Why did the American Right constantly use the Charlie Gard Case but not the Steffen Rivenburg Case?? (ethics, controversial)

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine

You're demonstrating woeful ignorance on several fronts here and making it abundantly clear that you are seeking another "us vs them" controversy. Is life in Britain that boring? Surely there's a better use of your time then this petty antagonism.

No I was just curious as to why in two cases where the Court had to make decisions on whether to switch off life support machines one case becaume a cause celebre and the other is largely ignored.

There was a lot more chance of a heart transplant being succesful than an experimental treatment which Professor Hirano stated in Court in April would most likely be unhelpful in Charlies case and was not a cure, nor would it reverse any damage the rare condition had already sustained.

If Steffen Rivenburg had needed a good paediatric heart unit, we have plenty in Brtain, perhaps we should have invited him over.

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

No I was just curious as to why in two cases where the Court had to make decisions on whether to switch off life support machines one case becaume a cause celebre and the other is largely ignored.

Again, because in one case the court not only permitted the hospital to cease treatment but explicitly foreclosed all other opportunities for treatment, and in the other they did not.

Originally Posted by Brave New World

There was a lot more chance of a heart transplant being succesful than an experimental treatment which Professor Hirano stated in Court in April would most likely be unhelpful in Charlies case and was not a cure, nor would it reverse any damage the rare condition had already sustained.

There are only so many available infant hearts to go around, and a child with other health complications is less likely to be successful heart transplant recipient than one without other health complications.

Did Proessor Hirano also explain what harm would come from at least trying to seek alternative treatment for Charlie Gard?

Originally Posted by Brave New World

If Steffen Rivenburg had needed a good paediatric heart unit, we have plenty in Brtain, perhaps we should have invited him over.

So why didn't you? Do you also have plenty of spare infant hearts in Britain?

[ATX Wahine]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

I was just curious as to why in two cases where the Court had to make decisions on whether to switch off life support machines one case becaume a cause celebre and the other is largely ignored.

There was a lot more chance of a heart transplant being succesful than an experimental treatment which Professor Hirano stated in Court in April would most likely be unhelpful in Charlies case and was not a cure, nor would it reverse any damage the rare condition had already sustained.

If Steffen Rivenburg had needed a good paediatric heart unit, we have plenty in Brtain, perhaps we should have invited him over.

If you were truly "just curious" then you'd have asked your question exactly as you did here. Instead you whipped up a subplot of what you believe those hypocritical Americans are thinking and talking about and then added a healthy measure of "American Right" as the Bad Guy.

Please. It's so feckin' obvious what your real interest is here.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Bitey

So in other words, the state assumed custody of the child to foreclose any chance the parents had to seek treatment elsewhere, even though they had subject-matter experts willing to treat the child and the means to pay for that treatment. (And yes, the courts are a creation of and an arm of the state. If you think otherwise, try defying a court order and see who comes around to enforce it.)

It's no different to the US Case, the Court made the same decision against the parents and has already pointed out Charlie Gard was a Court Case involving the withdrawl of life support, there was no state assumed custody, the hospital merely abided by the Courts decision just as the US Hospital did.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine

If you were truly "just curious" then you'd have asked your question exactly as you did here. Instead you whipped up a subplot of what you believe those hypocritical Americans are thinking and talking about and then added a healthy measure of "American Right" as the Bad Guy.

Please. It's so feckin' obvious what your real interest is here.

I have no intent to whip up anything, it's just given the criticism by some in the US over death panels and socialised medicine using the Charlie Gard case, it's interesting to contrast it with the Rivenburg case.

[ATX Wahine]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

I have no intent to whip up anything, it's just given the criticism by some in the US over death panels and socialised medicine using the Charlie Gard case, it's interesting to contrast it with the Rivenburg case.

Nice downgrade to "some in the US" after being rightfully called out for your hyperbole. A worthy effort to right the ship but sorry, it deserves to sink.

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

It's no different to the US Case

Yes it is. I've already explained twice what the critical difference is, yet you don't want to hear it. Nor Cal Wahine has you pegged.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Bitey

Again, because in one case the court not only permitted the hospital to cease treatment but explicitly foreclosed all other opportunities for treatment, and in the other they did not.

The Rivenburg case foreclosed all opportunities for the child to have a heart transplant and the evidence in the Gard case was from numerous medical experts and an international team all of whom agreed with Great Ormond Street.

In the Rivenburg case, exactly the same happened the Court applied to the Courts to turn off the life support machine, the Court looked at the evidence from doctors and experts, and agreed with the hospital as opposed to the parents. There's no big difference between the two cases.

The dying child who became an ideological football - Washington Post

Charlie Gard's case is tragic. But it's not a warning about public health care - Washington Post

Originally Posted by Bitey

There are only so many available infant hearts to go around, and a child with other health complications is less likely to be successful heart transplant recipient than one without other health complications.

Did Proessor Hirano also explain what harm would come from at least trying to seek alternative treatment for Charlie Gard?


So why didn't you? Do you also have plenty of spare infant hearts in Britain?

Hirano's involvement was initially fairly minor, he was invited to examine the Child in January but did not do so, said at the High Court via videolink in April that the experimental treatment would most likely be unhelpful and then came back to Court in July having not examined Charlie until the 18th July 2017 and having not read the medical notes.

We have experts in Rare Mitochondrial Disease and Research in the UK at UCL Institute of Neurology in London, Oxford, Cambridge and Newcastle Upon Tyne, all of whom are just as up to date with the disease as Hirano, furthermore the parents even sought an opinion from a Prfessor at the University of Southampton who gave evidence agreeing wit the hospital.

