U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-06-2017, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,438 posts, read 3,907,633 times
Reputation: 7084

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
From the article I linked to earlier...

And the hospital, which won legal battles all the way to the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights to be allowed to remove his life-support, claimed its hands were tied by their rulings. They have all declared that Charlie is brain-damaged, suffering pain and has no hope of recovery, and that it is in his ‘best interests’ to die.

Senior legal sources said the various court rulings mean doctors are obliged to withdraw Charlie’s artificial ventilator and prevent him from going to America. They said even if the hospital changed its stance, it would take another court case to reverse the rulings which effectively demand that Charlie must die.


The hospital's hands are tied. The parents' hands are tied. The courts have spoken. Death. Sad.

The parents should be allowed to explore other options at their own free will - independent from any governing body, and care providers should be able to freely accept or reject Charlie's case.

Even though there are similar cases where progress is being made (described above)... the courts have mandated his death.
The Child is terminally ill, he is going to die any way.

The experimental treatment has never been tried on MDDS which is what Charlie has, and many of the most eminent and highly respected doctors in the world have warned that the treatment is not alty futile it will just lead to further suffering in the final months of this childs life.

The quality of life of this child will not be reversed by the treatment, his condition is irreversible, his bran damage is irreversible and he is suffering convulsive epileptic seizres reguarly, which occur when a child reaches the point in such circumstances where they have a 6 to 9 month time frame at best.

It's all documented in the Court papers and UK Surpeme Court video I posted earlier in the thread.

As already stated human rights laws including international ones must be applied, as must domestuc law such as the childrens act, which places the welfare of the child at the heart of any court decision.

As for Six-year-old Art Estopinan his case is totally different, he has a different type of the condition to Charlie Gard and does not have encephalopathy.

There has never been any treatment even on mice in relation to what Charlie Gard has, and this was noted numerous time in the court transcripts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Justice Francis - High Court London

In some parts of the media this has been referred to as “pioneering treatment”. In fact, this type of treatment has not even reached the experimental stage on mice let alone been tried on humans with this particular strain of MDDS. It is the view of all those who have treated and been consulted in relation to Charlie in this country and also in Barcelona that such treatment would be futile, by which I mean would be of no effect but may well cause pain, suffering and distress to Charlie. This is the principal issue with which I have to grapple with in this case.

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 even his parents believe should not be sustained ?

Great Ormond Street Hospital -v- Yates and Gard

Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Ormond Street Hospital -v- Yates and Gard

At one stage, Great Ormond Street Hospital got as far as deciding to apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy here - a treatment that has never been used on patients with this form of MDDS - but, by the time that decision had been made, Charlie’s condition had greatly worsened and the view of all here was that his epilepticencephalopathy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him.

The doctor in the USA (Dr. I) said as follows:“Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encephalopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.”

Great Ormond Street Hospital -v- Yates and Gard

Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor A

Crucially, she said that, even if there was an ability to cross the blood/brain barrier, it is not possible to reverse the process for neurones already lost. She said that seizures in mitochondrial disease are a sign that death is, at most, six to nine months away.

She said that she and Dr. I did not really differ on the science and both agree that, very sadly, it is extremely unlikely to help Charlie. She said that, in her view, there was a cultural difference in philosophy between treatment in the United States and in the United Kingdom.

She said that she tried to have the child at the centre of her actions and thoughts where as in the United States, provided there is funding, they will try anything.


Great Ormond Street Hospital -v- Yates and Gard


Last edited by Brave New World; 07-06-2017 at 07:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2017, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,438 posts, read 3,907,633 times
Reputation: 7084
You can even watch Lady Hale at the UK Surpreme Court in London come to exactly the same view, whilst reveiwing the same evidence, that the treatment has never been tried on a case such as this and that according to medical experts would now have zero percent effect on the quality of this patients life. She even cites the Childrens Act 1989 and states that the welfare of the child is paramount in such cases, and that includes any possible pain or suffering in relation to this terminall ill baby.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
28,285 posts, read 15,350,886 times
Reputation: 11265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
The Child is terminally ill, he is going to die any way.

The experimental treatment has never been tried on MDDS which is what Charlie has, and many of the most eminent and highly respected doctors in the world have warned that the treatment is not alty futile it will just lead to further suffering in the final months of this childs life.

