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

[Darkwind]

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."

You miss the point. The judge should not have been involved at all, nor even consulted.

 

[DJT for Life]

Interesting comments made by everybody.

But those that have had to deal with these difficult circumstances
all have one thing in common. It was your call to make...not the Govt.

It should always be that way

 

[SavannahMann]

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."

We never know, until we learn. There was a slim, probably minuscule chance that this treatment would have helped Charlie. Yet, we don't do just the safe treatment. We never have. We take swings out of desperation, and sometimes we stumble on a treatment that works. Medical Knowledge, like all knowledge, is built upon a foundation of death and pain. Failures that taught us what didn't work.

In World War II, in Britain, bomb disposal teams had to try and defuse delayed bombs, and dud's. This process progressed by trial and error. The first team would go forward, and one member of the team would stand back, safe, with a notebook. They would write down everything the team did. The team got to a point and called back. "We're cutting the blue wire." Then there was a loud boom and the recorder underlined the last call.

The next team who saw that kind of bomb had instructions to the point. They also knew whatever happened, do not cut the blue wire.

Medical knowledge advanced the same way. Doctors desperate to save a life, tried, failed. Tried something else, and failed. Tried something else, and managed to save a life. Using "cat gut" to sew up belly wounds. Resectioning the intestines. I'm sure that tens of thousands of people died before the Doctors figured out how to do it the right way so the patient lived.

A common even routine operation today. Removing an appendix. For thousands of years people just died. Then they died as the Doctor tried in vain to save the life. Then they died because of complications. Then they started living. Now, it's a relatively easy operation with very low mortality, we learned.

Perhaps the treatment would have saved Charlie, I admit it is probably not. But we never learn anything by not trying. We never accomplish anything by not taking a swing. If we tried, and Charlie had died anyway, then we would have learned something. Something to be used on the next child, or the one after that. Perhaps in a decade or two we are saving lives regularly, just like we do with an appendix.

Imagine if we had just given up on Cancer. When you got it, you just died. Nothing you can do. You just die. All the treatments we tried that failed. All the Doctors and Researchers who spent their entire lives trying to beat the disease, and all they accomplished was to nudge the survival rate up a few points. Now most cancers are treatable, we have ways to attack most of them. Women survive breast cancer, men survive prostate cancer. John McCain is alive, with brain cancer. Thirty years ago, it would have been a death sentence. Now, he has a chance, a slim one, but a real chance, because we did not give up, we did not stop fighting, we did not just shrug and say oh well, nothing we can do.

We may fail if we try. We will always fail if we don't try.

 

[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."

We never know, until we learn. There was a slim, probably minuscule chance that this treatment would have helped Charlie. Yet, we don't do just the safe treatment. We never have. We take swings out of desperation, and sometimes we stumble on a treatment that works. Medical Knowledge, like all knowledge, is built upon a foundation of death and pain. Failures that taught us what didn't work.

In World War II, in Britain, bomb disposal teams had to try and defuse delayed bombs, and dud's. This process progressed by trial and error. The first team would go forward, and one member of the team would stand back, safe, with a notebook. They would write down everything the team did. The team got to a point and called back. "We're cutting the blue wire." Then there was a loud boom and the recorder underlined the last call.

The next team who saw that kind of bomb had instructions to the point. They also knew whatever happened, do not cut the blue wire.

Medical knowledge advanced the same way. Doctors desperate to save a life, tried, failed. Tried something else, and failed. Tried something else, and managed to save a life. Using "cat gut" to sew up belly wounds. Resectioning the intestines. I'm sure that tens of thousands of people died before the Doctors figured out how to do it the right way so the patient lived.

A common even routine operation today. Removing an appendix. For thousands of years people just died. Then they died as the Doctor tried in vain to save the life. Then they died because of complications. Then they started living. Now, it's a relatively easy operation with very low mortality, we learned.

Perhaps the treatment would have saved Charlie, I admit it is probably not. But we never learn anything by not trying. We never accomplish anything by not taking a swing. If we tried, and Charlie had died anyway, then we would have learned something. Something to be used on the next child, or the one after that. Perhaps in a decade or two we are saving lives regularly, just like we do with an appendix.

