Charlie Gard

[TJM]

If, as GOSH say, Charlie is essentially a vegetable what harm will he suffer by allowing these other, reputable, doctors a chance to learn about medications and procedures that, even if they will be pointless to Charlie, may progress medical understanding in that field further? If that's in line with the parent's wish and they have the money to pay for that treatment I don't see why they are not being allowed to proceed with that course of action.

Charlie's doctors and the court cannot, legally, take into account anything but his own interests. If he was an adult with a sound mind, he could consent to medical experimentation for the purposes of advancing knowledge, but he is the furthest thing from that.

 

[vincent1989]

Charlie's doctors and the court cannot, legally, take into account anything but his own interests. If he was an adult with a sound mind, he could consent to medical experimentation for the purposes of advancing knowledge, but he is the furthest thing from that.

this is my argument; they're only his doctors by geographical chance and another professional disagrees, on principle. His parents are always his parents, final say should rest with them, if they have the funds to afford it to chose between the two.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

this is my argument; they're only his doctors by geographical chance and another professional disagrees, on principle. His parents are always his parents, final say should rest with them, if they have the funds to afford it to chose between the two.

But that doesn't stand up, does it? It's words placed around a non-argument, and also goes against the expert opinion already provided and legally agreed by a Judge who informs himself of the facts.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

this is my argument; they're only his doctors by geographical chance and another professional disagrees, on principle. His parents are always his parents, final say should rest with them, if they have the funds to afford it to chose between the two.

Uh no, parents do not own their children and they do not have the right of life or death over them. Thats for the courts to decide.

 

[vincent1989]

But that doesn't stand up, does it? It's words placed around a non-argument, and also goes against the expert opinion already provided and legally agreed by a Judge who informs himself of the facts.

I'm not sure I understand what part of what I said is a non-argument, if they were born in America and were rich they'd have had the treatment and the end result (probably the same as the current result) would have played out without the media circus and ridiculous performance from both sides.

Thank goodness scientists don't unquestioningly rely on prevailing expert opinion, the universe would still be whizzing round our heads at zillions of miles per second.

Uh no, parents do not own their children and they do not have the right of life or death over them. Thats for the courts to decide.

Why, do the courts own them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32013634

 

[Tunney]

That's my fear. Though I do feel we should not be willing to settle for equality of outcome, I don't begrudge millionaires spending their own money on better medical treatment than whats available to me, nor would I seek to take that away from them which is why I do argue that if they have the money to attempt this treatment, and there is a professional who advocates it, then they, as the parents, should be allowed to seek that treatment for their child.

I think it's utterly immoral that US doctors are willing to perform procedures that have zero chance of success. The only outcome is greater suffering for their child.

I'm not sure whether they should have the right to seek the treatment. It's borderline child abuse.

 

[Spud21]

I'm not sure I understand what part of what I said is a non-argument, if they were born in America and were rich they'd have had the treatment and the end result (probably the same as the current result) would have played out without the media circus and ridiculous performance from both sides.

Thank goodness scientists don't unquestioningly rely on prevailing expert opinion, the universe would still be whizzing round our heads at zillions of miles per second.



Why, do the courts own them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32013634

If my auntie had a **** she'd be my Uncle, what exactly is your point? Equally in the US they don't just give you treatment because you pay for it, at least the good doctors won't if i fancied a triple heart bypass i couldn't just sod off to the states and pay for it if there was no medical reason for it. No doctor worth their salt would do something just because they are paying for it.

Of course scientists rely on the prevailing expert opinion, that's how it works, they test the prevailing opinion, and this informs it further, and modifies it if necessary, Einstein didn't just come up with the theory of general relativity one day, he built on what we knew, theorized and tested his theories and over time his theory has been further proven, it doesn't mean that some Muppet can come along tomorrow and say I can prove that the universe is actually made out of cheese, it would be laughed at, but if someone builds on his work and theorizes a different explanation then it will be tested and it will move on from there. Very rarely, if ever has a scientist turned up and said "what you think is a load of old cobblers I know better and been right". Galileo worked on many things (looking at the retrograde motion of planets in the sky and huge amounts of other things before people began to think that maybe the earth was not the center of the universe) he didn't just wake up one day and go all you know is BS guys.

The courts do not own children, nobody does. But they are the arbiters of the people, if you are unable to speak for yourself and others are attempting to do things that someone with good reason and standing believes that they are not acting in your interests they are able to take this to court, and the court act on your behalf and consider your interests. As in this case, medical experts at arguably the worlds foremost center for the treatment of children believed that the parents were not acting in the best interests of Charlie, so they took it to court, and every court has agreed with their decision. Some dude who knew nothing of the case decided to publically say "I can treat that" with an experimental treatment for a related but not the same condition.

 

[Tefal]

The doctor involved was my GP as stated. Not GO as you said, what ever the hell that means. What is a GO ?

It's called autocorrect.


Don't worry about its not something your will have to deal with.

But you're totally fine with "goibg"?

 

[Tefal]

Great post vincent.

