Charlie Gard[W:193]

[Dragonfly]

Charlie Gard case explained - BBC News

Charlie has an exceptionally rare genetic condition called encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS).Although he appeared perfectly healthy when he was born, his health soon began to deteriorate.
Charlie now has severe brain damage.
He cannot open his eyes or move his arms or legs.
His condition also means he is unable to breathe unaided, which is why he needs to be on a ventilator.
Charlie's heart, liver and kidneys are also affected, and his doctors say it is not clear if he feels pain.

Charlie Gard parents' 'worst fears' confirmed as legal fight ends - BBC News

The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard have ended their legal challenge to take him to the US for experimental treatment.A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court that "time had run out" for the baby.
Grant Armstrong said Charlie's parents had made the decision because an American doctor said it was too late to give him nucleoside therapy.

Heart breaking story.

Does beg the question...how far is too far when trying to prevent death and/or the inevitable?

I am sincerely glad and thankful to have never had to face such a situation.

The question comes to mind though, are the parents here prolonging the suffering?

I'm not condemning them. It's heart breaking and awful what they've gone through from so many different levels.
They only have to answer to themselves. Hope can be a strong and powerful motivator.

What's the answer for situations like this?

What's the "right" thing to do?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard case explained - BBC News




Charlie Gard parents' 'worst fears' confirmed as legal fight ends - BBC News




Heart breaking story.

Does beg the question...how far is too far when trying to prevent death and/or the inevitable?

I am sincerely glad and thankful to have never had to face such a situation.

The question comes to mind though, are the parents here prolonging the suffering?

I'm not condemning them. It's heart breaking and awful what they've gone through from so many different levels.
They only have to answer to themselves. Hope can be a strong and powerful motivator.

What's the answer for situations like this?

What's the "right" thing to do?

Unless I read it wrong, they raised the money to pay for the treatment and had the NHS just let them go and do it, there would of been time and no legal wrangling.
Instead, not only did they not get a unlikely shot of saving their kid, the potential medical research was lost.

 

[Mac77]

Re: Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard case explained - BBC News




Charlie Gard parents' 'worst fears' confirmed as legal fight ends - BBC News




Heart breaking story.

Does beg the question...how far is too far when trying to prevent death and/or the inevitable?

I am sincerely glad and thankful to have never had to face such a situation.

The question comes to mind though, are the parents here prolonging the suffering?

I'm not condemning them. It's heart breaking and awful what they've gone through from so many different levels.
They only have to answer to themselves. Hope can be a strong and powerful motivator.

What's the answer for situations like this?

What's the "right" thing to do?

My question is why were the parents s not free to take their child to America if they wanted to?

Britain used to be a free country but not anymore

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Charlie Gard

I think that the key words are terminally ill - at that point, regardless of age, hospice care, pain medication and a DNR order is the answer. Pumping nutrients and oxygen into the body does nothing but prolong the suffering.

 

[Dragonfly]

Re: Charlie Gard

My question is why were the parents s not free to take their child to America if they wanted to?

Britain used to be a free country but not anymore

I believe the fear was inducing unnecessary and undue suffering on an infant.

Should parents be able to do anything they want to their child regardless of the pain and anguish it may cause to the child?

 

[Dragonfly]

Re: Charlie Gard

Unless I read it wrong, they raised the money to pay for the treatment and had the NHS just let them go and do it, there would of been time and no legal wrangling.
Instead, not only did they not get a unlikely shot of saving their kid, the potential medical research was lost.

"Saving the kid" from what? Dying? Living a month longer? Living 3 months longer? In what condition and in how much pain or discomfort?

Did the poor child have any chance at all of being anything but a vegetable?

I don't know, but the prognosis from the get-go sounded absolutely awful no matter what.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard case explained - BBC News




Charlie Gard parents' 'worst fears' confirmed as legal fight ends - BBC News




Heart breaking story.

Does beg the question...how far is too far when trying to prevent death and/or the inevitable?

I am sincerely glad and thankful to have never had to face such a situation.

The question comes to mind though, are the parents here prolonging the suffering?

I'm not condemning them. It's heart breaking and awful what they've gone through from so many different levels.
They only have to answer to themselves. Hope can be a strong and powerful motivator.

What's the answer for situations like this?

