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's welfare is THE ONLY thing that matters here, not his parents, not the hospital, not Trump or Pope Francis. The courts will decide on the advise of medical experts, this IS the right thing to do here, do people on here actually want to see an innocent baby tortured!?
The thing is the parents can't just pick Charlie up and hop on a plane to the US. His life support system plus a doctor and/or nurse(s) would have to go with him... a) to get to the airport, and b) to get on the plane, which also might have to be modified in some part to accommodate him and his support team.
The life support system belongs to the NHS and the doctor/nurse(s) are employed by the NHS. So even if the parents could get the court judgement overturned, who pays the bill for his transport costs, including flying the equipment and medical staff back home and paying their wages?
My understanding is that the parents have been able to raise the money necessary to cover costs of his medical care.
If you knew that the child had irreversible brain damage meaning it will never have a life off a ventilator or any real consciousness would that improve your understanding?
The child isn't even as lucky as being in a long term coma, where there's even a remote possibility of waking to a normal life, or even any experimental cure. He has a mitochondrial genetic flaw which causes neural death, the sole hope is an experimental treatment that has not progressed for thus condition into testing on GM rodents, that may arrest or slow the neural death. There are no other forms of treatment, and there is little chance there will be in any time frame in his short life.
Parental rights are all very well, but, those rights do not extend into causing or extending suffering either medically or from any other cause. You would not expect a hospital to not provide typical treatment for leukemia at the parents request for only naturopathic remedies. This isn't any different, the parents wish to extend any suffering the child is experiencing on a goose chase cure, because they do not wish to accept the inevitable.
Thanks, but I've already read that this is the NHS prognosis. So what? The parents have a right to decide what they are willing to do to try to save their child's life, and from what I understand they have raised the money to cover medical care elsewhere.
People keep talking about the rights of the parents, but the child also has rights that need to be protected. The child has irreversible brain damage, and no treatment can undo that, even if it does extend his life. The courts believe that it is inhumane to keep him suffering on life support.
Didnt this happen a few years back with another child whos parents took over and were being hunted down to bring the child back...They took him for some pioneering treatment and was either cured or in remission... I cant remember the story right though...
The full story of that case is more complicated. The parents were Jehovah's Witnesses, obviously a group who often shun modern medicine. When a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses sneak their sick child out of hospital without any prior warning, it inevitably sets off alarm bells.
My understanding is that the parents have been able to raise the money necessary to cover costs of his medical care.
The parents have the raised funds through crowdsourcing, and money is not the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Thanks, but I've already read that this is the NHS prognosis. So what? The parents have a right to decide what they are willing to do to try to save their child's life, and from what I understand they have raised the money to cover medical care elsewhere.
It's a medical prognosis backed up by independent medical experts.
The treatment is not a cure, will not repair the irreversible severe brain damage or bring back functions such as sight or hearing, and it may lead to further pain and suffering. Sadly Charlie is now having to be given Morphine, as he is in pain and four courts have already agreed that palliative care is the best way forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Ormond Street Hospital
It will be for the High Court to make its judgment on the facts.
Charlie’s condition is exceptionally rare, with catastrophic and irreversible brain damage.
Our doctors have explored every medical treatment, including experimental nucleoside therapies. Independent medical experts agreed with our clinical team that this treatment would be unjustified.
Not only that, but they said it would be futile and would prolong Charlie’s suffering. This is not an issue about money or resources, but absolutely about what is right for Charlie.
Our view has not changed. We believe it is right to seek the High Court’s view in light of the claimed new evidence.
Our priority has always been, and will always be, the best interests of Charlie Gard.
The parents now must submit any new evidence, and the case will once again be heard by Mr Justice Francis at the High Court in London on Thursday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telegraph
Mr Justice Francis ordered Charlie’s parents to provide new evidence that would show an untested therapy would be effective. The High Court judge gave the couple until 2pm on Wednesday to produce the material ahead of a further hearing on Thursday morning to decide the 11-month-old’s fate.
In a seeming swipe at the US president, who posted on Twitter a week ago: “If we can help little #CharlieGard... we would be delighted to do so”, Mr Justice Francis told the court: “I have to decide this case not on the basis of tweets but on the basis of clear evidence.”
He added: “I understand parents will grasp at any possibility of hope.”
Kathryn, I believe it doesn't matter how many millions Charlie's parents have raised. That does not give them the right to order the intensive care staff to do something medically unsound such as transfer the child to some place offering a quack cure. The parents can't take the child anywhere themselves - if they disconnect him from the life support machinery he will be dead before they are out of the hospital car park.
In terms of Great Ormond Street Hospital, the staff are very very caring it is what they do, and only have Charlies best interests at heart. GOSH saves childrens lives every single day,and it is one of the best childrens hospitals in the world and is currently investing heavily in new buildings and research to the tune of over £500 million
The new Zayed Centre will bring together 400 world-leading scientists and clinicians in order to research rare disease in children, and is the the world’s first such centre such as the Morgan Stanley Clinical Building, the Premier Inn Clinical Building within the new Mittal Children's Medical Centre, the Zayed Centre for Research into Rare Disease in Children and the Phase 4 redevelopment which will be complete in 2022.
Thanks, but I've already read that this is the NHS prognosis. So what? The parents have a right to decide what they are willing to do to try to save their child's life, and from what I understand they have raised the money to cover medical care elsewhere.
They only have that right if, and only if, it does not prolong or increase suffering. By your statement can I assume you'd be fine setting Charlie on fire if they believed it may save his life? I'd hope not. Would you be fine permitting vegan parents children to die of malnutrition, or parents with religious objections to refuse blood transfusions? If not we agree that parental rights are not of greater importance than the rights of the child.
Parental rights only permit parents to make informed decisions about the best welfare of their child. Parents who abuse their children lose the right to make these decisions, in this case given the circumstances while I don't believe that the intent is to cause harm, the outcome of parental actions in their frantic pursuit of ANY alternative than the global medical consensus rises to the level of abuse, it's not intended, and it's perfectly understandable, but that doesn't change the net result.
Further the money raised is in the millions for treatment and a cure it will take billions if not trillions, we'd need two primary treatments one to cure genetic damage in living organisms (safely and accurately gene splicing humans in vivo) to other to regenerate neural tissue damage. Neither are optimistically less than a decade from initial trials. The cost to accelerate would require several orders of magnitude more funding, without any guarantees of success or even guarantee of acceleration.
Finally of course what does the NHS have to gain acting as it has? GOSH has had its diagnostics and treatment of this child under the microscope of international medicine, if it's intent was to cover up negligence it's a spectacular failure, the reputation of the hospital is based on its diagnostics and treatment so any errors are known across the world, both from court transcripts and at other medical facilities who have received for review Charlie Gards medical notes. If you screwed up you don't take your case to court in an attempt to cover it up. The NHS prognosis is seconded by every medical establishment who reviewed his case for UK and European courts, and even the Doc who offered his experimental nucleoside treatment.
Thanks, but I've already read that this is the NHS prognosis. So what? The parents have a right to decide what they are willing to do to try to save their child's life, and from what I understand they have raised the money to cover medical care elsewhere.
Kathryn I don't think you quite understand, they cannot save the childs life, that's the point, medical experts have said that he cannot be saved and more importantly in this case, he is suffering, if that is the case then torturing his little body is not only futile, its cruel. This is why this case has gone to court in the first place, the parents might think they know what's best but personally I think you have to go with 'experts' when it comes to making a decision here. If the 'experts' decide they are mistaken, if they decide there is even a 'glimmer' of hope then OK fair enough, unfortunately though this (as far as I am aware) is not the case, very very sad but there it is.
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.