It was pure vindictiveness that his latest brain scan results were announced in court without his *PARENTS* prior knowledge (oh yes, I forgot, the state is Charlie's parents now) Charlie's father was spot on when he called her evil. There is a lot of evil around Charlie's case.

That's kind of sick actually.

Why does everything go so down hill morally when lawyers are involved

 

[Dolph]

I for one am thankful that we have a system that protects children from loving but incredibly misguided interventions by their parents.

I would hope if I was so blinded by grief I was torturing my child, the state would stop me too.

 

[Minstadave]

I for one am thankful that we have a system that protects children from loving but incredibly misguided interventions by their parents.

I would hope if I was so blinded by grief I was torturing my child, the state would stop me too.

Damn Dolph, that was almost something positive about he NHS.

 

[Deleted member 138126]

I don't see anybody mention the fact that this drawn out battle is robbing an enormous amount of financial resource from GOSH that could be spent on other children's health.

 

[Minstadave]

I don't see anybody mention the fact that this drawn out battle is robbing an enormous amount of financial resource from GOSH that could be spent on other children's health.

GOSH is not short of pennies to be honest. They've got some pretty "interesting" income streams.

 

[Sliver]

It's called autocorrect.


Don't worry about its not something your will have to deal with.

But you're totally fine with "goibg"?

Yes I am. However assgat gets my goat. Have a nice day.

 

[Dolph]

Damn Dolph, that was almost something positive about he NHS.

I'm not sure advocating change to address poor performance is especially negative. The NHS has some amazing staff, does some amazing things, some of the time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't perform poorly on the whole for outcomes, nor that it could not benefit from reform in conjunction with properly managed funding increases.

Contrary to what you may think, I don't hate the NHS, I just don't put it on a pedestal where it can't be criticised.

 

[Tefal]

Why, do the courts own them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32013634

So they took him abroad after the nhs removed the Tumor to have peoton beam therapy rather than x-ray therapy they would have had here.

He was cancer free when he left the country and wouls likley be in remission just the same if he's had the more conventional treatment here.


He's still going to spend his whole meaningless life in a bed being cared for.

What changed?

 

[stockhausen]

Charlie Gard’s parents have ended their legal fight over treatment for the critically-ill baby. Chris Gard and Connie Yates announced their decision as a high court judge was preparing to oversee the latest round of a five-month legal battle. Mr Justice Francis had been scheduled to analyse what the couple said was fresh evidence at a hearing in the family division of the High Court in London. “This case is now about time,” said their barrister Grant Armstrong, adding: “Sadly time has run out.” Armstrong said Charlie’s parents had made a decision following the latest medical reports and scans. Armstrong said damage to 11-month-old Charlie’s muscle and tissue was irreversible. “The parents’ worst fears have been confirmed,” he said. “It is now too late to treat Charlie.”

I wonder how much the taxpayer has put into this court case?

 

[glenimp617]

Looks like this is coming to a sad end. Reading the ticker tape on sky news, there seemed to have been a "window of opportunity" but due to various delays this has now been lost.
Parents withdrawn the legal case.

 

[Big Spender]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-07-24/charlie-gards-parents-back-in-court-as-judge-hears-new-evidence/

Charlie Gard's parents end legal fight over treatment for the terminally-ill baby

Charlie Gard's parents have ended their legal fight over treatment for the terminally-ill baby.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates announced their decision as a High Court judge was preparing to oversee the latest round of a five-month legal battle.

A lawyer representing Charlie's parents told Mr Justice Francis that "time had run out".

Barrister Grant Armstrong said Charlie's parents had made a decision following the latest medical reports and scans.

Mr Justice Francis had been scheduled to analyse what the couple said was fresh evidence at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

The judge had been scheduled to analyse what the couple said was fresh evidence at a two-day trial starting at 10am on Monday.

He said he aimed to make a decision on Tuesday and questioned whether a two-day hearing would be long enough.

But the hearing was re-listed and is scheduled to start on Monday afternoon. Lawyers have given no explanation for the scheduling change.

It comes days after staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie is being cared for, said they had received death threats.

The hospital said parents visiting their seriously unwell children had also been harassed.

The 11-month-old's parents said: "We do not and have not ever condoned any threatening or abusive remarks towards any staff member.

"We too have suffered from the most hurtful comments from the public," Ms Yates said.

Charlie suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage.

Mr Gard and Ms Yates have asked judges to rule their son should be allowed to undergo a therapy trial in New York.

Doctors at Great Ormond Street say treatment is experimental and will not help.

They say life support treatment should stop and Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity.

On Friday a barrister representing Great Ormond Street Hospital doctors said a report on Charlie's latest scan made for "sad reading".

Ms Yates burst into tears when Katie Gollop QC broke the news at a preliminary hearing in the Family Division of the High Court.

The couple have already lost their case in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in London.

But they claim there is new evidence in the case and have asked Mr Justice Francis, who ruled in favour of doctors in April, to change his mind.

The judge has said he will not re-run the case but will consider any ''new material''.

 

[Minstadave]

Best thing for everyone. Atleast it won't be a fight to the bitter end and now they can spend his last days together as a family, not fighting in a courtroom.

Hope you find peace little guy.