Imagine if we had just given up on Cancer. When you got it, you just died. Nothing you can do. You just die. All the treatments we tried that failed. All the Doctors and Researchers who spent their entire lives trying to beat the disease, and all they accomplished was to nudge the survival rate up a few points. Now most cancers are treatable, we have ways to attack most of them. Women survive breast cancer, men survive prostate cancer. John McCain is alive, with brain cancer. Thirty years ago, it would have been a death sentence. Now, he has a chance, a slim one, but a real chance, because we did not give up, we did not stop fighting, we did not just shrug and say oh well, nothing we can do.

We may fail if we try. We will always fail if we don't try.

I agree with just about everything you say, but it's hard for me to say let the baby suffer a while longer so we can experiment. Again, I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice.

 

[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."

We never know, until we learn. There was a slim, probably minuscule chance that this treatment would have helped Charlie. Yet, we don't do just the safe treatment. We never have. We take swings out of desperation, and sometimes we stumble on a treatment that works. Medical Knowledge, like all knowledge, is built upon a foundation of death and pain. Failures that taught us what didn't work.

In World War II, in Britain, bomb disposal teams had to try and defuse delayed bombs, and dud's. This process progressed by trial and error. The first team would go forward, and one member of the team would stand back, safe, with a notebook. They would write down everything the team did. The team got to a point and called back. "We're cutting the blue wire." Then there was a loud boom and the recorder underlined the last call.

The next team who saw that kind of bomb had instructions to the point. They also knew whatever happened, do not cut the blue wire.

Medical knowledge advanced the same way. Doctors desperate to save a life, tried, failed. Tried something else, and failed. Tried something else, and managed to save a life. Using "cat gut" to sew up belly wounds. Resectioning the intestines. I'm sure that tens of thousands of people died before the Doctors figured out how to do it the right way so the patient lived.

A common even routine operation today. Removing an appendix. For thousands of years people just died. Then they died as the Doctor tried in vain to save the life. Then they died because of complications. Then they started living. Now, it's a relatively easy operation with very low mortality, we learned.

Perhaps the treatment would have saved Charlie, I admit it is probably not. But we never learn anything by not trying. We never accomplish anything by not taking a swing. If we tried, and Charlie had died anyway, then we would have learned something. Something to be used on the next child, or the one after that. Perhaps in a decade or two we are saving lives regularly, just like we do with an appendix.

Imagine if we had just given up on Cancer. When you got it, you just died. Nothing you can do. You just die. All the treatments we tried that failed. All the Doctors and Researchers who spent their entire lives trying to beat the disease, and all they accomplished was to nudge the survival rate up a few points. Now most cancers are treatable, we have ways to attack most of them. Women survive breast cancer, men survive prostate cancer. John McCain is alive, with brain cancer. Thirty years ago, it would have been a death sentence. Now, he has a chance, a slim one, but a real chance, because we did not give up, we did not stop fighting, we did not just shrug and say oh well, nothing we can do.

We may fail if we try. We will always fail if we don't try.

Why do you think this experimental treatment is from the US and not the UK? Where is the innovations coming from Venezuela, Cuba, some other socialized medicine shithole?

Science dies in socialist countries.

 

[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.

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.

But individual insurance is doing almost the same thing.....such as the grandfather you mentioned. Insurances and doctors alike either refuse treatments or procedures, as well as the FDA not approving treatments or drugs and it's all based on profit or lack of.

I'd be willing to bet the reason that grandfather or any other 'advanced aged' patient didn't get treatment was because it wasn't cost effective and that is one thing that single payer medical would stop......the scramble for the profit since most socialized systems have price limits

 

[SavannahMann]

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."

We never know, until we learn. There was a slim, probably minuscule chance that this treatment would have helped Charlie. Yet, we don't do just the safe treatment. We never have. We take swings out of desperation, and sometimes we stumble on a treatment that works. Medical Knowledge, like all knowledge, is built upon a foundation of death and pain. Failures that taught us what didn't work.