What's the "right" thing to do?

When such horrendous tragedies happen to a family, most ESPECIALLY when it involved a child, the "right" thing to do, imo, is to do what breaks your heart the least... what you will be able to live with for the rest of your life. What that decision is varies from family to family and no brain trust of strangers ought get involved.

Now does that mean insurance companies should be forced into paying for useless treatment? Absolutely not. But if a family can and chooses to do so? Sans professionals believing that a child is suffering with no hope of survival, they ought to keep their noses out of it. And certainly so should the state.

 

[TheGoverness]

Re: Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard case explained - BBC News




Charlie Gard parents' 'worst fears' confirmed as legal fight ends - BBC News




Heart breaking story.

Does beg the question...how far is too far when trying to prevent death and/or the inevitable?

I am sincerely glad and thankful to have never had to face such a situation.

The question comes to mind though, are the parents here prolonging the suffering?

I'm not condemning them. It's heart breaking and awful what they've gone through from so many different levels.
They only have to answer to themselves. Hope can be a strong and powerful motivator.

What's the answer for situations like this?

What's the "right" thing to do?

I think the right thing to do in this case, would be to allow Charlie to die with dignity. Especially considering the experimental treatment they were fighting for apparently wasn't even curative.

But I don't blame them at all for trying to save there son. I can't imagine the kind of pain they have to go through every day.

 

[Mac77]

Re: Charlie Gard

I believe the fear was inducing unnecessary and undue suffering on an infant.

Should parents be able to do anything they want to their child regardless of the pain and anguish it may cause to the child?

Trying to save the childs life when the socialists at the national health service want to kill it is pain and suffering the child could learn to live with

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Charlie Gard

"Saving the kid" from what? Dying? Living a month longer? Living 3 months longer? In what condition and in how much pain or discomfort?

Did the poor child have any chance at all of being anything but a vegetable?

I don't know, but the prognosis from the get-go sounded absolutely awful no matter what.

It was very unlikely to save him, but with that said who knows what treatment options will be developed in the future.
It was awful no doubt, what makes it worse is that all the legal crap prevented the the unlikely to help treatment.

The invaluable medical research, that could of helped people in the future, is now lost.
They raised the money to get it done, they should of let them do it, further there shouldn't have been a "let them" in the first place.
Preventing the treatment was immoral and just as inhumane as letting him live in pain.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard case explained - BBC News




Charlie Gard parents' 'worst fears' confirmed as legal fight ends - BBC News




Heart breaking story.

Does beg the question...how far is too far when trying to prevent death and/or the inevitable?

I am sincerely glad and thankful to have never had to face such a situation.

The question comes to mind though, are the parents here prolonging the suffering?

I'm not condemning them. It's heart breaking and awful what they've gone through from so many different levels.
They only have to answer to themselves. Hope can be a strong and powerful motivator.

What's the answer for situations like this?

What's the "right" thing to do?

In a free society you are allowed to use your personal resources to "pursue happiness". In other societies your baby dies because the courts don't see things the same way you do.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Charlie Gard

I think the right thing to do in this case, would be to allow Charlie to die with dignity. Especially considering the experimental treatment they were fighting for apparently wasn't even curative.

But I don't blame them at all for trying to save there son. I can't imagine the kind of pain they have to go through every day.

I don't have to imagine.

Where there is life, there is hope. It's so easy to sit back and speculate on what you would do in the Gards' situation, but if you haven't been there, you don't know.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Charlie Gard

When such horrendous tragedies happen to a family, most ESPECIALLY when it involved a child, the "right" thing to do, imo, is to do what breaks your heart the least... what you will be able to live with for the rest of your life. What that decision is varies from family to family and no brain trust of strangers ought get involved.

Now does that mean insurance companies should be forced into paying for useless treatment? Absolutely not. But if a family can and chooses to do so? Sans professionals believing that a child is suffering with no hope of survival, they ought to keep their noses out of it. And certainly so should the state.

OK, but what if that parental decision is "let God make the call" instead of allowing any (standard?) medical "intervention"? In the case of an incapacitated person (or minor) it is not such a bad idea to let a court make the call when disputes of this nature arise.

 

[Dragonfly]

Re: Charlie Gard

I don't have to imagine.

