Charlie Gard has passed

[flacaltenn]

That's just stupid nonsense on your part. There was nothing cruel about it.

The child was blind, deaf, paralyzed, had spasms of pain, and was being kept alive on a respirator... that's about as cruel as you get.

Apparently pain IS an issue in those who suffer mitochondrial diseases...had no idea: Pain | Mitochondrial Disease Action Committee - MitoAction

Nowhere in there is there a discussion of HEAVY sedation with opioids or codeine or inducing comas. THAT is process for TERMINAL pain.. And as your article says -- they err on the side of PREVENTING pain in developing children..

 

[badger2]

Thanks for the post, Sassy. The Charlie Gard Foundation presses on.

 

[JoeB131]

Plenty of conditions and diseases cause pain. When there is a treatment available we use it. In socialized medicine the treatment is euthanasia.

Okay, but here was the thing... what kind of pain killers would you use on a ten month old baby that probably wouldn't have killed him?

The thing was, this child was already dead, only technology was extending his dying... that is what makes this cruel.

 

[JoeB131]

That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.

The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..

And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.

There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..

Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.

Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.

The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..

And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.

There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..

Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.

Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.

There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.

They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them. The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.

What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.

You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me --- WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...

He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"...

 

[Coyote]

That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.

The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..

And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.

There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..

Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.

Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.

There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.

They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them. The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.

What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.

You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me --- WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...

He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"...

By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease. Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything. It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.

Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?

 

[flacaltenn]

That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.

The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..

And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.

There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..

Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.

Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.

There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.

They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them. The
receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.

What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.

You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me --- WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...

He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"...

By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease. Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything. It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.

Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?

The parents GOT the NHS to release ALL pertinent information to Dr. Hirano in January.. Dr. Hirano DID consult with the Brit Doctors in that time frame. This is ALL about the wasted SIX MONTHS of legal proceedings and foot dragging by NHS. The mom stated in Court on JULY 23rd ----------------

Articles: Baby Charlie Gard's Parents and Doctors Haggle over Details of His Final Days

The American and Italian team were still willing to treat Charlie after seeing both his recent brain MRI and EEG performed last week. He's not brain dead (and never has been). He still responds to us, even now, but after reviewing the recent muscle MRI it was considered that Charlie's muscles have deteriorated to the extent that it is largely irreversible and, were treatment to work, his quality of life would now not be one which we would want for our precious little boy. They both agreed that treatment should have been started sooner.

The callousness of extending this ordeal is ALL ON the NHS.. That's irrefutable.

No -- not medically necessary to examine the child, because the Hospital DID do extensive testing on his condition.

NHS is lying if they claim that Dr. Hirano NEVER reviewed clinical records or MRIs. He just hadn't seen the latest MRI indicating the muscle damage.

With the NHS already pronouncing a death sentence on Charlie in December, there was an argument to be had before ANY researcher is gonna step into this. Obviously, the Amer Doc would not have given the parents hope in December when the Legal proceedings were imminent if he thought Charlie was passed the point of starting treatment. Realize that gene therapy of this type can REVERSE a LOT of existing "damage". But NOT damage from severe neuropathy or muscle damage caused by waiting too long.

The ONLY tests important to the Doctors involvement could NOT be done remotely. And the specialist in that case HAS to see the patient in THEIR facility to determine if they are even a candidate.

This is a case of the Full Power of the Parliament, Crown and NHS being stubborn about being the "ultimate decider" of medical treatment. The system is designed to be inflexible and callous about choices. And no researcher is gonna put himself in a position to be constantly harangued, drawn into court, even mocked to fight with all that.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.

The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..

And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.

There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..

Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.

Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.

There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.

They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them. The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.

What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.

You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me --- WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...

He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"...

By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease. Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything. It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.

Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?

Doctors do not examine any records unless the patient is about to become their patient. It serves no purpose to just go over records.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Plenty of conditions and diseases cause pain. When there is a treatment available we use it. In socialized medicine the treatment is euthanasia.

Okay, but here was the thing... what kind of pain killers would you use on a ten month old baby that probably wouldn't have killed him?

The thing was, this child was already dead, only technology was extending his dying... that is what makes this cruel.

