While Charlie Gard’s heartbroken parents ‘let him go,’ the left viciously reacts

[Clementine]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

You're full of shit. I guess the left just sees this as a really, really late abortion.

 

[BULLDOG]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

You're full of shit. I guess the left just sees this as a really, really late abortion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

Of course Democrats don't, they don't even give one a chance to be born.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

And you do? You adopted any, Derp? Or do you sit on your leftist ass judging day in and day out?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped him. Grrr, this just pisses me off the dirty bastards.

The parents did what any parent would do for their child, no matter how futile it might have been.
The judge didn't choose to rule on this case. It was assigned to him, and his duty was to decide what was best for Charlie. Several doctors testified that treatment was extremely unlikely to improve his condition, and would probably cause him more pain.
The US doctor offering the experimental treatment, after conferring with Charlie's doctors, told the judge

Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

Still sucks

 

[BULLDOG]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped him. Grrr, this just pisses me off the dirty bastards.

The parents did what any parent would do for their child, no matter how futile it might have been.
The judge didn't choose to rule on this case. It was assigned to him, and his duty was to decide what was best for Charlie. Several doctors testified that treatment was extremely unlikely to improve his condition, and would probably cause him more pain.
The US doctor offering the experimental treatment, after conferring with Charlie's doctors, told the judge

Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

Still sucks

Yes, a tragic situation.

 

[keepitreal]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped him. Grrr, this just pisses me off the dirty bastards.

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped

Prolonging his death to merely, possibly achieve,
a slight improvement in certain aspects of his health,
before he ultimately dies, having no bearing on the inevitable
is selfish and unconscionable, to say the least.

This child shouldn't have been kept alive
because he parents are unwilling to let go!

 

[keepitreal]

My mother died from cancer a few years ago.

She was having double vision and problems walking.
A CAT scan revealed she had a large brain tumor.
They said they could remove most of it,
and it would alleviate those problems but, that's about it.

I was totally against having doctors saw her head
to remove the majority of a tumor that would take her life anyway.
But, my 2 sisters and brother saw things differently.

My mother was a fucking zombie afterwards,
and she was still unable to walk.
She spent a month in the hospital, following surgery
and 2 months later, she died...so, what was the point

If she didn't have insurance, I highly doubt,
the doctors would have recommended removing the tumor!

 

[blackhawk]

One question if your child was in a desperate maybe even hopeless fight for their life and you wanted to try a treatment that might help or save him or her even though the chances are extremely remote it would and you were told by the courts you couldn't do it how would you feel about that? As I have said on other threads about this I think the right decision was to stop this and end this child's suffering but that was not my decision to make nor should it have been the courts.

 

[BULLDOG]

One question if your child was in a desperate maybe even hopeless fight for their life and you wanted to try a treatment that might help or save him or her even though the chances are extremely remote it would and you were told by the courts you couldn't do it how would you feel about that? As I have said on other threads about this I think the right decision was to stop this and end this child's suffering but that was not my decision to make nor should it have been the courts.

I would have probably done the same as those parents. A grieving parent sometimes makes very bad choices. The suffering or the child with no chance of relief made only one choice possible.

 

[bodecea]

No sooner did time run out for Charlie Gard to obtain potential lifesaving treatment, the left is rolling their eyes at the crazy parents who dared to question the state and attempt to seek medical care for their baby.

Yes, these stupid parents thought they should have a right to do anything possible to save their baby's life. They forgot that they were supposed to allow the state to call the shots, even if it meant disregarding treatment that might allow their child to live. The state is the rightful owner of our children and ourselves. The government is our master. The left would prefer that we all embrace that idea and stop questioning them. Babies should be aborted anyway so why would they want to spend money, in a country with socialized medicine, to save the life of a baby? The left will say it was a waste of money for something unsure. No appreciation for research hospitals and the the fact that there is always a first time something is tried and works to preserve life. I guess that isn't their goal when they cry about losing Obamacare. It's not about lives. It's about feeding Big Pharms and making people feel good because they have insurance. But if it's really life you want, don't ever turn to the left for help or hope.


"Perhaps Ian Kennedy — another writer for The Guardian — most explicitly articulates the Left’s anger that the Gard case has stirred a bit of questioning of the wisdom of “The State” — even when “The State” refuses to allow parents to seek experimental, but potentially life-saving treatment for their 11-month infant.