The quality of life of this child will not be reversed by the treatment, his condition is irreversible, his bran damage is irreversible and he is suffering convulsive epileptic seizres reguarly, which occur when a child reaches the point in such circumstances where they have a 6 to 9 month time frame at best.

It's all documented in the Court papers and UK Surpeme Court video I posted earlier in the thread.

As already stated human rights laws including international ones must be applied, as must domestuc law such as the childrens act, which places the welfare of the child at the heart of any court decision.

As for Six-year-old Art Estopinan his case is totally different, he has a different type of the condition to Charlie Gard and does not have encephalopathy.

There has never been any treatment even on mice in relation to what Charlie Gard has, and this was noted numerous time in the court transcripts.

Originally Posted by Mr Justice Francis

In some parts of the media this has been referred to as “pioneering treatment”. In fact, this type of treatment has not even reached the experimental stage on mice let alone been tried on humans with this particular strain of MDDS. It is the view of all those who have treated and been consulted in relation to Charlie in this country and also in Barcelona that such treatment would be futile, by which I mean would be of no effect but may well cause pain, suffering and distress to Charlie. This is the principal issue with which I have to grapple with in this case.

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 even his parents believe should not be sustained ?

Great Ormond Street Hospital -v- Yates and Gard


Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Ormond Street Hospital -v- Yates and Gard

At one stage, Great Ormond Street Hospital got as far as deciding to apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy here - a treatment that has never been used on patients with this form of MDDS - but, by the time that decision had been made, Charlie’s condition had greatly worsened and the view of all here was that his epilepticencephalopathy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him.

The doctor in the USA (Dr. I) said as follows:“Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encephalopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.”

Great Ormond Street Hospital -v- Yates and Gard



Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor A

Crucially, she said that, even if there was an ability to cross the blood/brain barrier, it is not possible to reverse the process for neurones already lost. She said that seizures in mitochondrial disease are a sign that death is, at most, six to nine months away.

She said that she and Dr. I did not really differ on the science and both agree that, very sadly, it is extremely unlikely to help Charlie. She said that, in her view, there was a cultural difference in philosophy between treatment in the United States and in the United Kingdom.

She said that she tried to have the child at the centre of her actions and thoughts where as in the United States, provided there is funding, they will try anything.


Great Ormond Street Hospital -v- Yates and Gard
You have posted the statements numerous times. I got it.

Why are the courts preventing them from coming to the US?

------------------

With regards to Art Jr.

Art Jr has the TK2 strain of mitochondrial syndrome, which is similar to Charlie’s. He was given two months to live in 2011 and could only move his eyes but six years later he can move his hands, fingers, feet and arms and is a ‘strong and happy boy’.


You keep giving me opinions of doom. I am giving you examples of hope that have already taken place. Hope that the parents want to pursue... but the government/courts and people like yourself want to snuff out their hope.

Last edited by DRob4JC; 07-06-2017 at 07:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Canada
9,044 posts, read 8,293,637 times
Reputation: 19272
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
Ta dah! A+

Libs don't like babies unless they can use them to get welfare.

Private donations will pay for the treatment.

Private donations will pay for the treatment.


Why do you want to prolong his suffering? For what specific reason?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
28,285 posts, read 15,350,886 times
Reputation: 11265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty2011 View Post
Why do you want to prolong his suffering? For what specific reason?
a chance at a better life? See post 253 above...

Doctors have frequently given a prognosis of death, and have been incorrect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 07:32 AM
 
40,018 posts, read 24,276,030 times
Reputation: 12594
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
Ta dah! A+

Libs don't like babies unless they can use them to get welfare.

Private donations will pay for the treatment.

Private donations will pay for the treatment.
Private donations will pay for the torture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,438 posts, read 3,907,633 times
Reputation: 7084
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
You have posted the statements numerous times. I got it.

Why are the courts preventing them from coming to the US?

------------------

With regards to Art Jr.

Art Jr has the TK2 strain of mitochondrial syndrome, which is similar to Charlie’s. He was given two months to live in 2011 and could only move his eyes but six years later he can move his hands, fingers, feet and arms and is a ‘strong and happy boy’.


You keep giving me opinions of doom. I am giving you examples of hope that have already taken place. Hope that the parents want to pursue... but the government/courts and people like yourself want to snuff of their hope.
The Courts in such circumstances have to look at it from the point of view of the child based on medical opinon.

