OP
OP
UK Baby Charlie Gard - Various Facts
- Thread starter shyvas
- Start date
The courts decided the issue in accordance with what they thought, or believed, or judged would be "in Charlie's best interests". They cannot know what Charlie himself would want, and for that matter, neither can I. I know that the long-standing taboos against suicide or euthanasia (for humans) are now openly debated. Several states and nations have legalized or decriminalized this, and quite a few people have exercised that option- sometimes publicly stating before their death that they were glad it was available to them.
Many argued that Charlie's parents were too emotionally distraught to be able to judge clearly what was best for Charlie, and maybe they were. But disability rights groups such as "Not Dead Yet" have long been suspicious of those who argue that some people are better off dead.
Many argued that Charlie's parents were too emotionally distraught to be able to judge clearly what was best for Charlie, and maybe they were. But disability rights groups such as "Not Dead Yet" have long been suspicious of those who argue that some people are better off dead.
Last edited:
Where do we draw the line at what constitutes euthanasia? Not that many years ago babies would simply die without the available machinery. I suppose one day we will be able to keep people breathing indefinitely with life support.
This case is no more tragic than the thousands of others that go unnoticed everyday. It's more the oddness, the one in a billion, that got it this attention.
Where are the pleas, the fundraisers, the president, for the ones who slip away unnoticed where there are drugs and procedures that have been proven, but are not available to the parents?
This case is no more tragic than the thousands of others that go unnoticed everyday. It's more the oddness, the one in a billion, that got it this attention.
Where are the pleas, the fundraisers, the president, for the ones who slip away unnoticed where there are drugs and procedures that have been proven, but are not available to the parents?
OP
OP
That's a mis-characterization of what happened. Charlie's doctors made a determination that his suffering was being unnecessarily prolonged by keeping him on life support. His parents wanted him kept on life support. In GB, as in the U.S., when there's a disagreement about care, the dispute ends up in court.
What alternative do you suggest? Do you also think that parents' rights to make treatment decisions are absolute when they decide to not allow a child to receive basic life saving medical care, such as a blood transfusion?
Maybe somebody even considers how many innocent children who are threatened with famine in Sudan at the moment might be saved with the amount of money and support raised for poor baby Charlie Gard...
How to donate: South Sudan famine and Somalia, Yemen and Nigeria food crises
How to donate: South Sudan famine and Somalia, Yemen and Nigeria food crises
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
I believe that in some countries you have to write out your last wishes in the event of the above situation. It prevents someone else having to make the choice for you.
I definitely would not want to be on a life support machine if brain damaged or unable to move.
As much as I'd to agree, I can't, because there are far too many cases of parents making selfish decisions. Is it really alright to cause suffering and prolong an unmanageable situation really ok just because intentions were good, and they're the parents?
Many times the situation is reversed, where parents want no treatment in cases where it's known to be needed and can save a life. In the cases where babies would die at their parents request your argument of parental choice would also hold true
peacefulveglady
Forum Legend
I have mixed feelings i think its so upsetting to see a party fighting for this baby but yet they want to cut the affordable care act and hurt many struggling Americans. My thoughts was the baby was too far gone for help and that is why the hospital didn't want to move him because it was better he stayed put , he wouldn't be around any much longer which he isn't now.
I couldn't read all of this, because it conjured up too many still raw emotions.
However, I think it's an extremely valuable read, especially for those who have never seen this kind of suffering first hand, and for those who believe that "life", no matter the quality of that life, trumps all.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
People should have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. It's up to the individual whether to pursue treatment or not. I actually think euthansia should be legal for people like it is for pets (and it is in some states). In the case of young kids, that right goes to the parents unless they are deemed unfit. The final say shouldn't be up to doctors, courts, government, etc. Since from what I understand his parents raised the money through donations to bring him to the US, they should have been able to do so. I realize there are areas of gray with my way of thinking but basically if the parents are fit, it should be their choice. If the child is old enough to understand what is going on and have an opinion, then I think their choice should be the final one. (A few years ago a local girl of 12 years old made the decision she didn't want to fight anymore against 2 horrible, incurable diseases and her parents honored that decision). What about all the kids diagnosed with incurable cancers whose parents raise the funds and take them all over the world for the latest experimental treatment? Should we tell them they can't take one last chance to save their kid or buy them more time? This sort of thing happens more than people might realize. I follow several such pages of kids like this on Facebook. The choice should belong to the parents (and child if old enough to make those decisions).
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
That's why I said if the parents are fit. If it's a case where medical treatment would heal their child but they think all doctors are the devil/want to cure their kid by chanting or praying only/think coconut oil can cure them (because it cures everything from what I read on the Internet), I don't consider them fit parents. But what about the case of a kid old enough to understand who wants to try just one more experimental treatment and so do their parents? It's not the government's or court's place to tell them no.
I've followed this case quite closely and from quite early on as the parents live close to me I and have friends of friends know the family.
Great Ormond Street is arguably the leading children's hospital in the UK. It's run by a combination of the NHS and a charity. GOSH withdrew treatment as they believed that it was prolonging his pain and not ethical to continue to treat him.
The 'experimental treatment' hasn't ever been tried on someone with his condition - it hasn't even been tried on a mouse with his condition (animal testing arguments aside). In similar conditions it's had a 10% success rate, and is not a cure - it just reduces symptoms. I don't think it was ethical for Dr. Hirano to exploit the parents by giving them false hope, - want to take their money, and then somehow try and get a very sick young child across the ocean. When the therapy was offered, the doctor hadn't even seen Charlie or read all of his records. He has apparently admitted to having a 'financial interest' in the drug.
Anyways, there are no winners in this situation. It's a sad case, I understand why the parents would fight to the end.
Great Ormond Street is arguably the leading children's hospital in the UK. It's run by a combination of the NHS and a charity. GOSH withdrew treatment as they believed that it was prolonging his pain and not ethical to continue to treat him.
The 'experimental treatment' hasn't ever been tried on someone with his condition - it hasn't even been tried on a mouse with his condition (animal testing arguments aside). In similar conditions it's had a 10% success rate, and is not a cure - it just reduces symptoms. I don't think it was ethical for Dr. Hirano to exploit the parents by giving them false hope, - want to take their money, and then somehow try and get a very sick young child across the ocean. When the therapy was offered, the doctor hadn't even seen Charlie or read all of his records. He has apparently admitted to having a 'financial interest' in the drug.
Anyways, there are no winners in this situation. It's a sad case, I understand why the parents would fight to the end.