Baby Charlie Gard's life

[oleada]

I did read it. Nothing justifies not allowing the parents what they wanted.

Children are people with rights; not parental property to do what they want.

 

[caseyedwards]

Children are people with rights; not parental property to do what they want.

But parents will have control when they do whatever the doctors tell them. Then they are fine.

 

[misskarne]

But parents will have control when they do whatever the doctors tell them. Then they are fine.

The parents' plan involved inflicting unecessary pain and suffering on Charlie for no result. The treatment would not have saved him. He was going to die anyway.

 

[Japanfan]

But parents will have control when they do whatever the doctors tell them. Then they are fine.

You are aware that in this case, the decision about Charlie's fate was made by a court, and not by doctors?

 

[AxelAnnie]

No doctor has been able measure or definitely or assert he was in pain. It was supposition. He could neither feel nor respond. And neither could a court.

The baby was going to die. Only G-d has the last word on that. Let's say he went to the US and had a few extra weeks and he responded a bit.

Let's say the learned something that led to a research break through. The weeks they spent pounding their chests in court could have been spent in the USA and might have done some good.

Different context.....but same point
Think Polly Klass
.kidnapped from her home and brutally murdered on a deserted road. Completely botched police work. It that tragic death led to a complete overhaul in how kidnaps ate handled.

I hope Charlie*s death brings change in how things are handled


.



.....
.

 

[Angelskates]

AxelAnnie - the US doctor said the experimental treatment would not work. Do you think he should still have been allowed to experiment on Charlie? You think it's okay to risk Charlie being in (more) pain? That's okay with you, you're willing to risk it, to treat a child like a mouse, or even lower than a mouse?

At least becca had the smarts to stop posting, you're showing you're actually an inhumane person. God has the last word, and if he wanted Charlie alive, he would be, if he wanted the experimental treatment to work, he would have made it so, but he isn't and He didn't. I can only thank God that Charlie died with some semblance of dignity, rather than being made a guinea pig. This treatment wasn't going to work, and had never even been conducted on mice, but you're okay with that, you're okay with a child being lower than a mice.

You should offer yourself up as a human guinea pig for new, untested, unapproved medical procedures, AxelAnnie, someone in the world may benefit from your suffering, so it'll be worth it, right?

 

[ballettmaus]

Let's say he went to the US and had a few extra weeks and he responded a bit.
.

Apart from the fact that it was said that the drug would not work on Charlie's condition, he was blind, deaf, could not eat or breathe on his own. What difference would a few extra weeks have made for him?

 

[Lorac]

I did read it. Nothing justifies not allowing the parents what they wanted.

Except to protect Charlie from unnecessary suffering. That was why an independent guardian was assigned to protect Charlie's interests. As has already been stated in this thread on several occasions parents do not always make decisions in their child's best interests. But as you have already proved that you couldn't care less about a child's suffering then trying to reason with you is useless.

 

[once_upon]

Modern medicine, not God, was keeping Charlie alive. Had doctors and other medical interventions not occurred, Charlie would have died back in September 2016.

Tell me again how we should have let God do his thing and Charlie should have been allowed to keep him "alive". God had made up his mind for this baby. Man interfered.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Modern medicine, not God, was keeping Charlie alive. Had doctors and other medical interventions not occurred, Charlie would have died back in September 2016.

Tell me again how we should have let God do his thing and Charlie should have been allowed to keep him "alive". God had made up his mind for this baby. Man interfered.

I

Apart from the fact that it was said that the drug would not work on Charlie's condition, he was blind, deaf, could not eat or breathe on his own. What difference would a few extra weeks have made for him?

I didn't say G-d kept Charlie alive... Only That G-d knew the outcome and timeline. My belief obviously.

 

[hanca]

Wow, the level of stupidity displayed in this thread by a few individuals is unbelievable! Do we live in the same world, or is there some parallel universe where they live?

 

[Japanfan]

Modern medicine, not God, was keeping Charlie alive. Had doctors and other medical interventions not occurred, Charlie would have died back in September 2016.

Tell me again how we should have let God do his thing and Charlie should have been allowed to keep him "alive". God had made up his mind for this baby. Man interfered.

Perhaps a case could be advanced that Charlie should have been allowed to pass earlier on.

People and technology commonly interfere in what might seem to be 'God making up His mind', once_upon. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

But 'God's will' can be a very weak argument indeed. Especially when a life can be saved, which sadly was not the case for tiny Charlie. Or when one does not even believe in said 'God'.

In this case, a court ruled on the case. I'd rather have courts making such decisions, rather than 'God' or someone with religious/spiritual credentials.

 

[Japanfan]

Let's say the learned something that led to a research break through. The weeks they spent pounding their chests in court could have been spent in the USA and might have done some good.

The most important words in that sentence are 'Let's say', which essentially means if.

I don't think I would want to cause prolong my infant's pain and suffering for an 'if'.

Different context.....but same point Think Polly Klass kidnapped from her home and brutally murdered on a deserted road. Completely botched police work. It that tragic death led to a complete overhaul in how kidnaps ate handled.

But if not being kidnapped and brutally murdered had been an option, I'm sure that Polly's family and friends, and probably workers on the case, would have done without the complete overhaul.

 

[once_upon]

Perhaps a case could be advanced that Charlie should have been allowed to pass earlier on.

People and technology commonly interfere in what might seem to be 'God making up His mind', once_upon. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

But 'God's will' can be a very weak argument indeed. Especially when a life can be saved, which sadly was not the case for tiny Charlie. Or when one does not even believe in said 'God'.

In this case, a court ruled on the case. I'd rather have courts making such decisions, rather than 'God' or someone with religious/spiritual credentials.

I was just pointing out the fallacy of the "God's will" or "God's plan" or the "man should not interfere with God's plan" stuff.

In my thelogical beliefs, God does not have an ultimate plan for us nor do I get the "out" of ownership by blaming God for bad or good. As that indicates that God would choose some of us, for example a child with leukemia, to somehow be punished. Nor does God test our faith by doing something like that. Nor does God deem we are supposed to learn something from the experience.

The "only God can decide or choose or we shouldn't interfere in the case as it is God's and only God's decision" is a load of ____.

 

[VGThuy]

Describing what the doctors report said, as summarized by the court order, as "supposition" and saying "we can't be sure" is like saying gravity and climate change is just a theory. It's also a real denial and delusion at work to avoid facing the facts. I think right now, it's more someone's pride being in the way after ranting and raving throughout this thread at what turned out to be a complete misinterpretation of the facts and case-at-hand and falling for some political propaganda that so happened to fit one's life view.