I think I'd agree with you. The parents who must be at their wits end have one last Hail Mary shot. Give them this chance, the money is there the parents want this more than anything. It almost certainly won't work but at least they will be able to let their child pass knowing they have done everything that could have been done, Instead of leaving them to spend the rest of their lives thinking what if.
Charlie Gard
- Thread starter glenimp617
- Start date
- Status
I think I'd agree with you. The parents who must be at their wits end have one last Hail Mary shot. Give them this chance, the money is there the parents want this more than anything. It almost certainly won't work but at least they will be able to let their child pass knowing they have done everything that could have been done, Instead of leaving them to spend the rest of their lives thinking what if.
Starts a precedent unfortunately, what about other kids they've had to say no to or future families?
What precedent? if this happened are you expecting other families to sue the NHS or something? If so I'd say worry about that later, it shouldn't even be a consideration.
It's a court ruling, of course there would be a precedent.
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,860
why didn't they do this in the first place to save all the messing about in the courts
:edit: ah, you mean the US hospital?
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,414
- Location
- Finally, Swindon
The court ruling was made in the interests of the child, not the parents
From what I understand:
- GOSH was going to provide the treatment (it's an edible solution).
- Charlie's condition deteriorated further.
- Charlie is incapable of showing physical signs of pain due to his condition, but that does not mean he is experiencing pain in his current situation (he may not be).
- GOSH decided it would no longer help and would cause further pain to Charlie.
- Doctor who is pioneering the treatment (which has never been used to treat this condition and evidence shows limited chance of success) expressed that it was very unlikely to help Charlie after seeing his latest brain scan results.
- Treatment was never going to "cure" him. It was going to stop/slow the progression of the condition. You can't cure brain damage.
It's the parents who will have to live with the consequences of the decision and wondering what if they had done more all of their lives. I don't think the court judge will lose too much sleep over it either way.
Even if it fails it could be for the greater good if it helps medical science.
Because many people are happy to be ignorant and ignore all evidence if it makes them feel like they're doing something good, regardless of whether or not they are doing something good.
That's why, for example, it's possible to get lots of people to sign a petition to outlaw water. And yes, that has been done. Quite a few times.
Mhm, Mengele had a similar rein of thought. Albeit it might not seem like it, but it isn't too far away.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 12,771
- Location
- Northants
I really struggle to see what the parents end game is here. Fair enough they want to do anything they possibly can for their child which I'm sure every parent does but the brain damage that's been done cannot be undone by any treatment anywhere in the world.
Lets play it out if all the miracles in the world happened and they got everything they wanted, they manage to travel to America have this pioneering treatment (which has never been tested on a mouse let alone human) and by some sort of miracle it works and slows or stops his condition what then? You've got a son who is in a permanent vegetative state who can't breathe on his own without a machine and will be like that for his entire remaining life. What quality of life is that for anyone?
You're halfway round the world in America, you'd probably need to stay there for many years while your son continually has this treatment. As parents you're going to basically uproot yourself potentially forever to at the very best be able to keep your vegetative son trapped in his body for as many years as the treatment prolonged his life.
Lets play it out if all the miracles in the world happened and they got everything they wanted, they manage to travel to America have this pioneering treatment (which has never been tested on a mouse let alone human) and by some sort of miracle it works and slows or stops his condition what then? You've got a son who is in a permanent vegetative state who can't breathe on his own without a machine and will be like that for his entire remaining life. What quality of life is that for anyone?
You're halfway round the world in America, you'd probably need to stay there for many years while your son continually has this treatment. As parents you're going to basically uproot yourself potentially forever to at the very best be able to keep your vegetative son trapped in his body for as many years as the treatment prolonged his life.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,414
- Location
- Finally, Swindon
It's not about the parents, whatever you may think
As for greater good..I'm not convinced experimental procedures on someone that can't give consent and appears to have no hope of alleviating anything, apart from the parents justifiable distress is conscionable. Seems that's what the court thinks as well
Last edited:
Lets say the treatment works to its best ability, he can breathe on his own, but is now left in permanent pain.
What then? Take him to Dignitas?
I am all for giving someone a fighting chance, when there is a quality of life at the end of it.
In this case, there is no QOL.
Throughout history many (all??) of the really great medical advances have been achieved through experiments that would not be considered ethical or even legal today.
Modern ethics and legal regulation is one of the reasons why future medical advances might actually stall.
I do not really know about Mengele, he was nuts, but German Medical Scientists, given a free rein during the thirties and early forties, did make some interesting progress. To this day, people still debate whether or not the products of this research should be used....
Even the less controversial research that might have saved millions of lives was conveniently dismissed after the war on the grounds that it was "Nazi Science"
AIR, It was German scientists who first demonstrated the link between tobacco and lung disease (Himmler strongly disapproved of Smoking and really did not want his SS Ubersoldat indulging in such a disgusting and unhealthy habit, any medical opinion that supported his opinion was most welcome
)If the hospital had granted the parents their wishes the experimental treatment would have either failed or succeeded many months ago, state intervention and the legal process is what is what is prolonging any alleged suffering. If the parents thought the treatment would be more harmful than helpful they wouldn't be pursuing it, it's another situation where the nanny state thinks it knows what's best and to hell with the parents who will be scarred for life with guilt if they don't exhaust every opportunity no matter how slim.
You mean the expert medical professionals and the uneducated parents?
- Status