Baby Charlie Gard's life

[skatesindreams]

^^^
How much "respect for life" does anyone who would support that really have?

eta. Latest update:
The baby has been granted "permanent residency" status.

 

[snoopy]

The GOP put this amendment....to grant Gard's family residency to allow their dying child to be experimented on....onto a bill designed to limit immigration.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/health/charlie-gard-us-residency/index.html

"If you don't fund my wall to keep out the brown people, this adorable baby dies."

The cynicism is mind-boggling.

They put a residency request for a white child on a bill to keep out brown children.

 

[AxelAnnie]

https://www.propublica.org/article/...of-murder-and-disputed-case-law-on-fetal-harm

Where addiction is not considered a disease and unsaid dad was not condemned for lacking same inability to be responsible?

Point 4

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/mike-...i-what-does-think-about-position-on-feticide/

Ditto

Other countries since we are not talking US
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24532694

And your own disgust at one of your daughters having one or more abortions?

Wow! That is a lot of creativity. I never said how they or I feel about my daughters' abortion....let alone my own views. You invented "disgust" from your imagination.

As to the links ....... involved the mother intentionally putting her child in harms way. Taking cocaine while pregnant. They should feel guilty.
The woman who was jailed for inducing an abortion...........I haven't a clue. I understand the law (as in I comprehend) but I haven't a clue what the evidence presented in court was.

Planned parenthood encompasses a plethora of issues, including public funding, aborting viable fetuses, and on and on.

The Gard's child's condition is genetic. I am going to take a leap here and assume they had no clue their genes could cause this kind of damage and heartbreak.

 

[ballettmaus]

ABC reported the story of parents whose son has a similar disease and who got the experimental treatment. According to the parents, the boy needs 8 machines to keep him alive. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/give-b...al-treatment-us-parents-son/story?id=48706715

I wonder, is the child really alive if he needs 8 machines to not die?

 

[Tinami Amori]

We might as well move this thread to PI, because this case is getting very political....and VERY incorrect.
The GOP put this amendment....to grant Gard's family residency to allow their dying child to be experimented on....onto a bill designed to limit immigration.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/health/charlie-gard-us-residency/index.html

"If you don't fund my wall to keep out the brown people, this adorable baby dies."
The cynicism is mind-boggling.

All that is nothing else but a Left wing red herring…

- The issue with Charlie Gard is about “sanctity of life” and “government's right to control one’s health issues” and not “race”. It ties into Conservative stands on abortions and the role of government..

- Conservative America almost uniformly stood up in defense of a Cuban "brown boy" Elian Gonzalez to remain in USA and to prevent his deportation to Cuba... while Liberals with soft lean towards "communist Cuba" insisted that "Cuba has a right to take back the child".

- In order to legitimately link Charlie Gard’s case to “racial issue” there must be a similar case of the same magnitude where a “colored/brown/non-european” child is involved and denied or not offered the same options. There is not such case.

- The Wall is also not about “race” but about the right of a sovereign country to protect its borders, prevent illegal entry, in some instances to reduce crime, and in case of Mexico linked to a specific need or lack of need for unskilled labor, and last but not least fair treatment of foreign residents of ALL races and countries of origin who applied for legal entry and waiting their turn.

- The need to place a Wall on the Mexican border has to do with the fact that majority of border offenses take place in that geographic location.

- The fact that illegal entry is committed by “brown people” is circumstantial due to demographics of Mexico and southern Central American countries. This is not different than measures to prevent Asian “anchor baby businesses” and scrutiny of Russian visas in the 1990’s due to high crime and mafia threats.

- A counter argument to the assumption that “this wall is to keep brown people out” is quite obvious: the Left/Dems specifically want “certain groups” to enter USA even illegally in hope to increase its voting base.

 

[snoopy]

The US legislature never passed anything wrt Elian Gonzalez. I wonder why.

While they were able to meet with the boy only once at the Miami Beach home of Barry University president Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, they journeyed to Washington and met with congressmen and Attorney General Janet Reno. After nine days of media coverage (during which Republican lawmakers acknowledged they did not have the votes to pass a bill to give González U.S. citizenship), they returned to Cuba to "a hero's welcome".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elián_González

 

[Vash01]

They put a residency request for a white child on a bill to keep out brown children.