Plenty of childrens heart units in the US and globally, furthermore couldn't the child be kept on life support until a heart was found.?

Hirano showed no real new research to change anyones mind and his involvement and false hope was branded wicked by Lord Winston of Imperial College London .

Originally Posted by Lord Winston

Lord Robert Winston, Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College London, told Sky News that GOSH staff have just as much knowledge of Charlie's condition as other doctors across the world.

He said: "I have looked up Dr Hirano and what he has written - the fact of the matter is that they have not published details which show that they clearly could have changed this boy's life and the prognosis of the disease.

"I have to say it was rather wicked to give the parents the idea that somehow had this baby been treated earlier it would have made a difference.

"That is not our experience with this disease."

Great Ormond Street hits out at US doctor over Charlie Gard - Sky News

Originally Posted by Great Ormond Street Hospital

Throughout, his parents’ hopes have been sustained by advice received from overseas.

Mitochondrial disorders comprise a specialised and small international field. The experts in that field meet, collaborate and exchange ideas on a very regular basis and it is that valued collaboration that allows progress to be made and patients to be provided with the best possible care.

Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December.

In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.

In the months between January and July, the Professor provided written and oral evidence for the best interests hearing in April and, after the Court decided that NBT was not in Charlie’s best interests, he went on to provide further written evidence for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Most recently, on 6 July, he co-signed the letter indicating that he had new information that changed the picture for Charlie, that brought this case back before the High Court.

When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.

It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.

Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie.

Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.

It is hoped that those who, like the Professor, have provided the opinions that have so sustained Charlie’s parents, their hopes and thus this protracted litigation with its many consequences, will also find much upon which to reflect.


Great Ormond Street Hospital position statement at High Court on 24 July 2017

[Bitey]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

The Rivenburg case foreclosed all opportunities for the child to have a heart transplant

Which part of the court decision forbade anyone else from treating him?

Originally Posted by Brave New World

and the evidence in the Gard case was from numerous medical experts and an international team all of whom agreed with Great Ormond Street.

So what?

Originally Posted by Brave New World

Hirano's involvement was initially fairly minor, he was invited to examine the Child in January but did not do so, said at the High Court via videolink in April that the experimental treatment would most likely be unhelpful and then came back to Court in July having not examined Charlie until the 18th July 2017 and having not read the medical notes.

So the courts let the kid's condition deteriorate while they dithered over his fate (which was frankly none of their damned business to begin with), by which time it was definitely too late according to the testimony of someone who waited 7 months to examine him and didn't even read the medical notes, and the lost opportunity manufactured by the court delay is now used as a justification for their final decision.

If that doesn't help you understand why most Americans want government to have as little input into our health care decisions as possible, nothing will.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Bitey

Which part of the court decision forbade anyone else from treating him?

The bit that gave the hospital the right to turn the childs life support machine off against the parents wishes and Steffen Rivenburg was in the custody of the state,Tennessee Department of Children’s Services to be exact, so I really don't see that much of a difference.

Both cases were based on medical opinion, both involved switching off life support and both were decisions made by the Courts.

Originally Posted by NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV)

A piece of paper signed by a juvenile court judge may be the only thing separating a Tennessee baby from life and death.

The biological parents of 7-month-old Steffen Rivenburg Jr. told Channel 4 a difficult story. The baby is on life support at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital.

Trish Tornberg and Steffen Rivenburg Sr. said their son was born with Down syndrome and congenital heart disease, but had no other problems until he was taken into the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services custody in early February.

A few weeks later they said he contracted a virus. Doctors said his heart won't be able to handle a transplant.

Judge orders hospital to keep baby on life support - WSMV Channel 4

Baby dies after judge denies appeal to keep him on life support - WSMV - June 2017

Baby dies after judge denies appeal to keep him on life support

Originally Posted by Bitey

So the courts let the kid's condition deteriorate while they dithered over his fate (which was frankly none of their damned business to begin with), by which time it was definitely too late according to the testimony of someone who waited 7 months to examine him and didn't even read the medical notes, and the lost opportunity manufactured by the court delay is now used as a justification for their final decision.

If that doesn't help you understand why most Americans want government to have as little input into our health care decisions as possible, nothing will.

The Court sought medical opinion from esperts across the UK and International experts and the case was reiewed by an Independent International Team and all came to the same conclusion as the hospital regarding the prognosis.

In terms of Hirano he didn't bother examining the child and admitted to not reading the medical notes, however he did state via videolink at the High Court in April that he thought the treatment would be unhelphul in Charlies case. Indeed if he had examined the child and looked at the notes he would most likely have agreed even further with other medical expert opinion.

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Dominic Wilkinson, a consultant neonatologist and professor of medical ethics at the University of Oxford, pointed out that every expert who had seen Charlie had sided with the Great Ormond Street team in believing nothing could be done for him.

That included an independent medical expert in mitochondrial diseases from Southampton University who was asked by the parents for a second opinion.

Wilkinson said that if Hirano and the other international doctors who proposed nucleoside therapy for Charlie had actually seen him, “who knows what assessment they would have reached.

It is quite possible that they would have come to the same conclusion”. It was only after Hirano saw Charlie last week that his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, decided to give up the legal fight to have him taken to the US for treatment.

US doctor's intervention in Charlie Gard case 'raises ethical questions' - Guardian