He argues that parents are not “the last word” when it comes to the welfare of a child, even when the parents are not actively harming the child, but rather seeking potential good for the child.

Kennedy states that for cases in which the parents and the State are in dispute over the welfare of a child, there are steps one must take:

The first is to recognise that children do not belong to their parents.

Second, when a claim is made that parents have rights over their children, it is important to step back and examine the language used. We need to remind ourselves that parents do not have rights regarding their children, they only have duties, the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests. This has been part of the fabric of our law and our society for a long time.

Third, if we are concerned with the language of rights, it is, of course, children who have rights; any rights that parents have exist only to protect their children’s rights.

Kennedy adds that “[t]his process depends of course on acceptance of the supremacy of reasoned argument over passion, and the acceptance of the independence and authority of the courts.”

Kennedy’s urging that we accept “the authority of the courts” over our own passions, even our passion for the welfare of our children, is obviously frightening.

Granted there are cases in which a court should take a child away from an abusive parent. No one would defend a parent who hospitalizes a toddler by arguing that the parent was within his or her right, since the toddler belongs to the parent.

But how many of us would accept it if our child (or spouse, or parent) were to require a new form of radiation therapy for cancer, and told “no,” even if we could to pay for the treatment ourselves? Are we so without rights over the welfare of our children that we must concede all such decisions to the State in the way Kennedy suggests?

Kennedy, like many on the left, requires of us a type of orthodoxical allegiance to the wisdom of government, and the so-called experts that represent the government.

But as Orwell wrote in 1984, “orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

That is not what we, as free people, aspire to."

While Charlie Gard's heartbroken parents 'let him go,' the left viciously reacts

Who?

 

[bodecea]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

Not after it's born. Like the vets. Only if useful as a tool.

 

[blackhawk]

One question if your child was in a desperate maybe even hopeless fight for their life and you wanted to try a treatment that might help or save him or her even though the chances are extremely remote it would and you were told by the courts you couldn't do it how would you feel about that? As I have said on other threads about this I think the right decision was to stop this and end this child's suffering but that was not my decision to make nor should it have been the courts.

I would have probably done the same as those parents. A grieving parent sometimes makes very bad choices. The suffering or the child with no chance of relief made only one choice possible.

Anyone who has to make a life or death decision about a loved one will be grieving and emotional that doesn't mean the courts should be able to take the decision away and decide the loved ones fate themselves. What it comes down to for me is how much power do we want the courts to have in cases like these. I for one find the courts having the power to override the families decision a little troubling.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This case has nothing to do with whether Charlie Gard should have died or not. The entire issue is whether the government has the right to prevent someone from paying out of pocket for a treatment they have chosen to have. In single payer health care, the government certainly does have that right. It's single payer. You have no right to pay for your own care. Once the power over your life says no, it's no. It's a crime for you to pay and a crime for the doctor to get paid out of system.

That's why this is so important.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped him. Grrr, this just pisses me off the dirty bastards.

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped

Prolonging his death to merely, possibly achieve,
a slight improvement in certain aspects of his health,
before he ultimately dies, having no bearing on the inevitable
is selfish and unconscionable, to say the least.

This child shouldn't have been kept alive
because he parents are unwilling to let go!

My mother died from cancer a few years ago.

She was having double vision and problems walking.
A CAT scan revealed she had a large brain tumor.
They said they could remove most of it,
and it would alleviate those problems but, that's about it.

I was totally against having doctors saw her head
to remove the majority of a tumor that would take her life anyway.
But, my 2 sisters and brother saw things differently.

My mother was a fucking zombie afterwards,
and she was still unable to walk.
She spent a month in the hospital, following surgery
and 2 months later, she died...so, what was the point

If she didn't have insurance, I highly doubt,
the doctors would have recommended removing the tumor!

While I am so sorry for what you must have went thru with your mother......the two cases are hardly comparable. This baby had a very rare condition with no standard treatment available. There was an experimental treatment available here in the states. Because of the rarity of his condition, the DR's didn't know if the US treatment would help him or not. They were only guessing at the effects. The courts took away the choice of the parents and the chance of the treatment working by refusing to release him.
I would hope to never be in their position to have to be forced to rely on the government to make the choice if my child lives or dies.....nor would I want to have to make that choice on my own. Because I know I would want EVERY possible chance for life to be explored......even if it meant a less than perfect life.

