Baby Charlie Gard's life

[WildRose]

Interesting that so many Americans think money is the issue. It isn't of course, but it certainly shows the difference in healthcare systems.

 

[Japanfan]

The WaPo opinion AxelAnnie linked to stated the opinion that a parents' motive is the most pure.

Pure needs to be carefully defined. In this case, I would say it means putting the interests of a person who is sick/injured/otherwise in a bad state first.

That's hard for a parent to do. Parents have an emotional investment in their children. It's hard to let go of that.

 

[hanca]

He is a psychiatrist....and a a man who is articulate, has a strong moral compass and a rather unique ability to get to the core of an issue as well as to separate his opinion and personal beliefs from his analysis of an issue.

He has strong moral compass? And you make this assumption based on what? Because he is a psychiatrist? So in your view, all psychiatrists have strong moral compass? What about other doctors, do they all have strong moral compass, or is it just psychiatrists?

 

[skatesindreams]

Unless Charlie Gard has psychiatric issues, AA; that doctor is hardly qualified to speak about his condition, IMO.

 

[AxelAnnie]

He has strong moral compass? And you make this assumption based on what? Because he is a psychiatrist? So in your view, all psychiatrists have strong moral compass? What about other doctors, do they all have strong moral compass, or is it just psychiatrists?

Really? Gersh. The fact that he is a psychriatist has had a to do with this. What a ridiculous conclusion. I have been reading his column and listening to him on tv for years. Just as he did here
..he brings insight to a complicated issue

 

[AxelAnnie]

The WaPo opinion AxelAnnie linked to stated the opinion that a parents' motive is the most pure. Also from the Op-Ed:




Reading that, I wonder if the parents' motive for keeping Charlie alive really is pure or if it's merely selfish.

It said most pure usually.

 

[ballettmaus]

It said most pure usually.

So, are you saying that in this case, the parents' motive isn't pure?

 

[Lorac]

Death threats sent to Great Ormond Street staff:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40691478

This is unacceptable IMOH as GOSH staff are totally devoted to the welfare of the children in their care and to be threatened by people who are being wiped up into a frenzy by a tiny sub-set of activists is awful.

 

[allezfred]

He is a psychiatrist....and a a man who is articulate, has a strong moral compass and a rather unique ability to get to the core of an issue as well as to separate his opinion and personal beliefs from his analysis of an issue.

He is not qualified. End of. Period.

 

[MsZem]

He is a psychiatrist....and a a man who is articulate, has a strong moral compass and a rather unique ability to get to the core of an issue as well as to separate his opinion and personal beliefs from his analysis of an issue.

Read: the unique ability to say what you think, but with an MD after his name.

I don't believe that a psychiatrist is uniquely qualified to discuss Charlie Gard's condition. In fact, I can think of few medical specialties that would be of less relevance to him. Nor does being board-certified in psychiatry confer expertise in medical ethics. Certainly Krauthammer is entitled to his opinion, but I see no reason to privilege it above other points of view.

 

[skatesindreams]

AA, to imply that only the physician whose views you approve has a "strong moral compass", is an insult to all of the medical professionals who have been taking care of the baby since his birth; as well as the legal team charged with addressing this case!

 

[LilJen]

- 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.

So if the wall is NOT to keep brown people out, why aren't we worried about people entering through our lengthy NORTHERN border? Plenty of people entering there, but I'm guessing they are mostly wealthy Asians and white people, not poor Hispanics.

That to me shows that the wall on our southern border is largely about race and class.

<back to the topic>

 

[misskarne]

He is a psychiatrist....and a a man who is articulate, has a strong moral compass and a rather unique ability to get to the core of an issue as well as to separate his opinion and personal beliefs from his analysis of an issue.

Of course, he only has a "strong moral compass" because he agrees with your point of view.

He's a psychiatrist. He is completely irrelevant to this discussion. (Not to mention, he's a TV psychiatrist? Whoop, that gets even better...)

 

[Japanfan]

Of course, he only has a "strong moral compass" because he agrees with your point of view.

He's a psychiatrist. He is completely irrelevant to this discussion. (Not to mention, he's a TV psychiatrist? Whoop, that gets even better...)

This. A neurologist would be relevant, as she/he would might at least have knowledge of brain processes related to pain - pediatric neurologist and/or a specialist on infant brains would be best.

Psychiatrists of this kind bother me to no end, as do the people who treat them as experts.