That puts anyone opposing the bill in a tough situation- how dare you refuse treatment to a dying child?!

If this bill passes, does it mean the wall will be built with taxpayers' money?

 

[susan6]

If this bill passes, does it mean the wall will be built with taxpayers' money?

Mexico certainly isn't going to pay for it.

 

[Tinami Amori]

The US legislature never passed anything wrt Elian Gonzalez. I wonder why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elián_González

The point is many Republicans wanted to and were trying to keep him in USA..... "brown boy" that is.

This is what Clinton and Democrats authorized to do to a "brown boy"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8coERqw1O98

 

[AxelAnnie]

This thread is not about that!

 

[antmanb]

I couldn't have more contempt or disgust for the current administration in the US politicizing and exploiting a terminally ill child.

 

[Tinami Amori]

I couldn't have more contempt or disgust for the current administration in the US politicizing and exploiting a terminally ill child.

it is only your assumption that "current administration" is exploiting the situation. Conservatives are pro-life and it fits with their stands. Pope of Rome and other prominent people are advocating for the boy.

==

the bigger issue is Dr. Hirano examined the child, but the local doctors are "unconvinced". I suspect it could be "their egos" at work, hard to admit they were wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ain-unconvinced-flying-visit-us-neurosurgeon/

 

[AxelAnnie]

Why do the doctor's opinion get to overuse the parents.

 

[misskarne]

the bigger issue is Dr. Hirano examined the child, but the local doctors are "unconvinced". I suspect it could be "their egos" at work, hard to admit they were wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ain-unconvinced-flying-visit-us-neurosurgeon/

Or it could be that the American doctor cannot admit he was wrong...

Why do the doctor's opinion get to overuse the parents.

Because the parents are obviously too emotionally involved and too emotionally unstable to be making these decisions? Their son is clearly not going to survive and clearly does not have any quality of life, and he is in pain. All they are doing by this is prolonging his suffering, and the inevitable.

 

[WildRose]

the bigger issue is Dr. Hirano examined the child, but the local doctors are "unconvinced". I suspect it could be "their egos" at work, hard to admit they were wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ain-unconvinced-flying-visit-us-neurosurgeon/

Oh sure, one doctor who has no experience treating Charlie, and who only examined him once, is right, but multiple British specialists at a prestigious children's hospital, who have been looking after him since he was born, don't know what they are talking about.

 

[once_upon]

What does the US doctor get out of this? Also the article doesn't say that the treatment would actually have any outcome other than what's currently been stated. It says he COULD treat

What outcome if any would be achievable?
What is the U.S. doctor attempting to do?
What expectations do the parents have and are they realistic?

 

[Tinami Amori]

Oh sure, one doctor who has no experience treating Charlie, and who only examined him once, is right, but multiple British specialists at a prestigious children's hospital, who have been looking after him since he was born, don't know what they are talking about.

Well, here is info on the doctor. You can judge for yourself, he had positive results with other cases.
http://people.com/human-interest/us-doctor-michio-hirano-examining-charlie-gard/
https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/17/charlie-gard-treatment/

I don't have an opinion as to what is best. Yet, it seems that bringing the equipment in to UK would be better than moving the boy (if they decide to proceed).

 

[AxelAnnie]

Or it could be that the American doctor cannot admit he was wrong...



Because the parents are obviously too emotionally involved and too emotionally unstable to be making these decisions? Their son is clearly not going to survive and clearly does not have any quality of life, and he is in pain. All they are doing by this is prolonging his suffering, and the inevitable.

That is your opinion. I want to know legally. It doesn't work that way here...as far as I know. Just curious.

 

[misskarne]

That is your opinion. I want to know legally. It doesn't work that way here...as far as I know. Just curious.

The medical information that has been made public makes it pretty clear that this poor boy has no life and no future. He is existing, not living, and he is in pain. I imagine the doctors, who have access to more information than I do, are making the call based on their best judgement - that to keep Charlie alive is to prolong his suffering unnecessarily, with no hope of improvement and no chance that he can survive on his own.