In World War II, in Britain, bomb disposal teams had to try and defuse delayed bombs, and dud's. This process progressed by trial and error. The first team would go forward, and one member of the team would stand back, safe, with a notebook. They would write down everything the team did. The team got to a point and called back. "We're cutting the blue wire." Then there was a loud boom and the recorder underlined the last call.

The next team who saw that kind of bomb had instructions to the point. They also knew whatever happened, do not cut the blue wire.

Medical knowledge advanced the same way. Doctors desperate to save a life, tried, failed. Tried something else, and failed. Tried something else, and managed to save a life. Using "cat gut" to sew up belly wounds. Resectioning the intestines. I'm sure that tens of thousands of people died before the Doctors figured out how to do it the right way so the patient lived.

A common even routine operation today. Removing an appendix. For thousands of years people just died. Then they died as the Doctor tried in vain to save the life. Then they died because of complications. Then they started living. Now, it's a relatively easy operation with very low mortality, we learned.

Perhaps the treatment would have saved Charlie, I admit it is probably not. But we never learn anything by not trying. We never accomplish anything by not taking a swing. If we tried, and Charlie had died anyway, then we would have learned something. Something to be used on the next child, or the one after that. Perhaps in a decade or two we are saving lives regularly, just like we do with an appendix.

Imagine if we had just given up on Cancer. When you got it, you just died. Nothing you can do. You just die. All the treatments we tried that failed. All the Doctors and Researchers who spent their entire lives trying to beat the disease, and all they accomplished was to nudge the survival rate up a few points. Now most cancers are treatable, we have ways to attack most of them. Women survive breast cancer, men survive prostate cancer. John McCain is alive, with brain cancer. Thirty years ago, it would have been a death sentence. Now, he has a chance, a slim one, but a real chance, because we did not give up, we did not stop fighting, we did not just shrug and say oh well, nothing we can do.

We may fail if we try. We will always fail if we don't try.

Why do you think this experimental treatment is from the US and not the UK? Where is the innovations coming from Venezuela, Cuba, some other socialized medicine shithole?

Science dies in socialist countries.

Science flourishes in Fascist countries however. Both the Nazi's and the Japanese Imperialists conducted science experiments that were quickly taken by the victorious allies and the lessons learned were adapted by "modern" medicine. Or we could talk about the barbaric experiments that were conducted by our own scientists.

Did Josef Mengele Produce Any Useful Medical Research?

That of course is totally different. You were busy denigrating a political system and using a child to wave about as a cudgel.

Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR

The US National Institute of Health seems to think there were medical advances in the old Soviet Union. Well, fuck them, anyone who talks well about Socialist or Communists is probably one right?

You know, like Historians, who generally agree that the best tank at the beginning of the war was the T-34. Then again, everyone had a better tank than the American Sherman. I mean, who uses gasoline in a tank that is going to be shot? Everyone with half a brain uses diesel to reduce the chance of fire. Well, everyone but Americans.

Today, we are adapting the Soviet designed reactive armor. But hey, nobody ever learned anything from Socialists.

I mean thank God we have an awesome space program or we would have to go to Moscow and hitch a ride on an ancient Russian design. Oh, wait, never mind.

The best assault rifle in the world is the AK-47. It is reliable, easy to use, easy to maintain, and requires minimal maintainance. But thank God we are so advanced that we don't use that stamped steel piece of shit right? It's way better to have a rifle that is more accurate, requires far more maintenance, is more delicate, and more prone to breaking down. Well, at least when it works, it is more accurate.

Socialists have built the biggest, most advanced Dam in the world in China. Socialists have built the most advanced, and most energy efficient buildings, in China. Socialists have built islands, and created the most efficient and advanced port, in China.

Soviets had the first long term space station.

But the only "socialists" you want to talk about is Venezuela and Cuba right? You didn't want to talk about the very socialist France and the medical advances of the Pasteur Institute right? It's all about America. Fuck yeah.

