomach.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Parents are not doctors and will usually let their emotions take charge which can result in prolonging suffering. They can't be allowed to just inflict suffering on a child because they happen to have given birth to them. You'll find someone somewhere in the world that will tell you they can cure anything you've got, just by doing a bit of googling. Con men and charlatans will gladly take money of people .


Most people will say "don't let me end up like that , pull the plug" when talking about life in a vegetative state, but often when they are responsible for someone else, will see no issue leaving them like that or worse, prolonging it with intervention, just because they don't want the person to die.

The best interests of the patient is what should come first, regardless of who they are and in a lot of cases , the best thing for someone is to be let die .

I personally believe that in many cases the best thing is for the person to be let die. Prolonging someone's life, someone who requires mechanical aid to breathe and pump blood around their body, makes me feel uneasy. However taking such decisions out of the hands of the family hits a fundamental individual right of freedom in my view. I'm not sure how to reconcile that view with my belief in preventing Jehovah witnesses to be allowed withhold blood transfusions. Afterall that is the same human right. It's complex. One in my opinion prolongs suffering and the other stops necessary life saving medical intervention.