Charlie Gard

[BrilloPad]

Doctors say no. Parents say yes. If it's 60/40 that doctors or right, I would think the parents wishes would take precedence. It it's 99/1, then I'm with the doctors.

And what about 80/20? And WHO decides what the odds are?

If its sasguru then they would be wrong.

A close friend had a child and was told they would die in a month and probably much less. She was Christened, first holy communion, and confirmed.

Then a doctor found a rare new drug. 22 uses, all in the states. 11 success, 11 failures. They used it and it was a success.

In this case, there are no previous cases.

What I expect is to use the untested drug, it fail, then the parents sue. It was not long before I was born that disabled children were put face down in a pillow to die, the mother told the baby died during birth. I have 2 large scars on the back of my head having fallen through glass. I did not go to hospital. The expectation of life these days is astonishing. Which is good - times change. However should be be forced through even where there is suffering? Should the human race be devoting resources to colonizing other planets?

Tough questions.....

[PurpleGorilla]

Tick tock tick tock.

This has been going on for weeks.

The kid could of had the drug already.

[NotAllThere]

The kid could of had the drug already.

[northernladyuk]

Luckily then you aren't the judge. The child's rights are paramount and that includes protecting them from the beliefs of their parents if it would cause him harm.

And what about 80/20? And WHO decides what the odds are?

Medical assessment of the case and the evidence base of the proposed treatment within the context of that case.

[northernladyuk]

Tick tock tick tock.

This has been going on for weeks.

The kid could of had the drug already.

The drug that hasn't been tested on mice yet? The baby could have had many treatments in that time, but it doesn't mean that it would be in his interests to do so.

[Lost It]

Hard view:

The kid wasn't meant to survive. Even if he does he will have no quality of life.

He is taking up a bed in the worlds best Childrens Hospital.

Let him go.

[northernladyuk]

Hard view:

The kid wasn't meant to survive. Even if he does he will have no quality of life.

He is taking up a bed in the worlds best Childrens Hospital.

Let him go.

Bed usage will not be a factor. I've known kids using a bed at > £1k per day (and this was 20 years ago) who had a poor outlook, but the treatment was of benefit. Nobody balks at that.

The question is only about his best interest. We either accept that we have a robust system where the courts can intervene in very difficult cases, or it's the Wild West, with every untested and unevidenced treatment being pushed onto desperate parents.

[Lost It]

Bed usage will not be a factor. I've known kids using a bed at > £1k per day (and this was 20 years ago) who had a poor outlook, but the treatment was of benefit. Nobody balks at that.

The question is only about his best interest. We either accept that we have a robust system where the courts can intervene in very difficult cases, or it's the Wild West, with every untested and unevidenced treatment being pushed onto desperate parents.

Maybe bed use isn't a factor. But we aren't supposed to use humans to experiment. And that, beside all other things is a huge no. There's a difference between a poor outlook, which implies he has a chance, and his actual outlook, which is that all it will do is hold off the inevitable for a few more weeks. Or not.

But end of the day, I still think they should just let him go. If he had cancer, there wouldn't be so much hoo haa. Poor kid has no chance, if he can't live without a ventilator and lots of electrodes on his body, as far as I am concerned it simply wasn't meant to be. I was meant to survive my bout with cancer, so I did. That easy.

[northernladyuk]

Maybe bed use isn't a factor. But we aren't supposed to use humans to experiment. And that, beside all other things is a huge no. There's a difference between a poor outlook, which implies he has a chance, and his actual outlook, which is that all it will do is hold off the inevitable for a few more weeks. Or not.

But end of the day, I still think they should just let him go. If he had cancer, there wouldn't be so much hoo haa. Poor kid has no chance, if he can't live without a ventilator and lots of electrodes on his body, as far as I am concerned it simply wasn't meant to be. I was meant to survive my bout with cancer, so I did. That easy.

I would trust the courts in this matter. Just wanted to dismiss the idea that resource allocation should be a factor.

It is interesting that Great Ormond St was originally founded (Charles Dickens was one of the fund raisers) because nobody really bothered treating sick children, although there were already children's hospitals in Paris and Dublin. They just died. We have now moved to a position where children's services are typically the best funded and that is how it should be. I do wonder sometimes though about the heroic intervention (especially in the US) of babies born at 22 / 23 weeks gestation.

[PurpleGorilla]

The drug that hasn't been tested on mice yet? The baby could have had many treatments in that time, but it doesn't mean that it would be in his interests to do so.

It's that or death.

Give him the drug.