Before you denounce something, you should probably figure out what you're talking about. Because that shallow patriotism really doesn't make anything true.

 

[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!

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.

They offered to pay for hospice care where he would be sedated, but not fed or hydrated until he died.

OMG...THATS WHAT THEY DID TO MY MOTHER!

My mother lived with my sister, and she would die at home.
I would stay at the house every other day or 2,

I'll never forget, showing up at the house
and seeing my mom, just laying there,...
her breathing was shallow and she was unresponsive,
with the exception of very weak hand squeezes

I mean, 2 days prior, she was sitting up
and having short conversations with me,
in between sipping iced coffee through a straw

The nurse was there, watching tv with my sisters
and one of their husbands, and I said...
umm, what's going on, mom is having trouble breathing
let's sit her up and see if she'll drink some water.

She can't drink anything, she's sedated, my one sister said
Well, get the sponge and wet her lips then...what did she eat today?

Silence

Lynn, we're not feeding or hydrating mom anymore...
WHAT?!!!! I went fucking ballistic

I held my moms hand, prayed,
apologized to her and stormed out

About 5 hours later, my son called to tell me she died

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is what the left and the Democrats want for our country: no control of your own children. Let the state raise your children or abort them as they wish.

 

[hadit]

Interesting comments made by everybody.

But those that have had to deal with these difficult circumstances
all have one thing in common. It was your call to make...not the Govt.

It should always be that way

Especially when the parents are not asking society to foot the bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moonglow]

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

Again with the 1984....It has no context as you have tried to use it.....It is sad to lose a child that is ill but that is life, the courts should had stayed out of the decision yet, without intervention by the court the case of the ill lad would not have been sensationalized so much..

 

[Moonglow]

This is what the left and the Democrats want for our country: no control of your own children. Let the state raise your children or abort them as they wish.

The state has no such control in the US....

 

[Moonglow]

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."

We never know, until we learn. There was a slim, probably minuscule chance that this treatment would have helped Charlie. Yet, we don't do just the safe treatment. We never have. We take swings out of desperation, and sometimes we stumble on a treatment that works. Medical Knowledge, like all knowledge, is built upon a foundation of death and pain. Failures that taught us what didn't work.

In World War II, in Britain, bomb disposal teams had to try and defuse delayed bombs, and dud's. This process progressed by trial and error. The first team would go forward, and one member of the team would stand back, safe, with a notebook. They would write down everything the team did. The team got to a point and called back. "We're cutting the blue wire." Then there was a loud boom and the recorder underlined the last call.

The next team who saw that kind of bomb had instructions to the point. They also knew whatever happened, do not cut the blue wire.

Medical knowledge advanced the same way. Doctors desperate to save a life, tried, failed. Tried something else, and failed. Tried something else, and managed to save a life. Using "cat gut" to sew up belly wounds. Resectioning the intestines. I'm sure that tens of thousands of people died before the Doctors figured out how to do it the right way so the patient lived.

A common even routine operation today. Removing an appendix. For thousands of years people just died. Then they died as the Doctor tried in vain to save the life. Then they died because of complications. Then they started living. Now, it's a relatively easy operation with very low mortality, we learned.

Perhaps the treatment would have saved Charlie, I admit it is probably not. But we never learn anything by not trying. We never accomplish anything by not taking a swing. If we tried, and Charlie had died anyway, then we would have learned something. Something to be used on the next child, or the one after that. Perhaps in a decade or two we are saving lives regularly, just like we do with an appendix.

Imagine if we had just given up on Cancer. When you got it, you just died. Nothing you can do. You just die. All the treatments we tried that failed. All the Doctors and Researchers who spent their entire lives trying to beat the disease, and all they accomplished was to nudge the survival rate up a few points. Now most cancers are treatable, we have ways to attack most of them. Women survive breast cancer, men survive prostate cancer. John McCain is alive, with brain cancer. Thirty years ago, it would have been a death sentence. Now, he has a chance, a slim one, but a real chance, because we did not give up, we did not stop fighting, we did not just shrug and say oh well, nothing we can do.