Where there is life, there is hope. It's so easy to sit back and speculate on what you would do in the Gards' situation, but if you haven't been there, you don't know.

Can you see where parental hope can, at times, perhaps be the wrong thing for the child?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Charlie Gard

In a free society you are allowed to use your personal resources to "pursue happiness". In other societies your baby dies because the courts don't see things the same way you do.

What "personal resources" have been used for the past 11 months? I was under the impression that public funds were being used for the care given thus far and that the patient (under state care?) has been diagnosed with irreversible, permanent and severe brain (and other organ) damage and thus was deemed terminally ill.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Charlie Gard

Can you see where parental hope can, at times, perhaps be the wrong thing for the child?

You're asking me to play God. I can't, and the court shouldn't here. If Charlie's parents wanted to fly him to the States, where doctors were willing to help, the court shouldn't have stood in their way.

Why would you not want his parents to have one last try?

 

[Dragonfly]

Re: Charlie Gard

You're asking me to play God. I can't, and the court shouldn't here. If Charlie's parents wanted to fly him to the States, where doctors were willing to help, the court shouldn't have stood in their way.

Why would you not want his parents to have one last try?

A few possible reasons.

#1) What's the gain? The child's prognosis is so bad. Are you only preventing his death by days/weeks?
#2) How much extra pain would the child endure? Is the extra pain the child has to endure gonna make a difference to the child?

Also - I didn't ask you to play god.

I simply asked, and I'll ask again:

Can you admit that there are times, when parents hopes are actually detrimental and/or wrong for their child? (outside of this specific situation regarding Charlie Gard)

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Charlie Gard

What "personal resources" have been used for the past 11 months? I was under the impression that public funds were being used for the care given thus far and that the patient (under state care?) has been diagnosed with irreversible, permanent and severe brain (and other organ) damage and thus was deemed terminally ill.

There is a GoFundMe account for Charlie that holds in excess of a million English pounds.

 

[Dragonfly]

Re: Charlie Gard

You're asking me to play God.

Isn't NOT letting the child die actually playing god?

 

[HonestJoe]

Re: Charlie Gard

You're asking me to play God. I can't, and the court shouldn't here. If Charlie's parents wanted to fly him to the States, where doctors were willing to help, the court shouldn't have stood in their way.

What if it had been the other way around, with the NHS offering straight-forward treatment to save his life but the parents refusing to accept it? Should parents be free to procure or deny literally any form of treatment for their children without a second thought?

What if the two parents fundamentally disagreed on what to do? What if the parents want to put a nominally healthy child “out of his misery”? What if they want treatment that is unquestionably harmful? Do you really think there is should be no point where a parent can be second guessed?

Why would you not want his parents to have one last try?

I want what’s best (least worst to be honest) for the child. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, parents are wrong about that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Charlie Gard

There is a GoFundMe account for Charlie that holds in excess of a million English pounds.

OK, how much of that fund has been used to pay for the care provided to date? I suspect that lawyers have gotten (or will get) more of it than care providers. I can see your "he who pays gets to decide" argument being applied in a very different manner if paying for the cost of care to date was included.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Charlie Gard

Isn't NOT letting the child die actually playing god?

Charlie's dad posted this, Jake Tapper posted it on twitter a little bit ago.
His dad claims that the doctors said he would have a chance, had he been treated months ago.

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/889506321850085376

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Charlie Gard

OK, how much of that fund has been used to pay for the care provided to date? I suspect that lawyers have gotten (or will get) more of it than care providers. I can see your "he who pays gets to decide" argument being applied in a very different manner if paying for the cost of care to date was included.

Lawyers did their work for free.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Charlie Gard

Lawyers did their work for free.

OK, then answer my first question - or do you also assert that "free" care was given by the current care providers? I doubt that the 24/7 care given for the past 11 months was inexpensive or expected to be paid for by the parents.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Charlie Gard

OK, then answer my first question - or do you also assert that "free" care was given by the current care providers? I doubt that the 24/7 care given for the past 11 months was inexpensive or expected to be paid for by the parents.

I know it wasn't "free" but people in the UK are left with little choice in the matter.
Private care is for those with $$$ on hand, everyone else gets the magical single payer.
These type of cases are one of the many reasons I'm against it.

Charlie's care and life weren't "cost effective" for the NHS.