Charlie Gard
- Thread starter glenimp617
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
Or simply save the life of a child. I'm not saying you or others on this thread can't have an opinion, but with all due respect, until one has been in that situation I don't think any one of us could say what we would or wouldn't do, or have the right to criticise anyone going through it.
Of course it is best that the child doesn't suffer but even in the most hopeless of situations there can be glimmers of hope that parents cling on to. I went through this with our 4 month old little girl and all I would say is we came face to face with decisions we never thought we would have to make or even other choices that beforehand seemed absolutely black and white - it really wasn't.
It was without doubt the worst time of my life and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
Is it best that the child be allowed to pass away? From what I've read, most likely, yes, but no parent should ever be criticised for wanting to move heaven and earth to save them.
To save what though? The child is massively and irreparably brain damaged. They will not have any standard of life to speak of as there will be no higher thought process. Intact my understanding is lower thought processes - those that keep us alive on a day to day basis are also gone. You wouldn't let an animal suffer that fate, why would you let someone you love suffer it?
You're both right. The point is that while the cold rational view is that the child is basically already dead, as parents the desire to keep them alive will be incredibly strong. We haven't made it to our position as the massively dominant species without a strong evolutionary impulse to protect our young and keep them alive, and it's hard to switch that off, even if it gets beyond the point at which it makes any sense. Human beings are not wholly rational, much as some people like to think of themselves in such a way.
For my part, I think the child should be allowed to die, but I don't doubt that it would be a far harder decision to make if it were one of my own children.
For my part, I think the child should be allowed to die, but I don't doubt that it would be a far harder decision to make if it were one of my own children.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
I can understand the parents fighting it till the end but they aren't in a place to make the rational decision. Shame for everyone involved that it came down to this in the end.
My father suffered with multiple sclerosis for the best part of 35 years. For the last 10 years of his life he was basically bed ridden, unable to move or speak and he was fed via a tube that went directly into his stomach. He had a poor existence and I even question myself if he was able to even see for the last few years of his life.
We did what we could for him, he lived at home, and we tried to do the best we could in this crappy situation.
He eventually passed away after he struggled with an infection that he wasnt able to get rid of, and we became aware that he was not going to make it about 3 weeks before he eventually died.
Of course, logically it was the best thing for him, he was in a poor condition and he was unable to communicate if he was in any pain. With the nature of his illness (terminal)I even convinced myself that I was ready for it.....it was coming.
The point is when it was coming, despite everything telling me inside that it was the best thing for him I wanted him to pull through and would have tried any option I had to ensure that he did.
Matters of the heart dont always follow logic.
We did what we could for him, he lived at home, and we tried to do the best we could in this crappy situation.
He eventually passed away after he struggled with an infection that he wasnt able to get rid of, and we became aware that he was not going to make it about 3 weeks before he eventually died.
Of course, logically it was the best thing for him, he was in a poor condition and he was unable to communicate if he was in any pain. With the nature of his illness (terminal)I even convinced myself that I was ready for it.....it was coming.
The point is when it was coming, despite everything telling me inside that it was the best thing for him I wanted him to pull through and would have tried any option I had to ensure that he did.
Matters of the heart dont always follow logic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
This is an excellent insight into the thought processes of family members when a loved one is terminally ill. Thank you for sharing it.
It's incredibly difficult to even consider how the parents must be feeling, I don't have kids but I have considered what I would do if one of my close family were to die and I have always considered that it would be easier to come to terms with my own demise that it would be to handle the loss (particularly over a sustained period) of a loved one. Often death is hardest on those left behind.
Having said that, the people who are really capable of acting as impartial advocates for the wellbeing of the child are the doctors, and I reluctantly have to agree with other posters that this is the correct outcome. Part of the additional issue for the parents I would imagine is the niggling thought, what if?. You do hear of miraculous recoveries and although we can be almost certain that it won't happen in this case it won't stop the parents agonising over it.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is my thoughts go out to everyone involved, not just the parents and the child but also the healthcare professionals who have just tried to do what they believe is right as well.
If I was that kids parent, I would try everything to save him. They've raised the money for the treatment, they should be allowed to try. If it fails, at least they will know they have done everything humanly possible.
It shouldn't be for a court to decide.
It shouldn't be for a court to decide.
Exactly!
Most people posting on here are not parents so have no clue of the love one has for ones own child!
To ignore a doctor who is literally telling them that their child is braindead is just denying the obvious.. You wouldn't try flying the poor thing to some random monk like on man on the moon to have "alternative treatment"
Where does it end?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,132
Most parents would do anything for their children. The maternal instinct in the mother is usually the strongest.
You only have to see grieving parents of still born babies or premature babies which sadly die once born to appreciate the bond that develops even before birth. This grief and memory will often last a lifetime.
The grieving process for early abortions by expectant mothers can also be unexpectedly traumatic for them in some cases.
We are in a culture and society that values children's lives.
Not all cultures do but most people do.
Charlie's parents believe there is hope and for them to give up on that is simply not an option, regardless of what others think.
Medically, Charlie would die very quickly without life support but I suspect, the physiological damage to his parents if they give up and let that happen would be significant and possibly irreversible.
You only have to see grieving parents of still born babies or premature babies which sadly die once born to appreciate the bond that develops even before birth. This grief and memory will often last a lifetime.
The grieving process for early abortions by expectant mothers can also be unexpectedly traumatic for them in some cases.
We are in a culture and society that values children's lives.
Not all cultures do but most people do.
Charlie's parents believe there is hope and for them to give up on that is simply not an option, regardless of what others think.
Medically, Charlie would die very quickly without life support but I suspect, the physiological damage to his parents if they give up and let that happen would be significant and possibly irreversible.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,132
I assume you are being facetious? Charlie requires a medical team and life support unit for transport, they can't just take him out of hospital and on a plane. This cost is part of the funding they have raised.
In this instance going through the courts and continuing to fight this is the most they can do to get him safely to treatment.
They only want to try a treatment that has worked on other forms of the disease and worked.
The other highlight this case has, is that a child is essentially the hospitals offspring as soon as they're admitted. I personally think that is wrong, if the hospital knows that the child is being transferred to another hospital where they may get treatment then surely that is a good thing?
Yes, he may be braindead, but having a one of the family members of my facebook there does seem to be some differences to what has been told in court. I am fully aware of bias, so I'm not one to say what is right or wrong.
indeed
I think with an expensive treatment like this you'd try anything as a parent. However as a random member of the public, I really don't see why you'd spend money on this - it does seem like such a lost cause. That million or so spent on other charitable causes could save many lives around the world.
We live in a world where millions of healthy babies are aborted because they are simply not wanted by their parent(s), so logically of course there will be many people saying pull the plug on this very unhealthy baby. The loving parents know best, they have a choice of 99.99% death of their baby or 100% death and I fully back their choice.
- Status