No. What makes this cruel is that there was a treatment available. The family was able to pay for that treatment and their living expenses and the government made the expenditure illegal.

Deflect all you want. Drag in any extraneous garbage you want. Paying for medical care was illegal which is exactly what you get with single payer death panels.

 

[flacaltenn]

This looks very peculiar. It appears the "death cult" in this case goes deeper than just the 6 month legal delay.. Got to talk to my UK buddy and find out WHY Charlie’s legal guardian was Cafcass, the publicly-funded state body which acts in the best interests of children in court cases instead of his PARENTS !!!!

Charlie Gard's parents fury after it emerges the baby's lawyer is head of a charity which backs assisted dying

'IT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST' Charlie Gard’s parents fury as it emerges the baby’s state-appointed lawyer is head of a charity which backs assisted dying
The terminally-ill tot has to be represented by a state-appointed barrister instead of his parents

Victoria Butler-Cole, who represents the 11-month-old in court, is chair of trustees at Compassion in Dying, which was founded by its sister organisation Dignity in Dying.

While it doesn’t campaign for assisted dying itself, the two organisations share the same chief executive and trustees can only sit on the board if they support the other charity’s aims, reports The Telegraph.

Dignity in Dying – formerly called the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society – founded its sister group 10 years ago to carry out research and provide information to the public about people’s rights.

A source close to Charlie’s parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard said: “The family find it astonishing.

“The implication is obvious. It looks like a profound conflict of interest.”

High Court judge Mr Justice Francis is due to make a decision on the little boy’s fate on July 25.

Mrs Butler-Cole was appointed to the role by Charlie’s legal guardian Cafcass, the publicly-funded state body which acts in the best interests of children in court cases.

Connie Yates and Chris Gard, from Bedfont, in west London, believe that as his parents they should represent Charlie in court.

Mrs Butler-Cole reportedly said she was unable to comment while the High Court case was ongoing.

Compassion in Dying said there was no conflict of interest between Mrs Butler-Cole’s role in court and her view that adults with full mental capacity should be allowed to plan their own death.

***************************

So my question is -- WHY are PARENTS not the "legal guardians" of their children in UK Court Cases?
Is the UK that FAR OUT of touch with freedom and individual sovereignty??

 

[JoeB131]

You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me --- WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...

Because it was easier to put him on a plane than it was to put a child who required elaborate life support equipment on a plane for 10 hours.

This looks very peculiar. It appears the "death cult" in this case goes deeper than just the 6 month legal delay.. Got to talk to my UK buddy and find out WHY Charlie’s legal guardian was Cafcass, the publicly-funded state body which acts in the best interests of children in court cases instead of his PARENTS !!!!

Because children aren't property.

Hey, I feel bad for these parents. I'm sure they are kicking themselves wondering what they did wrong. But prolonging this child's suffering for months so they can feel better about themselves wasn't the answer.

It never was.

 

[PredFan]

Being in Medicine myself, I've seen brain damages people accomplish amazing things.

The point is that it wasn't the courts decision to make.

Good point----but being in medicine myself----I would say that even with the various manipulations
available----this poor kid was not really going to get anywhere but miserable-----sad but true

You can't say that, you don't know that. The point is still that it isn't the court's decision to make. Or it shouldn't be anyway. Single payer, single decider, and it ain't you.

I based my comment about the kid's future on his DIAGNOSIS-----that's what a diagnosis is for---
it includes a prediction of the future. sad but true

It isn't set in stone dumbass. It's an average or a statistic.

all of science is a STATISTIC -----it is possible that if a two ton weight falls on your head that STATISTICALLY it will not damage your brain-------but what are the ODDS?

That's possibly the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time.

 

[badger2]

G.O.S.H. cannot lie their way out of the sedation issue. Charlie's 7 Oct MRI came before the published report proving precisely where and what the anesthetic bound to in Charlie's body. After the report is made public, there is even more cause for concern.

 

[irosie91]

G.O.S.H. cannot lie their way out of the sedation issue. Charlie's 7 Oct MRI came before the published report proving precisely where and what the anesthetic bound to in Charlie's body. After the report is made public, there is even more cause for concern.

??? huh?

 

[Coyote]

That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.

The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..

And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.