I knew of a family that the adult daughter had a massive heart attack & was unconscious for some time. Medical teams were able to save her but she was in a coma for many months. Long after the DR's & much of the extended family had given up hope. But the parents had persisted to keep her alive by machines. She did finally wake up, but was a vegetable & couldn't do anything for herself. There had been too much damage from the lack of oxygen to the brain. Yes the family has had to care for her every need and this has been many years ago........but they were allowed that choice and have had to live with the results of it.

Charlie Gards parents have been denied that choice.

 

[BULLDOG]

One question if your child was in a desperate maybe even hopeless fight for their life and you wanted to try a treatment that might help or save him or her even though the chances are extremely remote it would and you were told by the courts you couldn't do it how would you feel about that? As I have said on other threads about this I think the right decision was to stop this and end this child's suffering but that was not my decision to make nor should it have been the courts.

I would have probably done the same as those parents. A grieving parent sometimes makes very bad choices. The suffering or the child with no chance of relief made only one choice possible.

Anyone who has to make a life or death decision about a loved one will be grieving and emotional that doesn't mean the courts should be able to take the decision away and decide the loved ones fate themselves. What it comes down to for me is how much power do we want the courts to have in cases like these. I for one find the courts having the power to override the families decision a little troubling.

I do too as a general rule. In this case, it was very doubtful that the treatment would help him,(even the American doctor offering the treatment said so) and he was most likely still in pain. I don't see any advantage in suffering for no reason for anybody, especially a baby. I honestly don't know what decision I personally might have made, and I'm grateful that it wasn't mine to make. Just my opinion from the sideline, I think the judge was correct this time. I understand that other reasonable people might disagree.

 

[blackhawk]

One question if your child was in a desperate maybe even hopeless fight for their life and you wanted to try a treatment that might help or save him or her even though the chances are extremely remote it would and you were told by the courts you couldn't do it how would you feel about that? As I have said on other threads about this I think the right decision was to stop this and end this child's suffering but that was not my decision to make nor should it have been the courts.

I would have probably done the same as those parents. A grieving parent sometimes makes very bad choices. The suffering or the child with no chance of relief made only one choice possible.

Anyone who has to make a life or death decision about a loved one will be grieving and emotional that doesn't mean the courts should be able to take the decision away and decide the loved ones fate themselves. What it comes down to for me is how much power do we want the courts to have in cases like these. I for one find the courts having the power to override the families decision a little troubling.

I do too as a general rule. In this case, it was very doubtful that the treatment would help him,(even the American doctor offering the treatment said so) and he was most likely still in pain. I don't see any advantage in suffering for no reason for anybody, especially a baby. I honestly don't know what decision I personally might have made, and I'm grateful that it wasn't mine to make. Just my opinion from the sideline, I think the judge was correct this time. I understand that other reasonable people might disagree.

I agree it was the right decision at least in my opinion I just think it should be the parents decision to make not the courts. Either way it's sad situation that truly sucks.

 

[hadit]

This case has nothing to do with whether Charlie Gard should have died or not. The entire issue is whether the government has the right to prevent someone from paying out of pocket for a treatment they have chosen to have. In single payer health care, the government certainly does have that right. It's single payer. You have no right to pay for your own care. Once the power over your life says no, it's no. It's a crime for you to pay and a crime for the doctor to get paid out of system.

That's why this is so important.

That's part of what killed Hillarycare. It contained jail time and big fines for anyone who made a private content with a doctor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped him. Grrr, this just pisses me off the dirty bastards.

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped

Prolonging his death to merely, possibly achieve,
a slight improvement in certain aspects of his health,
before he ultimately dies, having no bearing on the inevitable
is selfish and unconscionable, to say the least.

This child shouldn't have been kept alive
because he parents are unwilling to let go!

My mother died from cancer a few years ago.

She was having double vision and problems walking.
A CAT scan revealed she had a large brain tumor.
They said they could remove most of it,
and it would alleviate those problems but, that's about it.

I was totally against having doctors saw her head
to remove the majority of a tumor that would take her life anyway.
But, my 2 sisters and brother saw things differently.

My mother was a fucking zombie afterwards,
and she was still unable to walk.
She spent a month in the hospital, following surgery
and 2 months later, she died...so, what was the point

If she didn't have insurance, I highly doubt,
the doctors would have recommended removing the tumor!