Firstly the child is terminally ill and has a lifespan running in to months rather than years and this is the case with or without treatment.

Secondly the child is servarally brain damaged and has a poor quality of life than can not be reversed by any treatment.

Thirdly the child is in pain, discomfort and suffering, and even his parents aknowledge that the current situaton can't go on.

Fourtly the treatment has never been tested properly in relation to Charlies condition.

Fifthly the treatment has according to medical experts will not make any difference and will have zero effect and will just lead to Charlie suffering more.

The courts have taken the view based on the 1989 Childrens Act which makes the welfare of the child the main basis on which such decisions are made, and the Courts are in agreement with the medical profession that the mos humane thing to do would be to provide palliative care and pain relief and allow the child a dignified death.

These are tough decisions for any court to make and would not relish having to make such decisions myself, but the decisions have been guided by the law, and this is what the law states.

It should be noted that Great Ormond Street Hospital now have a FAQ page related to the case which helps explain some of the issues.

Frequently asked questions about the Charlie Gard court case | Great Ormond Street Hospital
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 07:33 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
29,784 posts, read 16,494,806 times
Reputation: 22365
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
a chance at a better life?

Doctors have frequently given a prognosis of death, and have been incorrect.
There is no 'better life' for this infant - how many experts must tell you that?


The MOST he could hope for is for the disease to be arrested HERE - at this point - where he cannot move, see, hear, swallow, etc.


Is that how YOU would want to spend years of your life?


The seizures caused permanent, irreversible, brain damage; there is no going back.


Jeez.


Torture just to make the parents feel better is still just torture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 07:34 AM
 
40,018 posts, read 24,276,030 times
Reputation: 12594
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
American father who lost his daughter to similar condition begs for one last chance for incurably ill baby

A US father whose daughter died aged 15 after battling a similar condition to Charlie Gard has urged the boy's parent's not to give up on their 'glimmer of hope'

Chuck Mohan, from Florida, says his child Gina fought bravely against mitochondrial disease until she was a teenager before she passed away.

...
Mr Mohan says CHarlie must be released from GOSH and given his chance.

He said: 'In Charlie’s case there are 18 children around the world with a similar condition and all 18 are being treated and receiving positive results. You have the opportunity for a chance, a glimmer of hope for Charlie’s condition'.

...
Six-year-old Art Estopinan has virtually the same genetic condition and is fighting it with the pioneering drugs therapy that is being denied to Charlie.

His father, Art Senior, said: ‘We feel very fortunate to be American and not British – because if we lived in the UK, Arturito would surely be dead by now.
Even the American doctor has said that Charlie's brain damage is so extensive that he would be unlikely to benefit from the treatment. You are advocating for torture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2017, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
28,285 posts, read 15,350,886 times
Reputation: 11265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
The Courts in such circumstances have to look at it from the point of view of the child based on medical opinon.

Firstly the child is terminally ill and has a lifespan running in to months rather than years and this is the case with or without treatment.

Secondly the child is servarally brain damaged and has a poor quality of life than can not be reversed by any treatment.

Thirdly the child is in pain, discomfort and suffering, and even his parents aknowledge that the current situaton can't go on.

Fourtly the treatment has never been tested properly in relation to Charlies condition.

Fifthly the treatment has according to medical experts will not make any difference and will have zero effect and will just lead to Charlie suffering more.

The courts have taken the view based on the 1989 Childrens Act which makes the welfare of the child the main basis on which such decisions are made, and the Courts are in agreement with the medical profession that the mos humane thing to do would be to provide palliative care and pain relief and allow the child a dignified death.

These are tough decisions for any court to make and would not relish having to make such decisions myself, but the decisions have been guided by the law, and this is what the law states.

It should be noted that Great Ormond Street Hospital now have a FAQ page related to the case which helps explain some of the issues.

Frequently asked questions about the Charlie Gard court case | Great Ormond Street Hospital
I understand that the UK and Europe has no hope for Charlie. I got it.

Why can't the parents, on their own, come to the US for treatment? Charlie is basically being held hostage at the hospital. He can't even come home - probably for fear that the parents would leave the country.

Why is he being held hostage at the hospital? Is that in his best interest as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top