This is what I disagree with on the grounds that you seem to be trying to make the case that the courts are biased in favor of the doctors not the parents.
That is an effect of the legal system not a cause - that being imperical evidence, knowledge and expertise is considered as having a higher value than anecdotes, hearsay and wishful thinking because that is how our legal system works or at least is supposed to.
It's almost as though you hold the doctors responsible for following their legal duty according to the law, then not keeping quiet and withholding evidence and expertise from the courts because the evidence and expertise influences the decision.
I can't argue against that in terms of you have the perfect right to hold that opinion. I disagree with your opinion, but you certainly have the right to it.
Hmm just saw this thread. Well we all know the outcome, I personally feel they should have been allowed as quickly as possibly to go to America and try the treatment, based on the fact Doctors are never always right in every situation, like giving people life expectancies years too short or claiming people will never walk again when they do..
Nature is the be all and end all fact! Nothing is more powerful, if the parents wanted to try the treatment and had the money then they should have been given the chance I think.
It's all over now.The treatment would never have worked and even the Doctor who would have administered it has admitted it under oath, while also confessing he's paid by the company that makes it.
Just when we thought its all over..... there is a dispute between the doctors and the parents about where Charlie should die. The parents want to take him back home for a few days and then turn the machines off. They have offered to pay for nurses etc. I am sure it will help them through the grieving process and there will be more 'closure'.
Anyway, the doctors have agreed in principle but said no. They say, the life support machine won't go through their front door.
We think of the state as some sort of inanimate body that makes boring impartial decisions based on the laws of the land.
But the cracks in this facade are showing, and in spite of spending tens of thousands on a court case they can't see a way around a normal front door. The family lawyer has accused the hospital of putting obstacles in the way. I won't comment. You can draw your own conclusions.
Do they have a family lawyer?Or do you mean their new legal representative who took the case in October?
Sure, let him go home, but taking the hospital ventilator with them probably isn't that trivial.
The family lawyer is a Mr Armstrong. But it was the parents and family who accused the hospital of putting obstacles in the way. It may well go to court again as both sides are at loggerheads.
What a farce!
It has, the judge will decide tomorrow. It sounds like the same impasse that was there when they first wanted to take Charlie home to die.I feel really sorry for them.
Not going home then, to a Hospice.
I did a double take then, as I thought my fat fingers clicked on the EU migrants thread. At least there's one, inadvertent, chuckle from this thread.
No chuckles here, it's a sad, sad thing.Not condoning your chuckle though, BTW.
The judge would like Charlie to go to a Hospice tomorrow so that he can have palliative care only. The parents are trying to get a full care team on board so they can keep Charlie on a ventilator, so on it drags.