• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Charlie Gard

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    If my child were murdered I would demand the death penalty for the killer. Does not mean it should happen though.
    Indeed you would fight for it as Charlie's parents are (and I would) but the courts would decide as in this case. The Pope and Trump should stay out of it.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by FrontEnder View Post
      That's the crux of the issue I suppose. What's a reasonable chance?

      His parents, desperate for their son to live, think any chance is a reasonable one.

      The doctors think such a small chance isn't reasonable, and any chance he does have will just prolong his suffering, or cause him more (e.g. stress involved in transferring him, potential side effects etc.).

      It's been through the courts now, so I think now he just needs to be allowed to die as painlessly as possible. It's am awful situation and as I said before, trump and the Vatican etc. Wading in on the issue is just cruel for the parents.
      This is the one.

      We must have a way of deciding when there is chasm between the views of parents and doctors - and remember it could be the other way round, where the parents seek withdrawal of treatment and the doctors' view is that treatment is benefiting the child.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by FrontEnder View Post
        That's the crux of the issue I suppose. What's a reasonable chance?

        His parents, desperate for their son to live, think any chance is a reasonable one.

        The doctors think such a small chance isn't reasonable, and any chance he does have will just prolong his suffering, or cause him more (e.g. stress involved in transferring him, potential side effects etc.).

        It's been through the courts now, so I think now he just needs to be allowed to die as painlessly as possible. It's am awful situation and as I said before, trump and the Vatican etc. Wading in on the issue is just cruel for the parents.
        one in ten chance is pretty good in the circumstances. 2-3 months stay of execution.
        Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by vetran View Post
          one in ten chance is pretty good in the circumstances. 2-3 months stay of execution.
          May I remind everyone that the chance of the Tories not getting a Tory Majority was 1 in 50 and we all know what happened there.
          What happens in General, stays in General.
          You know what they say about assumptions!

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by vetran View Post
            one in ten chance is pretty good in the circumstances. 2-3 months stay of execution.
            It's not a 1 in 10 chance though. It's an untested treatment for his condition.
            So it's more of a "we don't have a scooby doo what the chances are".

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by FrontEnder View Post
              It's not a 1 in 10 chance though. It's an untested treatment êfor his condition.
              So it's more of a "we don't have a scooby doo what the chances are".
              Or the side effects.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by SlipTheJab View Post
                But no one can deny the parents right to fight for their child to the end, I know I would, very sad case, not helped by the sky fairy lot...
                The child has the rights not the parents.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
                  The child has the rights not the parents.
                  Rubbish.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by SlipTheJab View Post
                    Rubbish.
                    Hello little 9 month year old boy would you like me to turn off your life support? Oh look, he hasn't replied, so obviously he's not bothered.

                    Next I wonder if that cat wants kicking down the stairs, I'll ask it.

                    NLYUK you a twat.
                    What happens in General, stays in General.
                    You know what they say about assumptions!

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by SlipTheJab View Post
                      Rubbish.
                      Not heard of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? linky

                      This was incorporated into Children's Rights Bill linky

                      This means in any case like this the child has their own legal representative to speak up for them.

                      And yes some of the articles in the convention contradict one another, so the judges' job is to decide what is in the interest of the child.
                      Last edited by SueEllen; 7 July 2017, 18:17.
                      "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X