Charlie is going to die. Whether it is this week, or in a month's time, he is going to die. Every minute he is kept alive artificially he is in pain. This American doctor cannot save him. The prayers of the Pope cannot save him. The idiotic bluster of the pro-life (pro-birth) movement cannot save him. The best gift of all to Charlie would be to let him rest in peace, and his parents supported to work their way through the grieving process.

 

[AxelAnnie]

All may or may not be accurate. But the child's welfare is in the hands of the parent. They are the ones who get to decide.

USA TODAY

By virtue of the deep bonds between parents and their children, Charlie’s parents are the ones most directly responsible for him, most invested in his well-being and most profoundly affected by his fate. The primary authority of parents to make decisions on their children’s behalf is widely recognized as a matter of principle and explicitly articulated in law. The United State Supreme Court has recognized the rights of parents in cases like Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Wisconsin v. Yoder. Likewise, the European Convention of Human Rights (Article 8) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12) recognize the right to be free from arbitrary interference in private and family life. By contrast, one of the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes is the elimination of genuine parental decision-making authority and family privacy.

 

[misskarne]

All may or may not be accurate. But the child's welfare is in the hands of the parent. They are the ones who get to decide.

To be brutally honest - they are making a decision that is adverse to Charlie's welfare. They are choosing to continue his suffering. They are fighting to keep him hooked up to machines that continue his painful existence every day. The decisions they are making are not in Charlie's best interest. The doctors are trying to be the voice that Charlie does not have.

Parents making decisions that inflict pain and suffering on their child, in the knowledge that this is what happens, would be called abusive in many other situations. How close to the line of abuse are we straying here, that they keep him hooked up to every machine just to keep him existing, when it is known he is in pain and will never recover?

 

[Willin]

What does the US doctor get out of this? Also the article doesn't say that the treatment would actually have any outcome other than what's currently been stated. It says he COULD treat

What outcome if any would be achievable?
What is the U.S. doctor attempting to do?
What expectations do the parents have and are they realistic?

Being at an academic medical center with many doctors doing innovative therapy, I have three ideas for why the doctor is going through on this.
1. He genuinely thinks it will improve quality of life
2. A massive, massive ego
3. Doing something so experimental in such a rare case would be really cool! (And, of course, it's totally for scientific study purposes *wink wink*)
Although, most of the docs doing things for option three do it because they genuinely think it can help the patient's condition and have expertise and other related research to back up their suspicion.

Following this case, it seems initially the parents had realistic expectations and goals - getting the treatment, or if that was denied, taking their child home to die and donating the money. As more and more people gave them hope and promise of treatment, their views have gotten more distorted. One source quoted them as saying they believe their son could live a normal life with the treatment. I think in a case like this, it's very immoral to give hope that the child's condition will improve, because short of miracle in the most literal sense, his condition won't improve.

Personally, I'm torn. I don't think he should get the experimental treatment because it won't help, and if by some miracle it works as intended, it will only prolong death, hurting him more. On the other hand, this disease is so rare that we should try to take advantage of opportunities to try new treatments. But, sadly, there will be more cases, so perhaps it would be better to try this treatment on future cases after more basic research on the treatment has been conducted.

 

[WildRose]

Here's an article that explains the legalities for people in the US:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/06/health/charlie-gard-us-laws/index.html

 

[antmanb]

All may or may not be accurate. But the child's welfare is in the hands of the parent. They are the ones who get to decide.

USA TODAY

The parents are not only the ones who get to decide and this has been explained upthread. That entire article should be torn up and thrown in the bin! Why would the author think that supreme court rulings of the US have any bearing on UK law? If they were bothered about presenting facts, they could find the leading cases in the UK that deal with this issue which examine all of the issues (including the ECHR one).

 

[Deleted member 1204]

But the child's welfare is in the hands of the parent. They are the ones who get to decide.

That's not entirely true. The parents are the surrogate decision-makers for the minor child and are assumed to act in the child's best interest. However, when the parents are deemed to not be acting in the child's best interest, the courts have an obligation to intervene. The child has rights too.

 

[AxelAnnie]

To be brutally honest - they are making a decision that is adverse to Charlie's welfare. They are choosing to continue his suffering. They are fighting to keep him hooked up to machines that continue his painful existence every day. The decisions they are making are not in Charlie's best interest. The doctors are trying to be the voice that Charlie does not have.