While I am so sorry for what you must have went thru with your mother......the two cases are hardly comparable. This baby had a very rare condition with no standard treatment available. There was an experimental treatment available here in the states. Because of the rarity of his condition, the DR's didn't know if the US treatment would help him or not. They were only guessing at the effects. The courts took away the choice of the parents and the chance of the treatment working by refusing to release him.
I would hope to never be in their position to have to be forced to rely on the government to make the choice if my child lives or dies.....nor would I want to have to make that choice on my own. Because I know I would want EVERY possible chance for life to be explored......even if it meant a less than perfect life.

I knew of a family that the adult daughter had a massive heart attack & was unconscious for some time. Medical teams were able to save her but she was in a coma for many months. Long after the DR's & much of the extended family had given up hope. But the parents had persisted to keep her alive by machines. She did finally wake up, but was a vegetable & couldn't do anything for herself. There had been too much damage from the lack of oxygen to the brain. Yes the family has had to care for her every need and this has been many years ago........but they were allowed that choice and have had to live with the results of it.

Charlie Gards parents have been denied that choice.

I knew a family whose grandfather had a stroke. He was recovering but he had Kaiser insurance. Kaiser refused to pay for swallowing therapy because the stroke left him unable to swallow. The reason was, he was over 75 and they did not provide such therapy for people in advanced years. They offered to pay for hospice care where he would be sedated, but not fed or hydrated until he died.

The family scraped the money together and paid independently for therapy. He lived another ten years. Suppose they had single payer socialized medicine and the family was prohibited from paying for swallowing therapy at all. This is what's so frightening about single payer. There is no place to go, not even if you can pay. It's actually veterinary care for all with the government as the owner/decision maker.

 

[BULLDOG]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped him. Grrr, this just pisses me off the dirty bastards.

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped

Prolonging his death to merely, possibly achieve,
a slight improvement in certain aspects of his health,
before he ultimately dies, having no bearing on the inevitable
is selfish and unconscionable, to say the least.

This child shouldn't have been kept alive
because he parents are unwilling to let go!

My mother died from cancer a few years ago.

She was having double vision and problems walking.
A CAT scan revealed she had a large brain tumor.
They said they could remove most of it,
and it would alleviate those problems but, that's about it.

I was totally against having doctors saw her head
to remove the majority of a tumor that would take her life anyway.
But, my 2 sisters and brother saw things differently.

My mother was a fucking zombie afterwards,
and she was still unable to walk.
She spent a month in the hospital, following surgery
and 2 months later, she died...so, what was the point

If she didn't have insurance, I highly doubt,
the doctors would have recommended removing the tumor!

While I am so sorry for what you must have went thru with your mother......the two cases are hardly comparable. This baby had a very rare condition with no standard treatment available. There was an experimental treatment available here in the states. Because of the rarity of his condition, the DR's didn't know if the US treatment would help him or not. They were only guessing at the effects. The courts took away the choice of the parents and the chance of the treatment working by refusing to release him.
I would hope to never be in their position to have to be forced to rely on the government to make the choice if my child lives or dies.....nor would I want to have to make that choice on my own. Because I know I would want EVERY possible chance for life to be explored......even if it meant a less than perfect life.

I knew of a family that the adult daughter had a massive heart attack & was unconscious for some time. Medical teams were able to save her but she was in a coma for many months. Long after the DR's & much of the extended family had given up hope. But the parents had persisted to keep her alive by machines. She did finally wake up, but was a vegetable & couldn't do anything for herself. There had been too much damage from the lack of oxygen to the brain. Yes the family has had to care for her every need and this has been many years ago........but they were allowed that choice and have had to live with the results of it.

Charlie Gards parents have been denied that choice.

I knew a family whose grandfather had a stroke. He was recovering but he had Kaiser insurance. Kaiser refused to pay for swallowing therapy because the stroke left him unable to swallow. The reason was, he was over 75 and they did not provide such therapy for people in advanced years. They offered to pay for hospice care where he would be sedated, but not fed or hydrated until he died.

The family scraped the money together and paid independently for therapy. He lived another ten years. Suppose they had single payer socialized medicine and the family was prohibited from paying for swallowing therapy at all. This is what's so frightening about single payer. There is no place to go, not even if you can pay. It's actually veterinary care for all with the government as the owner/decision maker.

Since no single payer law is even written yet, much less released for discussion, how do you know self payment for unpaid procedures is prohibited? You might want to wait to see what is proposed before you start making up shit.