Charlie Gard- State decides or parents?

Cliff

Tragic situation. He is being kept alive at Great Ormond Street. The UK doctors want to switch off the machines so he dies. This has been upheld by British courts. The parents don't have any say? They can't take the own son back home to die.
Let's put aside the cost argument. Also let's put aside the 'sensible' decision that we, as a 3rd party can say coldly, he has no hope, let's switch off the machines, its better for all. They have raised 1.4 million pounds and want to take him to America for treatment. It will probably be fruitless but is that the decision for the state?

It is the parents child! There is a bond.  Surely they should have the choice what to do. Why does the state take ownership? The parents will suffer the grief.

domtheone

In general, the state has too much power/authority over us already so,  If they've raised the cash and want to go, they should be able to go.

I'm generally in favour of euthanasia, letting the family have the final say (with guidance) on etc etc.

Jezza99

It's a difficult one. I think the courts are saying that taking him the the States will only extend his suffering, and therefore it is in the best interests of the child not to go.

I can understand that reasoning. I don't get not being allowed to take him home though, that seems a bit strong.

Iain42

Seems that in death, as well as life, the state interferes too much.

Yes, it is correct that the doctors and courts make their decision. However it is wrong that the state can prevent the American option being pursued, even though the chances of success are probably small.

As long as the child doesn't suffer, at least then the parents will know that they tried everything. Why take that away from them?

IronGiant

That is the crux though, the doctors think he is suffering unnecessarily as there is nothing further to be done and that taking him to America will prolong that suffering.

So in essence, strip away the medical condition and the State is making this an issue of child cruelty.

I'm not taking sides, i think the issues are too complex to get involved based on the small amount of information we have from the media.

Stuey1

I agree with this, it's not too long ago since a child was taken from a hospital so a family could get them treated and they were arrested. I believe that child was eventually declared cancer free (if the state had their way this would likely have been very different), this case may be different as I haven't read into it much but if the family think there is a chance of the treatment working (and presumably doctors in the US also do), and it can be funded I think they should be allowed a chance to save their child.

The "experts" aren't always right

Blitzkrieg

There are only 16 people on planet earth with this disease. It's not like cancer or Alzheimer's where there's an endless supply of test subjects to experiment on. It's vital he goes not only for the small hope he has, but also for medical advancement. If we keep letting these folks die without experimenting on them then we'll never find a prevention or cure.

IronGiant

I thought parallels would probably be drawn, as on the face of it the two cases are similar.  All I would say is that I have no doubt Charlie's doctors are painfully aware of the precedent and that they are in the limelight.  It would be very easy to just say "let him go", yet they are not.

Blitzkrieg

I agree with that Asher someone's case where his parents kidnapped him and took for experimental treatment. His doctors gave him weeks to live and he's still alive now after experimental treatment. Those dr who said he was doomed are also still adamant that going for the treatment was still the wrong choice if I had the power, I strike those drs of the medical register

IronGiant

With all due respect, I don't think you are medically qualified enough to make that statement.