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

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: scojak
Considering how often medical opinions are wrong, I say # that.

If the parents want to, and can pay for it, that is their right.

I don't see how a medical facility can say, "sorry, we can't make your son better so we've decided to off him."

Sickening.

You can when you realize that it's socialized health care.

so right you are. I was talking to my father about this earlier today. he said he recalls several cases in Canada where patients were refused "permission" to leave the country to get help they could not get at home.

it seems under socialized medical care [I]they[/I] get to decide just who can get what help. what is even worse is that Canada is following the Nazis down the path of forced killing of those seen to be a drain of resources. Canada recently started to "allow" people to [I]die with dignity[/I] (ie assisted suicide). and already they are starting to work to convince patients that it would be better to die. as well as trying to convince those with relatives that are not deemed mentally competent to kill off the patient. one friend dealing with this was saying how they were saying how their relative was taking up bed space that could be used for someone else, and how much it was costing the medical system to care for them, and how that money is needed to help others. how long till they, like the Nazis turn it into the state decides who gets killed off with their say being final?

being someone with a congenital disease that is almost as bad minus the blindness, deafness and seizures i can say when you are young you don't mind such trouble and barely think about it, life is good despite everything and while you might wish for more when you get older and you aren't so happy, you still want to live more than anything, to the point you would do anything no matter how crazy it is or the risk involved.

why is everything being denied to this child under such a system when all his issues can be substituted with assistive devices and epilepsy can be treated or at least calmed down a bit, why are they denying even a chance to him?

i thought socialized health care was there to support even those with incurable diseases, not arbitrarily make "moral" decisions based on their own perception of how terrible such a life would be to them, just because they are too weak minded to understand that life is much more than what you can or can't do.

a reply to: namehere

being someone with a congenital disease that is almost as bad minus the blindness, deafness and seizures.........

Do you/did you also need breathing assistance because your lungs are/were paralyzed?

a reply to: generik

Socialized healthcare has saved many people's lives - and at much less cost.

a reply to: namehere

Actually socialized medicine is to cut out insurance company profits and allocate resources to where it can help the most.

Nothing is done in a vacuum..

Every dollar spent on a lost cause, is a dollar that will not be going to someone it could have actually helped..

Now that isn't saying a group of dr.s might not be wrong, but they are far more informed than the parents who have no medical training..

Life sux sometimes and there is no great option. Something's you have to take the lesser of 2 evils.

a reply to: windword

yes i breath with an ltv 900 ventilator because i had respiratory failure 16 years ago.

funny enough i found ats way back then due to becoming bed bound after i recovered from it(if you can call it recovery).

a reply to: generik

Who do you think decides here in America??

Politicians and bureaucrats..

You don't decide what services you get.. the insurance company board does or the hospital board..

I find that to be a false argument..

In no country do you decide your medical care. It is always decided by a room full of suits who's only concern is their bottom line.


Y'all really don't remember when insurance companies got caught denying OWED SEVICES FOR any surgery above a certain cost hoping that..

A) the patient wouldn't fight it.

B) would die before litigation.


We only get 2 options...

Trust the government or trust big buisness....

With big buisness profit is the only motivation with the government reelection is...

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: bastion

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

'Charlie’s brain, muscle and ability to breathe are all severely affected. In addition, Charlie has congenital deafness and a severe epilepsy disorder. Charlie's heart, liver and kidneys are also affected.1

Charlie has severe progressive muscle weakness and cannot move his arms or legs or breathe unaided.1

Charlie's eyelids cannot stay open and his eyes point in different directions because of muscular weakness. Charlie’s retina would struggle to develop and his brainwaves suggest that he is not going to be able to lay down normal visual patterns that should be learned at an early age. Eyesight is not something you’re born with, it develops over time.2 '
www.gosh.nhs.uk...

The full details are confidential due to it being medical but the doctors, nurses, healthcare specialists and three courtss are all unanimous that his condition is so bad that removing ventilation and allowing him to die is in his best interests. It's an incredibly rare if not unheard of ruling and isn't the kind of decision they can make without mountains of concrete evidence of suffering with no posibility of improvement.

after reading more about this i can see that it probably is best to remove life support, if he can't even get to live life however short with a clear mind.

originally posted by: namehere
after reading more about this i can see that it probably is best to remove life support, if he can't even get to live life however short with a clear mind.

That's not life... knowing all that... as a parent I'd probably let my child die rather than live as a vegetable.

It'd break my heart but that's not life.

a reply to: bastion

so hes not brain dead then. Thats about what i got from that quote.

what is "severely affected" ?

we KNOW that exogenous cannabinoids completely halt seizures...so that takes care of the epilepsy

cannabis also interacts in marvelous ways with the cardio vascular system. This is KNOWN.

progressive muscle weakness can be greatly improved by manual and electro therapy.

What im seeing as theyre throwing everything they got out there to make the case that hes not worth saying when any one of those things by themselves would not be a big deal but by lumping them all together in a group they appear to be trying to make the case that its just TOO MANY things wrong with the child.

Not buying it.

I am all but certain they havent tried cannabis, saunas, red light therapy, UV light therapy, and probably none of the cocktails of supplements/chemicals known to rejuvenate mitochondrial function like PQQ.

I'd like to stress here, in case it has gone over anyone's head, that Charlie Gard's condition is terminal.

There is no treatment, let alone a cure.

Even the US clinic where the parents want to take him have stated that they can't alleviate the child's condition or improve his prospects.

a reply to: audubon

says the people who also say cannabis has no medicinal value.....along with a host of other natural herbs and spices.

a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

i understand that after reading about the full extent of his condition, far worse than i first thought and i feel thankful i will never have to suffer much beyond heart failure with my disease, if i'm lucky i've got 5 to 6 years left and at least i will be able to experience it.

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: audubon

says the people who also say cannabis has no medicinal value.....along with a host of other natural herbs and spices.

If you think that turning a life-support incubator into an oversized pot-pourri of household condiments can alter the genetic structure of a dying person, I recommend you set up your own clinic, which shouldn't cost much, and then sit back and watch as the punters roll in.

The kids dead. Gone deceased.

There is # all anyone can do. Even the doctor who does the experimental treatment has stated Charlie is to far gone.

But the parents should be the ones to decide not the government.

The Government has decided nothing. The medics have refused to allow the parents to inflict unnecessary harm on their child. And the courts agree, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.

Which is more likely: That the medics and the courts are all wrong, or that what the parents want to do is, well, wrong?

There is only one answer. These parents have a chance, albeit a very slim chance.... but do we doom them to a life of "What If". Do we subject them to a life of everyday dwelling relentlessly on it..... or let them be at peace with themselves knowing they did everything they could.
There is only one answer.......

a reply to: DBCowboy

There ISN'T ANY help in the US for the child or any "experimental treatment" that has any chance of working. The courts stopping the parents from removing the child from hospital and thus putting his life in even more jeopardy is non-negotiable.