BREAKING: Vatican hospital says it is available for little Charlie Gard (health care system, death)

[FKD19124]

Then why arent they doing it???? I thought single payor nationalized government run health care was a socialist paradise where no one is denied treatment????

Originally Posted by Brave New World

Great Ormond Street Hospital is one of the most highly respected Childrens Hospitals in the world, the Vatican Hospital could not offer any treatment that is not already available at Great Ormond Street. Indeed the condition this baby has is so rare there are only 16 cases in the entire world.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

Do you hear yourself? Like that is acceptable?

What is with you people? It's not YOUR KID! It's not the court's kid! If they have raised the money, NO ONE should get to tell them "nope, you don't get to try, he has to die. Too bad for you."

I'm disgusted at you people.



Who the hell are you talking about? Did you just pull that out of your ass? I'm not a religious person and have said so several times on this forum.

So now what's your pathetic argument?

The parents brought the legal action and went to the Courts, and the parents and their legal representitives were the ones arguing that the childs human rights were being breached in relation to Articles 2, 5, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Courts examined the evidence and found that the childs human rights were not being breached, indeed four courts came to the same conclusion and the evidence was even reviewed by a Spanish medical team who came to the same conclusion as the doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital.

The Courts have to try and settle numerous family disputes which is why countries have family courts, whilst human rights courts have to settle disputes in relation to potential breaches of human rights, as in this case.

Whilst the whole case is very very sad, it had to be decided one way or the other by the courts as it would have been in any other country.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by FKD19124

Then why arent they doing it???? I thought single payor nationalized government run health care was a socialist paradise where no one is denied treatment????

The treatment would be detrimental to the child, and will not cure the child or imprive his poor quality of life, the child is going to die whether he is given the treatment or not (he's terminally ill) and the treatment would just lead to unnessary pain.

The decision is based on the mitochondrial mutation that is present in the child's cells (as this condition causes the break up of the DNA and mitochondrial mutation varies from case to case) and is also based on the childs cognitive condition relating to the fact he is irreversible brain damaged can not speak, hear, cry or make a noise, move, eat, swallow or even breathe unaided, however he is in pain, discomfort and suffering according to doctors and as Lord Winston a former paedatric and fertlity expert pointed out, undergoing further treatment could be more detrimental and will be even more tragic and even more disturbing for this child.

[lilyflower3191981]

The most influential principle of modern medical ethics has been that of patient autonomy. While this is not an absolute in all cases, particularly those involving children, the bar is generally held high for going against this principle.

I remember an American doctor said in another thread that

The doctors involved in this child’s care appear to sincerely believe they are acting in the best interest of the child. He can certainly understand their opinion, and if the parents had made it, then he would certainly understand not pursuing a dubious course of treatment and withdrawing care as a valid option.

However, on the public information available and without actually being involved,he is not convinced that the argument to deny the parents their own choice for their child is ethically justified.

[Natsku]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

Do you hear yourself? Like that is acceptable?

What is with you people? It's not YOUR KID! It's not the court's kid! If they have raised the money, NO ONE should get to tell them "nope, you don't get to try, he has to die. Too bad for you."

I'm disgusted at you people.

He is dying no matter what anyone does, no matter what treatment he gets, do you understand? The courts won't let his parents "try" because they know, and so do the parents if they think calmly (and I don't blame them for not thinking calmly, I'm sure I wouldn't in their situation), that the treatment they want to try can't help Charlie and just forces him to carry on existing on a state they already said can't continue.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Natsku

He is dying no matter what anyone does, no matter what treatment he gets, do you understand? The courts won't let his parents "try" because they know, and so do the parents if they think calmly (and I don't blame them for not thinking calmly, I'm sure I wouldn't in their situation), that the treatment they want to try can't help Charlie and just forces him to carry on existing on a state they already said can't continue.

Totally Agree.

You can read the Court Transcripts below, the case was very merticulously examined with evidence from leading experts, professors, doctors, nurses etc, and even the US doctor thought the so called experimental treatment would be unlikely to improve the childs condition in this case.

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

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

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

[G1..]

Originally Posted by marino760

Vatican City is a micro nation. It is not part of Italy and has it's own government, it's own border and it's own laws. It's a separate country surrounded by Italy.

Just like Washington DC is surrounded by Russia.

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

Do you hear yourself? Like that is acceptable?

What is with you people? It's not YOUR KID! It's not the court's kid! If they have raised the money, NO ONE should get to tell them "nope, you don't get to try, he has to die. Too bad for you."

I'm disgusted at you people.

You're disgusted that not everyone agrees that a child is the parents' personal property and can be treated any way they want, even if what they want makes the kid suffer for no benefit?

There are limits to what parents can inflict on their children, even in the US.

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by janelle144

Hope you are never in the saturation these parents are in. They raised the money to take him out of that hospital but they won't let them do it.

I wonder what ever happened to that girl who the hospital insisted the mother pull the plug on her but she refused and took her to another facility? That happened here so the hospital let her take her daughter out.

That girl (Jahi McMath) is in a facility in New Jersey, the only state that will consider a brain dead person alive if the next of kin wanst it due to religious beliefs. That girl is on a ventilator and is literally lifeless. Medicaid has paid for her medical bills for three years now.




"Keep Jahi Mcmath on life support" (FaceBook page)

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

The problem is the government deciding who lives and who dies, and when. Why that is not alarming to more people blows me away.

Because we are used to profit sucking insurance companies deciding who costs their bottom line too much to live.