Parents making decisions that inflict pain and suffering on their child, in the knowledge that this is what happens, would be called abusive in many other situations. How close to the line of abuse are we straying here, that they keep him hooked up to every machine just to keep him existing, when it is known he is in pain and will never recover?

Not sure who you are being "brutally honest" with. But here are some facts.
The American Thinker - The Face of the Single Payer System.

Charlie Gard has a tube through his nose into his lungs, connected to a machine that breathes for him. He has all the latest electronics monitoring his status. But he is unable to provide any indication of his pleasure or pain at the process. He is dying from a horrendous genetic disease that robs his body of the ability to move, breathe, or respond.

No one knows if he is in pain.

And from the Daily Telegraph

GOSH describes experimental nucleoside therapies as "unjustified" and the treatment is not a cure.

The hospital's decision to go back into the courtroom came after two international healthcare facilities and their researchers contacted them to say they have "fresh evidence about their proposed experimental treatment".

"They wish to exhaust all possible options," Mr Gordon said in a written outline of Charlie's parents' case.

"They don't want to look back and think 'what if?'. This court should not stand in the way of their only remaining hope."
Lawyers, who represented Charlie's parents for free, said Mr Justice Francis had not given enough weight to Charlie's human right to life.

They said there was no risk the proposed therapy in the US would cause Charlie "significant harm".

There is no "Truth of the matter". No one "knows".

 

[AxelAnnie]

That's not entirely true. The parents are the surrogate decision-makers for the minor child and are assumed to act in the child's best interest. However, when the parents are deemed to not be acting in the child's best interest, the courts have an obligation to intervene. The child has rights too.

"Surrogate decision-makers" is a term I have never before heard, and certainly something that is not in play in the US. As far as I know the court can intervene if the parents withhold care (i.e. a transfusion). But not the other way around.

 

[AxelAnnie]

The parents are not only the ones who get to decide and this has been explained upthread. That entire article should be torn up and thrown in the bin! Why would the author think that supreme court rulings of the US have any bearing on UK law? If they were bothered about presenting facts, they could find the leading cases in the UK that deal with this issue which examine all of the issues (including the ECHR one).

This being one of the shortcomings of a Single Payer Health Care system.

 

[Japanfan]

This being one of the shortcomings of a Single Payer Health Care system.

So do you think a parent should be able to make a healthcare decision that would do harm to a child or other person unable to advocate on their own behalf?

Should there not be some checks and balances against that, even in a system without single payer care?

 

[Vash01]

I am in two minds. My heart goes out to the parents. They are (very understandably) emotional and not in a balanced state of mind. They may not be able to see what is best for their child and even for themselves. At some point letting go is the best thing to do for a loved one, but they cannot see that in their current state of mind.

The doctors have facts, based on their years of experience. I am not against trying new methods/techniques/medicines. If I were the court, I would let the parents to go ahead but not try to transport the baby to the USA. That sounds too risky (speaking as a non-medical professional, so I could be wrong). If somehow the equipment could be transported to the UK hospital to give Charlie (and his parents) one more chance, I am ok with it. May be they need to try this to accept the outcome. They need to get to that point, and not be forced into it. However, as long as there are outside influences, it will be hard for them to get there. I am wondering if they are consulting with a psychologist or a clergyman to bring their minds to find some balance in this excruciating situation?

If they are allowed to seek the experimental procedure-

It's hard to say at what point they should give up, or how long before they see any improvement. I do believe that the American doctor wants to help by trying his method, though he cannot say with certainty if it will work. I also believe that the U.K. Doctors are trying to help. As they say, Charlie may indeed be suffering a lot. If the new doctor somehow saves his life, though his quality of life may not be ideal, it seems his parents will take care of him, and it may help other babies with the same illness.

As I wrote at the outset, I am in two minds. I hurt for the parents but I feel they will need to let go, unless the experimental treatment truly helps and there are no false hope. They also need to see death as a step in the flow of life, though as a parent it will be extremely difficult. May be with time they could find peace. I think they will get there but right now they really want to try this. I think they should be allowed to, until they reach a certain point in their minds.