We may fail if we try. We will always fail if we don't try.

Why do you think this experimental treatment is from the US and not the UK? Where is the innovations coming from Venezuela, Cuba, some other socialized medicine shithole?

Science dies in socialist countries.

Yeah, do you always run with Louis Pasteur scissors?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This is what the left and the Democrats want for our country: no control of your own children. Let the state raise your children or abort them as they wish.

The state has no such control in the US....

If the left had their way...

MSNBC: We Have to Break Through This Idea 'That Kids Belong to Their Parents'

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is what the left and the Democrats want for our country: no control of your own children. Let the state raise your children or abort them as they wish.

The state has no such control in the US....

Look up "progressivism" sometime and extrapolate the result of a failing ObamaCare and how Progressives will fix it.

 

[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.

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.

They offered to pay for hospice care where he would be sedated, but not fed or hydrated until he died.

OMG...THATS WHAT THEY DID TO MY MOTHER!

My mother lived with my sister, and she would die at home.
I would stay at the house every other day or 2,

I'll never forget, showing up at the house
and seeing my mom, just laying there,...
her breathing was shallow and she was unresponsive,
with the exception of very weak hand squeezes

I mean, 2 days prior, she was sitting up
and having short conversations with me,
in between sipping iced coffee through a straw

The nurse was there, watching tv with my sisters
and one of their husbands, and I said...
umm, what's going on, mom is having trouble breathing
let's sit her up and see if she'll drink some water.

She can't drink anything, she's sedated, my one sister said
Well, get the sponge and wet her lips then...what did she eat today?

Silence

Lynn, we're not feeding or hydrating mom anymore...
WHAT?!!!! I went fucking ballistic

I held my moms hand, prayed,
apologized to her and stormed out

About 5 hours later, my son called to tell me she died

I am so very sorry

 

[JustAnotherNut]

No more worrying or wondering 'what if', no more pointing useless fingers of blame.


Charlie Gard, "beautiful little boy" at heart of dispute, dies

Good bye dear Charlie Gard, may you rest at ease & without pain in the loving & merciful hands of God. I can only hope the Dr's were right to say there was no other way.

 

[Political Junky]

Under socialized medicine all innovation, all research, all development stops. Even if the patient can and is willing to pay out of pocket, under single payer it's prohibited.

That's why there are no inventions from socialist countries.

^^ Bullshit

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The state has no such control in the US...

Because we haven't let the Democrats have "Single" -- YET

 

[keepitreal]

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.

They offered to pay for hospice care where he would be sedated, but not fed or hydrated until he died.

OMG...THATS WHAT THEY DID TO MY MOTHER!

My mother lived with my sister, and she would die at home.
I would stay at the house every other day or 2,

I'll never forget, showing up at the house
and seeing my mom, just laying there,...
her breathing was shallow and she was unresponsive,
with the exception of very weak hand squeezes

I mean, 2 days prior, she was sitting up
and having short conversations with me,
in between sipping iced coffee through a straw

The nurse was there, watching tv with my sisters
and one of their husbands, and I said...
umm, what's going on, mom is having trouble breathing
let's sit her up and see if she'll drink some water.

She can't drink anything, she's sedated, my one sister said
Well, get the sponge and wet her lips then...what did she eat today?

Silence

Lynn, we're not feeding or hydrating mom anymore...
WHAT?!!!! I went fucking ballistic

I held my moms hand, prayed,
apologized to her and stormed out

About 5 hours later, my son called to tell me she died

I am so very sorry

I am so very sorry

Thank you...you know, my mom loved Lucy and Betty Hoop
We'd always buy her memorabilia of one or the other.

Yeah, about 5 minutes after hanging up with my son,
my brother called to ask me....

Do you want to say anything to mom?

I'm like...wtf are you talking about... she's dead...
you got Miss Cleo on the other line

He starts yelling at me, ....you're such a bitch
Maybe there's something you'd like to say...
I'll hold the phone to her ear

Hey, should I ask her if she's still hungry?

Click