Unusual Tournament Posted July 28, 2017 #101 Share Posted July 28, 2017 On 26/07/2017 at 7:46 AM, preacherman76 said: Because that's what parents do. They fight for their children. What ever the costs, what ever the odds. What right does anyone have to stand in the way of that? These people weren't asking anything from these doctors or courts but to get the **** out of the way. To get outta the way so Charlie could go through more questionable treatments with no guarantee of giving Charlie anything resembling normal quality of life. I commend the parents for fighting for their son and exploring all options but at some point reason had to move in and end this. and the hospital and courts did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Waters Posted July 28, 2017 #102 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Quote Terminally-ill Charlie Gard will be moved to a hospice and have his life support withdrawn soon after, a High Court judge has decided. Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) said it was not in his best interests to spend a long time in a hospice. His parents had wanted a private team to care for Charlie so they could have more time with him. "GOSH have denied us our final wish," his mother said. The judge approved a plan that will see Charlie die shortly after being moved. Mr Justice Francis added that no details about when he would be moved and where could be made public. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40745988 With all the publicity this case has generated, I think it's good that Charlie's final journey will be kept from the public eye. Let the wee soul leave this world in peace, and my heart also goes out to his parents. I hope they can find the courage to say their goodbyes when the time comes. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted July 28, 2017 #103 Share Posted July 28, 2017 5 hours ago, Captain Risky said: To get outta the way so Charlie could go through more questionable treatments with no guarantee of giving Charlie anything resembling normal quality of life. I commend the parents for fighting for their son and exploring all options but at some point reason had to move in and end this. and the hospital and courts did. Yes at some point. That point would be AFTER the doctors who are in the top of their field, who knew far more then the kids doctors, and the judges, who were working on treatments for this exact disease said there was no hope. Why is this so hard to understand? I can't believe people are defending this tyrannical medical travesty. Doctors who are more qualified to make this decision were shut down by lesser doctors. You'd think a judge would understand this, but no. And if there was any doubt that this was anything less then tyranny, these same doctors and judges won't even give these parents an ounce of peace by letting the child die in their home. When did the U.K. Decide that they own the people? When exactly did they remove any form of parental sovereignty? It's not even as though the parents are asking the government to pay for it. Whatever gets folks through the night I guess. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted July 28, 2017 #104 Share Posted July 28, 2017 1 hour ago, preacherman76 said: Yes at some point. That point would be AFTER the doctors who are in the top of their field, who knew far more then the kids doctors, and the judges, who were working on treatments for this exact disease said there was no hope. Why is this so hard to understand? I can't believe people are defending this tyrannical medical travesty. Doctors who are more qualified to make this decision were shut down by lesser doctors. You'd think a judge would understand this, but no. And if there was any doubt that this was anything less then tyranny, these same doctors and judges won't even give these parents an ounce of peace by letting the child die in their home. When did the U.K. Decide that they own the people? When exactly did they remove any form of parental sovereignty? It's not even as though the parents are asking the government to pay for it. Whatever gets folks through the night I guess. these senile old Judges are setting a precedent for any future cases of this kind. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Magnus Posted July 28, 2017 #105 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Well, I guess the moderators deleted the post I made in here. Not sure why, maybe because I said it reminds me of Rachel weeping for her children when Herod was searching for the infants to kill. This honestly reminds me of that. I'm quite offended. I really don't have any respect for anyone that wouldn't try to save the infant, and I do think this is an example of the laziness of the hospitals. The hospitals look lazy, letting the baby die in a sickbed without treatment when there is some. Yeah, this I guess is a case where the judges will determine the future of your rights and children, so I think by silencing anything you are dooming the fate of your country. So, whatever, I guess I have sympathy for the parents in this case, they look like a nice couple and it really makes me angry and sad when you won't let them do all they can to save their own children when they've already raised the money to do so. I guess they gave up trying though, that's what I read on the news yesterday. But, I really can't have much sympathy for the people who want to encourage the courts and hospitals to have power over the parents of their children that would also effect my own ability to take care of my own children if some instance were to occur. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Waters Posted July 28, 2017 #106 Share Posted July 28, 2017 RIP little one Quote Charlie Gard has died, his parents say https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/28/charlie-gard-dies 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnchorSteam Posted July 28, 2017 #107 Share Posted July 28, 2017 4 hours ago, Still Waters said: RIP little one Thanks for letting us know. 5 hours ago, Opus Magnus said: ... So, whatever, I guess I have sympathy for the parents in this case, they look like a nice couple and it really makes me angry and sad when you won't let them do all they can to save their own children when they've already raised the money to do so. I guess they gave up trying though, that's what I read on the news yesterday. But, I really can't have much sympathy for the people who want to encourage the courts and hospitals to have power over the parents of their children that would also effect my own ability to take care of my own children if some instance were to occur. 5 months of delays and obstruction doomed whatever chances that baby might have had. But Yeah, I think you are right; those bureaucrats have established the arbitrary power of life & death over their subjects. I hope those parents have about a dozen more kids, find a way to make it cost the State a bundle, and then move somewhere that sees Life as more than a collection of statistics to be taken advantage of. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 28, 2017 #108 Share Posted July 28, 2017 I'm sorry to hear about Charlie. I wish there would have been a way to make him better. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+susieice Posted July 29, 2017 #109 Share Posted July 29, 2017 Rest easy with the angels Charlie. Your parents fought so valiantly for you and loved you very much. You are in the hearts of many. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugenonegin Posted July 29, 2017 #110 Share Posted July 29, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, preacherman76 said: Yes at some point. That point would be AFTER the doctors who are in the top of their field, who knew far more then the kids doctors, and the judges, who were working on treatments for this exact disease said there was no hope. Why is this so hard to understand? I can't believe people are defending this tyrannical medical travesty. Doctors who are more qualified to make this decision were shut down by lesser doctors. You'd think a judge would understand this, but no. And if there was any doubt that this was anything less then tyranny, these same doctors and judges won't even give these parents an ounce of peace by letting the child die in their home. When did the U.K. Decide that they own the people? When exactly did they remove any form of parental sovereignty? It's not even as though the parents are asking the government to pay for it. Whatever gets folks through the night I guess. I "liked" your post but now I am not sure what you intended to say. I thought you said the the doctors who were experts in their field said there was no hope, that is what I "liked". Because that is true. There was no hope, the only doctor who said there was, had a vested financial interest and he has since said he was mistaken. And if you don't understand why he was not allowed to go home, you have not really understood what this is about, have you? So you shouldn't post ignorant nonsense. Edited July 29, 2017 by eugeneonegin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugenonegin Posted July 29, 2017 #111 Share Posted July 29, 2017 1 hour ago, AnchorSteam said: Thanks for letting us know. 5 months of delays and obstruction doomed whatever chances that baby might have had. But Yeah, I think you are right; those bureaucrats have established the arbitrary power of life & death over their subjects. I hope those parents have about a dozen more kids, find a way to make it cost the State a bundle, and then move somewhere that sees Life as more than a collection of statistics to be taken advantage of. Oh I wish you knew what this case was about before you post such things. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted July 29, 2017 #112 Share Posted July 29, 2017 10 hours ago, preacherman76 said: Yes at some point. That point would be AFTER the doctors who are in the top of their field, who knew far more then the kids doctors, and the judges, who were working on treatments for this exact disease said there was no hope. Why is this so hard to understand? I can't believe people are defending this tyrannical medical travesty. Doctors who are more qualified to make this decision were shut down by lesser doctors. You'd think a judge would understand this, but no. And if there was any doubt that this was anything less then tyranny, these same doctors and judges won't even give these parents an ounce of peace by letting the child die in their home. When did the U.K. Decide that they own the people? When exactly did they remove any form of parental sovereignty? It's not even as though the parents are asking the government to pay for it. Whatever gets folks through the night I guess. I was under the impression that the doctors at Charlie's hospital had already consulted with all medical expert. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/25/michio-hirano-us-doctor-intervention-charlie-gard-case-raises-ethical-questions Charlie didn't need to die at home. Another example of his parents trying to fight the process. There was no reason for the parents to get argumentative with the people and system that tried to help Charlie. Only so much could have been done to help Charlie's conditions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 29, 2017 #113 Share Posted July 29, 2017 10 hours ago, Captain Risky said: I was under the impression that the doctors at Charlie's hospital had already consulted with all medical expert. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/25/michio-hirano-us-doctor-intervention-charlie-gard-case-raises-ethical-questions Charlie didn't need to die at home. Another example of his parents trying to fight the process. There was no reason for the parents to get argumentative with the people and system that tried to help Charlie. Only so much could have been done to help Charlie's conditions. Well, they had him on life support. It certainly would have been complicated to move him, and possibly another ordeal to put him through. I do understand a parent would want to bring their child home, though. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 29, 2017 #114 Share Posted July 29, 2017 11 hours ago, Captain Risky said: I was under the impression that the doctors at Charlie's hospital had already consulted with all medical expert. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/25/michio-hirano-us-doctor-intervention-charlie-gard-case-raises-ethical-questions Charlie didn't need to die at home. Another example of his parents trying to fight the process. There was no reason for the parents to get argumentative with the people and system that tried to help Charlie. Only so much could have been done to help Charlie's conditions. In that same article, it does say something about how in January, the brain structure showed as normal but not brain function. Oxford claims they ought to release more information. No doubt, everything will be scrutinized, and they'd better be able to show that there was brain damage. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted July 29, 2017 #115 Share Posted July 29, 2017 11 hours ago, ChaosRose said: In that same article, it does say something about how in January, the brain structure showed as normal but not brain function. Oxford claims they ought to release more information. No doubt, everything will be scrutinized, and they'd better be able to show that there was brain damage. i thought that everything was scrutinised. the parents disagreed with the hospital and it went to court to allow the judge to make a ruling. I mean at the end of the day Charlie had a faulty gene that couldn't be fixed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 30, 2017 #116 Share Posted July 30, 2017 51 minutes ago, Captain Risky said: i thought that everything was scrutinised. the parents disagreed with the hospital and it went to court to allow the judge to make a ruling. I mean at the end of the day Charlie had a faulty gene that couldn't be fixed. It was this bit from the article you posted that I was reading... Julian Savulescu, the Uehiro chair in practical ethics at the University of Oxford, felt there were important issues that had not been clarified by Great Ormond Street. He said that although the hospital had said Charlie should not be treated because he had irreversible brain damage, the MRI scan in January showed normal brain structure, even though the EEG tests showed very abnormal brain activity. This led Charlie’s parents to believe treatment was possible at that time and to fight the court judgment ,which appeared to be based on brain damage. The hospital should be allowed to release their evidence about his condition, Savulescu said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugenonegin Posted July 30, 2017 #117 Share Posted July 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ChaosRose said: It was this bit from the article you posted that I was reading... Julian Savulescu, the Uehiro chair in practical ethics at the University of Oxford, felt there were important issues that had not been clarified by Great Ormond Street. He said that although the hospital had said Charlie should not be treated because he had irreversible brain damage, the MRI scan in January showed normal brain structure, even though the EEG tests showed very abnormal brain activity. This led Charlie’s parents to believe treatment was possible at that time and to fight the court judgment ,which appeared to be based on brain damage. The hospital should be allowed to release their evidence about his condition, Savulescu said. He's a knob. In the UK, we have enacted several laws to safe-guard children (The Children's Act 1998 was one of the first ,after Cleveland). Parents don't always know what is best, and they are not always the best guardians. In fact, they may be the worst guardians. In this ethical and moral respect, we probably rule the world. Unlike the USA we are not ruled by money, ambulance chasers, or snake oil sellers. Edited July 30, 2017 by eugeneonegin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted July 30, 2017 #118 Share Posted July 30, 2017 1 hour ago, ChaosRose said: It was this bit from the article you posted that I was reading... Julian Savulescu, the Uehiro chair in practical ethics at the University of Oxford, felt there were important issues that had not been clarified by Great Ormond Street. He said that although the hospital had said Charlie should not be treated because he had irreversible brain damage, the MRI scan in January showed normal brain structure, even though the EEG tests showed very abnormal brain activity. This led Charlie’s parents to believe treatment was possible at that time and to fight the court judgment ,which appeared to be based on brain damage. The hospital should be allowed to release their evidence about his condition, Savulescu said. Charlie Gard’s parents were told that their son had irreversible brain damage after he suffered seizures before Christmas, but they did not believe it. They maintained that an MRI scan in January showed the brain was normal. That has been the crux of the difference between parents and the hospital. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/24/how-new-brain-scans-showed-charlie-gard-could-not-be-helped Yes by all means all evidence should be shown BUT i highly doubt that this evidence was excluded from the court. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted July 30, 2017 #119 Share Posted July 30, 2017 36 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said: He's a knob. In the UK, we have enacted several laws to safe-guard children (The Children's Act 1998 was one of the first ,after Cleveland). Parents don't always know what is best, and they are not always the best guardians. In fact, they may be the worst guardians. In this ethical and moral respect, we probably rule the world. Unlike the USA we are not ruled by money, ambulance chasers, or snake oil sellers. I think the hospital did everything that they could to help Charlie. At first glance, it could be interpreted that the inaction of GOSH resulted in Charlie’s one chance at a normal life being cruelly snatched away from him. This is clearly the view of many individuals, given the abuse and intimidation that has been directed at GOSH staff over the last few weeks. Bear in mind however that in January, the only medical professionals in a position to fully assess Charlie and have enough information to make informed judgments on his prognosis were those at GOSH. GOSH also asked other external, experienced paediatricians to assess him independently, including a metabolic specialist from Southampton whom Charlie’s parents had wanted to assess him. All of these professionals agreed with the GOSH view that his underlying condition had progressed to a point where any intervention would be futile, only serving to prolong the process of dying rather than improving his quality of life. The world of rare mitochondrial disease research is small and the experts in the world-renowned centres know each other and communicate with each other regularly. It has been reported that GOSH approached Professor Hirano in January 2017 to explore experimental nucleoside therapy (NBT) and invited him to come to London to assess Charlie at that time. GOSH were preparing an ethics committee application to seek permission to use NBT for Charlie when he deteriorated in January. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/charlie-gard-gosh-hirano-would-he-have-survived-a7861531.html 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted July 30, 2017 #120 Share Posted July 30, 2017 (edited) Every now and then comes along a case where there is no right thing, or wrong thing to do, because both choices were sadly damned. I hope he never suffered. Edited July 30, 2017 by Likely Guy 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted July 30, 2017 #121 Share Posted July 30, 2017 On 28/07/2017 at 9:20 AM, Captain Risky said: To get outta the way so Charlie could go through more questionable treatments with no guarantee of giving Charlie anything resembling normal quality of life. I commend the parents for fighting for their son and exploring all options but at some point reason had to move in and end this. and the hospital and courts did. I remember some recent mouse research on HIF-1 the hypoxia gene that turns on when we are starved of oxygen. They started out by giving mice mitochondria disease using genetic engineering and then letting them develop brain damage. Then they took them, put them in an oxygen chamber for 40 days with low O2 levels to induce hypoxia, and at the end all the brain damage had been reversed. As far as I know that research didnt make it too the appeal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted July 30, 2017 #122 Share Posted July 30, 2017 I wonder where those who criticise the actions of the hospital staff earned their right to do so? Was it in front line clinical experience, or university, or was it on the internet? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted July 31, 2017 #123 Share Posted July 31, 2017 4 hours ago, oldrover said: I wonder where those who criticise the actions of the hospital staff earned their right to do so? Was it in front line clinical experience, or university, or was it on the internet? I'm not sure if there's a similar thing in the UK Quote As a parent, it is natural to worry when your child becomes sick. Depending on their age, a lack of communication can make it harder to determine their symptoms as they cannot describe where and how it hurts. Likewise, when a loved one becomes sick, it can be difficult to watch them suffer while treatment is being organised. With time being of the essence, parents and family members may feel their concerns are not being listened to. After all they are the ones who know when their children and loved ones are unwell. Unfortunately, a situation arose in 2007 which changed the way in which Queensland Health listened to these concerns. https://www.lawyersalliance.com.au/opinion/does-australia-need-ryans-rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted August 3, 2017 #124 Share Posted August 3, 2017 another Charlie Gard.... Quote Family of baby with same disease as Charlie Gard vows to fight for his life as they meet with the US doctor who examined the British boy Parents of four-month-old boy affectionately called Bubby fighting for his life He has a disease similar to what killed the British infant Charlie Gard on Friday His condition is called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. It causes muscle weakness and brain damage, the same as Charlie Gard but at a slower pace There is no cure and the family's only hope is experimental therapy treatment Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4754908/Family-fights-save-boy-Charlie-Gard-like-disease.html#ixzz4oeGzLlVR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted August 3, 2017 #125 Share Posted August 3, 2017 There, but for the grace of God, go I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now