Charlie Gard- State decides or parents?

Cliff

The problem with that statement is that you have given one set of doctors working at GOSH the right to decide. Now there are other doctors who think there might be a small chance.  I don't know who is right, and no one knows 100%. But that is not my beef.

It went to court and the state won. The parents have lost all rights. They would be breaking the law if they took their baby to another hospital.

I don't believe any miracle is going to happen, but when you consider that the GOSH / judges verdict is death anyway, Charlie's parents should have the right to try for that 1% chance.   And jargon such as his welfare, if death is the result, is frankly preposterous.

krish

Cliff you're still clearly running with this state vs parents thing which I don't see at all.

paul1979

I really feel that the parents and child have been through the mill on this. I believe all options must be excluded and l options tried. As to my limited understanding the hospital have voiced the child is in pain yet the parents note lack of pain relief? The hospital note he does not open his eyes when a pic shows he does and can! My guess is the hospital do not believe in the treatment and feel it is needless. I don't know. I do however understand that hospitals can get it wrong. I feel the parents need to try!

Cliff

Ah, the mysteries of being a parent. (Even if I didn't have children I would still be outraged)

For me, the state taking ownership and deciding, is the issue. Plain and simple. It is not so much as which doctors are right- and my own opinion- which you might find contrary to my argument, is that I suspect the GOS doctors know better that this baby has no hope.
But at the risk of repeating myself, the parents should chose what to do- as there are differing medical opinions. It should be their choice what to do with their flesh and blood. Not the state.

krish

Cliff, how is this state overreach, as you see it, also not being committed by other professionals when dealing with children at 'risk' (health/abuse/extremism/dodgy schools etc)?

Please note, I am in no way comparing Charlie's parents, and as you've gone beyond this case into overarching issues, I'm just trying to understand what the "state taking ownership and deciding" exactly encompasses in your view.

paul1979

Does this not mean the state dictating what you do with your children? Amidst confusion of what is right and wrong and what may or may not work the state has gone and took all decisions from the parent? Idk? I know health professionals can be wrong.

The Ashya King case where the child was taken from Southampton General Hospital exemplifies professional misjudgment. A 2015 report stated that King's parents' decision to deny their child chemotherapy [and seek proton beam therapy] had reduced his chances of survival by 30 percent yet he is now clear and back at school for and well! Indeed the uk is now investing in proton therapy.

Equally I know the parents wanted 3 month to try. Ironically they could have done this in the time spent in the courts. Personally given the parents are seeking no funds from the hospital as merely opportunity to try do not understand why this would be blocked. What if it works? For me there is a lot f ambiguity and the parents should be able to seek all available and viable means to save or support their child!

As a parent my decision is may he bias in what I feel should be done. That said I feel health professionals stick the noses in too much and far to easy at times. I say this as a nurse myself as I whiteness frustration often.

I may totally be wrong. If so I apologise. It's a divisive case. All I really know is they have a reported 1/10 [conservative] chance that progress can be made. For a chance on life I would take that.

IronGiant

If there was that chance I'd agree with you.  Unfortunately I fear that is vastly overoptimistic.  

I will say again I have previously said I believe they should be allowed to try this on compassionate grounds so long as they are given a realistic assessment of the likely outcome.

paul1979

The issue is that in a system such as USA where the system is very different and money is offered there is a chance of inflated optimism or false hope. As such a realistic chance is hard to assess as real?

IronGiant

The GOSH team have given a realistic assessment, which is why they don't want him to go.  The American doctor is offering a faint hope, which, having been presented I believe they should be allowed to take, just for their peace of mind, even though I personally believe it will achieve nothing.

PS, nothing would make me happier than to be proved wrong

Unlucky Alf

What makes you think they haven't been given a realistic outcome? They've been in all the court hearings, and must have heard lots of info from he doctors.

Unfortunately, they do seem to have retreated into a state of pure delusion. Quotes about wanting to see him ride a bike, for example. Even in the very best case, that'll never happen.