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.
The child can not be physically remove the child from the Hospital as the case has been before four courts and a final decision has been made by the Euopean Court of Human Rights, the final Court of Appeal and this decision is final.
Anyone attempting to remove the child from the Hospital would be arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police.
Not true. The court has only ruled that hospital can end life support. The hospital has agreed to continue life support until other arrangements can be made.
"An appeals court, then a supreme court, upheld it, according to the National Review.
After the European Court of Human Rights issued its decision Tuesday, Great Ormond Street Hospital said it marked “the end of what has been a very difficult process.” But the hospital said in a statement, “There will be no rush by Great Ormond Street Hospital to change Charlie’s care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion.”
Great Ormond Street Hospital went to the courts with this question: Was it legal, and in Charlie's best interest, for the hospital to remove the child from life support — even against his parents' wishes?
In a ruling in April, Justice Nicholas Francis of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice wrote that there was “unanimity among the experts” that the therapy could not repair structural brain damage.
“Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible,” he wrote. “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?”
Not true. The court has only ruled that hospital can end life support. The hospital has agreed to continue life support until other arrangements can be made.
"An appeals court, then a supreme court, upheld it, according to the National Review.
After the European Court of Human Rights issued its decision Tuesday, Great Ormond Street Hospital said it marked “the end of what has been a very difficult process.” But the hospital said in a statement, “There will be no rush by Great Ormond Street Hospital to change Charlie’s care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion.”
Great Ormond Street Hospital went to the courts with this question: Was it legal, and in Charlie's best interest, for the hospital to remove the child from life support — even against his parents' wishes?
In a ruling in April, Justice Nicholas Francis of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice wrote that there was “unanimity among the experts” that the therapy could not repair structural brain damage.
“Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible,” he wrote. “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?”
The Courts ruled that Charlie was not to be exposed to further pain and that experimental treatment was not curative, and that palliative care (end of life care) was the best option and that the hospital could switch off the life support machines, which it will do. Judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm", in line with advice from specialists at Great Ormond Street.
The machines were due to be switched off last friday, but the hospital has allowed the parents some extra time to say their goodbyes.
The Courts ruled that Charlie was not to be exposed to further pain or experimental treatment, that palliative care was the best option and that the hospital could switch off the life support machines.
The machines were due to be switched off, but the hospital has allowed the parents some extra time to say thir goodbyes.
Once again the Courts decision is legally binding and can not be interfered with or it will become a criminal matter.
The High Court ruled last April "with the heaviest of hearts" that it was in Charlie's best interests for GOSH to "lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.”
The judge said his decision not to allow Charlie to go to the U.S. was not related to funding. “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," he said, referring to the trial treatment, The Guardian reported at the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.89ced4e59d7f
“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?”
The High Court ruled last April "with the heaviest of hearts" that it was in Charlie's best interests for GOSH to "lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.”
The judge said his decision not to allow Charlie to go to the U.S. was not related to funding. “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," he said, referring to the trial treatment, The Guardian reported at the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.89ced4e59d7f
“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's all very sad, and I just wish there was an effetive treatment, the main deciding factor being that the child could be in severe pain. If this wasn't the case then I am sure most people would be fine with the experimental treatment.
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-03-2017 at 01:58 PM..
I think these issues are complicated and can't be readily explained just by saying that medicaid patients go to ER's when they don't need to.
For instance, how many medicaid patients went to ER's because they couldn't find a provider, or the first appointment was weeks out? In states like California where the medicaid reimbursement rate is 42% of medicare fees, so it's not easy to find a doctor who can see you on short notice. If you have a kid with a very high temperature you will probably take him to the ER if you can't schedule an appointment with your PCP that day.
And how many medicaid doctors are referring people to ER's rather than treating them? My husband was on a medicare advantage plan in Reno and twice when he called his doctor for a same day appointment he was referred to the ER, same thing happened in Sacramento; he called his PCP who is part of a large practice when he felt like he might have pneumonia and none of the 6 + MD's could see him that day, or even the next day - so he was referred to the ER.
I think these issues are complicated and can't be readily explained just by saying that medicaid patients go to ER's when they don't need to.
For instance, how many medicaid patients went to ER's because they couldn't find a provider, or the first appointment was weeks out? In states like California where the medicaid reimbursement rate is 42% of medicare fees, so it's not easy to find a doctor who can see you on short notice. If you have a kid with a very high temperature you will probably take him to the ER if you can't schedule an appointment with your PCP that day.
And how many medicaid doctors are referring people to ER's rather than treating them? My husband was on a medicare advantage plan in Reno and twice when he called his doctor for a same day appointment he was referred to the ER, same thing happened in Sacramento; he called his PCP who is part of a large practice when he felt like he might have pneumonia and none of the 6 + MD's could see him that day, or even the next day - so he was referred to the ER.
New Medicaid patients go to the ER for the same reasons anyone does. They now go more often because more have coverage. And more tend to go to ERs because in many locales they have difficulty accessing primary care. We docs refer patients to ERs all the time. Medicaid and others. Could be Medicaid more often as Medicaid is usually not a good payer.
Who do you think makes the decisions here in this country? Answer: The big insurance companies. And what do you think they base their decisions on? Answer: Their profit margins. Stop pretending that the greedy middle man insurance companies, who add absolutely nothing to the quality of healthcare but who controls the flow of it in this country and sucks up huges amounts of our money for adding nothing, give a crap about anything but money. They don't.
I find it especially hilarious that Donald Trump, who has championed a bill through the House that literally throws some 23 million people who now have healthcare out into the cold, is pretending to care about a child in another country doing without. Only the gullible cult buys that he gives a crap.
Unable to rep you but spot on!
What was Trump's plan to help, bring the boy and family here to the US and have us taxpayers pay for his life-long intensive care treatment on a ventilator, feeding tube, etc.?
For those citing insurance... people from all different countries come to the U.S. for special medical treatment. This family would be no different.
Heck - they can come here and claim to be a refugee... they would get anything they wanted.
Question: How do those people from all different countries who come to the U.S. for special medical treatment, pay for it?
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.
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.