I remember that one television network had Doctor Phil go down to New Orleans during the flood, to explain to the audience what the people of New Orleans were going through.

When the people there themselves were the experts on what they were going through.

 

[VGThuy]

So if the wall is NOT to keep brown people out, why aren't we worried about people entering through our lengthy NORTHERN border? Plenty of people entering there, but I'm guessing they are mostly wealthy Asians and white people, not poor Hispanics.

That to me shows that the wall on our southern border is largely about race and class.

<back to the topic>

Not to mention the whole Chinese Exclusion Act and other limits on Asian immigration also had racist motivations.

 

[Japanfan]

So if the wall is NOT to keep brown people out, why aren't we worried about people entering through our lengthy NORTHERN border? Plenty of people entering there, but I'm guessing they are mostly wealthy Asians and white people, not poor Hispanics.

That to me shows that the wall on our southern border is largely about race and class.

The refugees and immigrants who do make it here want to stay here, particularly in light of the current political climate. Plus, the numbers of refugees entering Canada from the US this year has been unusually high.

We have welcomed many from Syria. Our PM made quite a show of it, his position being that "Canada welcomes those fleeing terror and persecution". He made a big show of welcoming Syrian refugees.

There was one man from the Sudan who lost all his fingers due to frostbite making the crossing, and he seemed to think that a fair price to pay for living in Canada. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Huh . .? What does that have to do with the topic .?

 

[Japanfan]

Apologies for thread drift.

 

[Angelskates]

Our pets are treated with more dignity than this poor child, who is being made to continue suffering so he can be a political pawn and give his parents false hope. Nothing moral about it.

 

[becca]

I was horrified with in the previous hearing you had their doctor saying no hopes but folks saying let's experiment anyway.

I don't know if I would want all kinds of treatment if it were my little one.

However I am super uncomfortable with the STATE being the final say makers especially since the parents say they only want to try for a few months they are not talking years.

 

[Lorac]

I was horrified with in the previous hearing you had their doctor saying no hopes but folks saying let's experiment anyway.

I don't know if I would want all kinds of treatment if it were my little one.

However I am super uncomfortable with the STATE being the final say makers especially since the parents say they only want to try for a few months they are not talking years.

But it is the High Court that is being asked to review all the evidence and make a decision - not the Government which is what I assume you mean by STATE. The Government has absolutely no hand in this decision - as it should be. I would also not be sure that the parents only want to try for a few months and that is one of the things the courts have to take into account - whether it is going to cause Charlie more harm than good being used as a human guinea pig - which is what is really being suggested here.

There are no winners here - it is a sad situation.

 

[skatesindreams]

According to the medical experts, Charlie will continue to be able to "feel pain" as these "procedures" continue.
How can his parents believe that they are acting in his "best interests", if that is true?

When will a decision be made in the case?
Whatever it is, I doubt that the parents will accept it; since they have already been protesting/leaving the courtroom whenever they hear testimony which is distressing, or with which they disagree.

 

[Winnipeg]

Side note......there is no profession that guarantees a strong moral compass. Sad but true.

Recall the psychiatrist in girl with the dragon tattoo although fiction, it gives a fairly realistic possibility.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Side note......there is no profession that guarantees a strong moral compass. Sad but true.

Recall the psychiatrist in girl with the dragon tattoo although fiction, it gives a fairly realistic possibility.

True. A moral compass comes from within a person.

 

[AxelAnnie]

According to the medical experts, Charlie will continue to be able to "feel pain" as these "procedures" continue.
How can his parents believe that they are acting in his "best interests", if that is true?

When will a decision be made in the case?
Whatever it is, I doubt that the parents will accept it; since they have already been protesting/leaving the courtroom whenever they hear testimony which is distressing, or with which they disagree.

Please provide a link to support your assertion about what Charlie feels.

 

[becca]

But it is the High Court that is being asked to review all the evidence and make a decision - not the Government which is what I assume you mean by STATE. The Government has absolutely no hand in this decision - as it should be. I would also not be sure that the parents only want to try for a few months and that is one of the things the courts have to take into account - whether it is going to cause Charlie more harm than good being used as a human guinea pig - which is what is really being suggested here.

There are no winners here - it is a sad situation.

High court represents the government.

The parents seem to think the treatment may help. A little so does the one doctor from the US the doctor is from Columbia not exactly a quack. He also says we don't know if Charlie is in pain.

