It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Courts and parents at odds: Should dying British baby be brought to U.S. for help?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

And who could make that kind of decision without going a little insane?
If I could have just one wish it would be that no parent ever buries a child.
It's so unfair so tragic so very very sad.




posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
If the parents have the cash to get special treatment, it should be their decision, but really they need to let the child go in this case. Its just prolonging suffering.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Can they get a life support system to transport him home with? I'm sure doctors and nurses would volunteer to stay with the family and ease the passing as much as possible if they can get him home. If that's the case then of course he should be allowed to die at home.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv


Again, it's not for you to say. When it becomes your kid, you can decide how to kill it and when the suffering is too much. Remember, every time your child gets ill, he or she will be suffering.


I don't have a say in what happens to this or any other person's child. I am speaking my opinion, just like you are.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Again, there is the money they raised to transport him overseas.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I'm going to ask you the same question:

The decision over whether or not they could try the experimental therapy is now over and done with. Charlie will die.

Now the parents want to take him home for the first and only time to die there, but the doctors won't even allow this. Charlie's parents can't even take him home on palliative care to die.

What's the reason for that? What does it matter where he dies? Will pain meds work less well at home?


He can't survive off life support and is already suffering terribly, while the parents may get some comfort taking him home, the journey cause far greater pain and suffering before it eventually kills him. Doctors have a duty of care so ccan't ethically or professionally discharge a patient into substandard care.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
But... this is socialized healthcare. How is he in any way, shape or form sick? No one gets sick with government controlled healthcare, right?

Right?

(crickets)

And why do the parents want to go to the USA for potential treatment?

Wierd.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Again, my understanding was that it wasn't enough to get a life support system.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I'm going to ask you the same question:

The decision over whether or not they could try the experimental therapy is now over and done with. Charlie will die.

Now the parents want to take him home for the first and only time to die there, but the doctors won't even allow this. Charlie's parents can't even take him home on palliative care to die.

What's the reason for that? What does it matter where he dies? Will pain meds work less well at home?


He can't survive off life support and is already suffering terribly, while the parents may get some comfort taking him home, the journey cause far greater pain and suffering before it eventually kills him. Doctors have a duty of care so ccan't ethically or professionally discharge a patient into substandard care.


What part of "he's dying" do we not understand?

The function of palliative care is to keep a person from suffering while they pass away. We have all established, even the doctors, that this will happen to Charlie. So pump him full of meds and send the kid home. If he passes sooner because they moved him, so be it. I thought this was now the goal? To let him die? But now the doctors won't let him go because they are worried he will die sooner?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion

in what way is he suffering? what scientific evidence has been submitted to make this a matter of fact?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

Again, my understanding was that it wasn't enough to get a life support system.


They raised money for full transport over the ocean. There wasn't enough for life support for that maybe, but he's no longer going overseas anymore in a medivac plane. So that cuts some substantial cost.

What kind of life support will cost over a million, because I heard they had raised over a million for it.

Not only that, but part of Charlie dying is removing his life support. So he only needs it to get home.
edit on 4-7-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Assuming they can keep the child comfirable at game, they should absolutely let them. That doesn't effect any of the issues I had with the situation. That being resources that WOULD help someone else being thrown away on a lost cause and the parents deciding a blind , deaf, paralyzed kid with intense seizures and who is in constant pain with no chance for recovery. Should stay in constant pain because they can't let the kid go.



I'm guessing the kid was in such bad shape the dr.s don't think the parents can provide adequate hospice and keep the kid comfortable..


You never answered the question..



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

you point out some of the obvious hypocrisy and total lack of basic reasoning in display by these wretches of humanity.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If they raised over a million to take him overseas, then they should be able to provide palliative care at home.

You are asking if I would want to live like that? You are asking from a flawed perspective. You have known something else. Charlie never would have. How can you know? Yes, if you or I suddenly become blind, deaf, and dumb it would be living in Metallica's "One," but then, we've known something else in life.

Charlie never would have, so we can't know what would go in inside his mind.

It's like assuming that a kid who has always been blind is at a terrible disadvantage because you know what it's like to be sighted.
edit on 4-7-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: szino9

I agree..

Everyone says "the parents should choose!"

And if it were my kid I would want to..

But in reality parents are not doctors and are by far the least logical people when our kids are concerned.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: windword

The parents raised the money, the hospitals, courts stepped in and denied them the chance to treat their child.

Are you okay with that?


I think that Trump is punting that family's tragedy and their fragile state around like a political football, when he should be concentrating on the lives of American babies that are at risk with his TrumpDon'tCare health plan. I agree with medical professional, that it's inhumane to artificially keep him alive, using his life for experimentation.


He is blind and deaf, and he cannot breathe or move on his own. He suffers from persistent epileptic seizures.


It doesn't surprise me at all that the Vatican hospital wants to take him. The Vatican wants to force women to carry all severely stricken fetuses to birth, regardless of the amount of suffering imposed on the infant and the family.


edit on 4-7-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: tribal

This version is so rare that only 16 babies the world over have this condition.
I'm not trying to play doctor here . I just think maybe these guys know more than us.
And again the courts are not just making a wild decision. They rely on the medical community to give them everything they need to do it. The courts are not saying turn off life support.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Absolutely..

Though the million they raised could have probably saved a dozen savable lives..

But if they can keep the kid comfortable then why not??

At this point it sounds like keeping the parents as comfortable as possible is the only win here.
edit on 4-7-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna

It should never be a decision that depends on available cash.
If the child can be saved at any expense it should be done. If the parents can't pay the government can.
In this case a kings ransom would not be enough.

Only a miracle can save him.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

ive been around too many doctors that were certain they were doing the right thing and screwed everything up. It happens more than people realize.

www.washingtonpost.com... m=.5dfcd5bf9fd9



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join