There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..

Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.

Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.

There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.

They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them. The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.

What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.

You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me --- WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...

He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"...

By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease. Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything. It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.

Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?

Doctors do not examine any records unless the patient is about to become their patient. It serves no purpose to just go over records.

Specialists examine records all the time if they are called into consultation or considering taking a case.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That's why in DEC and JAN -- the NHS should have ALLOWED treatment. They had no TREATMENT. The USA offered a clinical trial of VERY specialized custom treatment.

The arrogant Brits decided to FIGHT the treatment option from the get-go. Took it to court thru APRIL -- when decided to KILL the baby..

And THEN the govt allowed this to linger until a "natural death" occurred 3 months later.

There's no compassion is FIGHTING treatment. NONE at all..

Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.

Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.

There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.

They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them. The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.

What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.

You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me --- WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...

He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"...

By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease. Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything. It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.

Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?

Doctors do not examine any records unless the patient is about to become their patient. It serves no purpose to just go over records.

Specialists examine records all the time if they are called into consultation or considering taking a case.

Not until they know that they are taking the case.

 

[Coyote]

There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong. GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders. Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.

Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented. This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).

Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
The tarnishing of a famous hospital

Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.

And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)

One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win.

While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby.

Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position.

But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.

"We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison.

"However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."

But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?

These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute.

Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.

Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.

The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".

But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?​

AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - a law designed to prevent child abuse.

The rights of parents

But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.

They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.

The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.

Subsequent legislation has followed and a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.

This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.

The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.

Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.

But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.

Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. "It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."

But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.

"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says.

"For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."​

It's a complex ethical situation imo.

 

[Coyote]

Except- as Coyote pointed out, the specialist you mention- Dr. Hirano- was consulted and elected not to come to the UK.

Again, they have Charlie Gard, where they made every effort to save him, compared to Nataline Sarkisyan, where they had a liver ready to go and Cigna wouldn't pay for it.

There was NO REASON for a high level researcher to become PERSONALLY EMBROILED in an International dispute. He's NOT a patient advocate.

They take people torn to bits and transfer them in HOURS to facilities that specialize in repairing them. The receiving Physicians have EVERYTHING THEY NEED by elect. communication before the patient arrives.

What Dr Hirano NEEDED -- was the baby patient IN HIS FACILITY to determine the efficacy of treatment. Could not DO THAT by flying to Britain. This is a FACT for most custom Gene Therapies.

You and Coyote and Tommy keep repeating this --- but NONE OF YOU can tell me --- WHY Dr Hirano NEEDED to go to Britain...

He can not oversell his therapy. He was not interested in a long contentious debate with the ENTIRE NHS single-handedly.. That's not his "mission"...

By December Charlie had already deteriorated and was undergoing severe seizures indicating bad brain damage as is typical with this disease. Rather than fly a fragile baby on a lengthy transatlantic flight isn't it better for the doctor to first come and examine the child and his records first? You can do a lot remotely but not everything. It's only 48 to 72 hours of the doctors time to determine if the treatment was an option.

Also...why did the doctor offering the treatment not even examine the records until much later?

Doctors do not examine any records unless the patient is about to become their patient. It serves no purpose to just go over records.

Specialists examine records all the time if they are called into consultation or considering taking a case.

Not until they know that they are taking the case.

I doubt that. No reasonable doctor would take a case without first looking at the records to see what the facts of the case are. When we get referrals to specialists, for example, quite often records are sent ahead of the appointment. Same with consults among doctors.

 

[irosie91]

all of science is a STATISTIC -----it is possible that if a two ton weight falls on your head that STATISTICALLY it will not damage your brain-------but what are the ODDS?

That's possibly the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time.

you "HEARD" it? how long has this messageboard been TALKING TO YOU?

Trying to one-up your stupid statement with a childish statement? Interesting strategy but it fell short I'm afraid.

actually there was nothing stupid about my statement-----it is something I learned from my older brother--LONG AGO-----he is a Professor of astrophysics-----much acclaimed and, in fact, a recipient of the president's Freedom award for his contributions to the field of Astrophysics and NASA------and you?

Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.

actually----you are wrong and he is right. -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.

No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious.

There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.

The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care. That's it.

Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank. Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.