Look I think GOSH is likely right but I am reluctant having someone other than family make that call.

Not to mention quality of live questions can be used against the disabled. Which is another reason I am concerned about the potential of abuse. Look Charlie's advocate is a assisted suicide supporter.

 

[Lorac]

High court represents the government.

The parents seem to think the treatment may help. A little so does the one doctor from the US the doctor is from Columbia not exactly a quack. He also says we don't know if Charlie is in pain.

Look I think GOSH is likely right but I am reluctant having someone other than family make that call.

Not to mention quality of live questions can be used against the disabled. Which is another reason I am concerned about the potential of abuse. Look Charlie's advocate is a assisted suicide supporter.

No - the High Court does not represent the government here in the UK - it is totally separate.

The parents want the treatment to help - so yes they will argue that they think it will help but as has been seen any time evidence is produced in court which does not support their belief they storm out of court. The court is representing the child here - as he cannot represent himself. If the parents are seen to not be acting in the child's best interests that happens - both here and I suspect in the USA as well.

And who is it that you are saying is an assisted suicide supporter? This is not an argument about assisted suicide - which is a totally separate argument and is currently illegal here in the UK. This is not the same issue at all.

 

[hanca]

High court represents the government.

The parents seem to think the treatment may help. A little so does the one doctor from the US the doctor is from Columbia not exactly a quack. He also says we don't know if Charlie is in pain.

Look I think GOSH is likely right but I am reluctant having someone other than family make that call.

Not to mention quality of live questions can be used against the disabled. Which is another reason I am concerned about the potential of abuse. Look Charlie's advocate is a assisted suicide supporter.

High court doesn't represent the government. High court represents the law. Government and law are two different things. If government and law were the same things, your president would not be losing every time someone takes him to court.

 

[Willin]

High court represents the government.

The parents seem to think the treatment may help. A little so does the one doctor from the US the doctor is from Columbia not exactly a quack. He also says we don't know if Charlie is in pain.

Look I think GOSH is likely right but I am reluctant having someone other than family make that call.

Not to mention quality of live questions can be used against the disabled. Which is another reason I am concerned about the potential of abuse. Look Charlie's advocate is a assisted suicide supporter.

Just because he's not a quack doesn't mean he's telling the truth or not making crazy claims. We also don't know how much he actually sees living patients vs. how much time he focuses on research. There are some MDs that focus heavily on research and therefore rarely see patients at all, so they may not know the current everyday standards of medical care. (Also, just because he's a doctor at a prestigious institution doesn't mean he isn't a quack - look at Dr. Oz, also a professor at Columbia)
Right now, even medical sciences are short on funding, and treatments like this that will be used on very, very rare diseases are even more strapped for funding. What better way to get funding than bringing attention to your research through a high profile case? Or, he could be like many (but not all) scientists that exist in literally every field of science - someone with a massive ego that's trying to get themselves famous by making outrageous claims or commenting on something they're not actually an expert in because it's in the news.

Quality of life will NOT be used against the disabled. Quality of life is only a consideration in elderly or actively dying individuals who will not benefit from treatments. If anything, I find that we give more leeway in treatments to those that are disabled because there are many new and exciting treatments that are researched well enough to know they might help. There are also a lot of companies doing research to help disabled individuals in ways that won't likely harm them (ie. exoskeletons or advanced prosthetics), so it's easier to say "yes" to that.
Quality of life is more about how the patient themself perceives their quality of life as opposed to how Doctors perceive their quality of life. If a disabled individual is living their best life and is happy, there's no reason to stop helping them. On the other hand, if they are miserable, we can put them on Comfort Care - basically trying to make them as happy as possible over treating them (although treatment can still happen).
Of course, if whatever experimental treatment a disabled person wants won't help or will be more likely to hurt them, Doctors will still say no to it, but they will do their best to educate the patient about why the treatment won't help them.

 

[MsZem]

High court represents the government.

I know that sometimes people assume that the system in other countries is like that of the US and get it wrong. But that's not even an excuse here: not only does the high court not represent the government in the UK - it doesn't represent the government in the US, either! When I lived in the US, we certainly learned about the separation of powers and the roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branch. Did they not cover that in your civics class?

ETA: unless you mean in the sense that the judiciary is one of the three branches of government? But that's in the US, and hardly the same thing.