Charlie Gard

[BrilloPad]

Charlie Gard: US hospital offers to send experimental drug to UK - BBC News

Thoughts?

[PurpleGorilla]

Give him the drug. Should have done it weeks ago.

[northernladyuk]

Only one question. Is the treatment of overall benefit to the child or not?

[chopper]

Only one question. Is the treatment of overall benefit to the child or not?

Depends on whether you assume that he is suffering, and that prolonging his life will only prolong his suffering. Will this drug reduce his suffering?

[northernladyuk]

Depends on whether you assume that he is suffering, and that prolonging his life will only prolong his suffering. Will this drug reduce his suffering?

These are clearly difficult decisions, and I've known a number of families in a similar position. It's hard to get a real insight into an individual case from the outside. While the parents should always be carefully listened to, and obviously want the best for their baby, it does not follow that what they actually want will be of overall benefit to the baby. Where there is a conflict between parents and specialist doctors that cannot be resolved outside the courts (and it often is - I have seen parents 'win the argument' for treatment and be shown to be right, but it was a case which appeared to be much more 'shades of grey', hence the doctors' acquiescence with the parents' wishes), I would trust the court system as the best way we have of resolving such matters. The only alternative is to always let parents make all decisions.

Very sad of course, and obviously it will provoke strong views in people with strongly and genuinely held views.

[MarillionFan]

Charlie Gard: US hospital offers to send experimental drug to UK - BBC News

Thoughts?

You would fight tooth and nail to protect your children. In this case there is a percentage the child can be saved and life improved, if there is a chance then the Doctors at Great Ormond street, judges at the high court & European court have no right to rule against the parents. The fact they raised the cash to have this done elsewhere, plus doctors have now offered to do this for nothing means they should at least try.

Euthanisia, suicide, manslaughter or murder are not legal in this country the last time I looked. I wonder which charges should be bought against the Doctor who turns his life support off before all options are exhausted.

I suppose we'll find out after 11 today.

[MarillionFan]

Also the pope is involved. Didn't Jesus cure sick people. It's now science versus religion is they allow him to die when the Vatican says he can go there.

[northernladyuk]

You would fight tooth and nail to protect your children. In this case there is a percentage the child can be saved and life improved, if there is a chance then the Doctors at Great Ormond street, judges at the high court & European court have no right to rule against the parents. The fact they raised the cash to have this done elsewhere, plus doctors have now offered to do this for nothing means they should at least try.

Euthanisia, suicide, manslaughter or murder are not legal in this country the last time I looked. I wonder which charges should be bought against the Doctor who turns his life support off before all options are exhausted.

I suppose we'll find out after 11 today.

Withdrawal of treatment where it is not of overall benefit to a patient is entirely legal in the UK, and in fact is questionably legal to continue treatment that is not of overall benefit to a patient, particularly where that patient lacks the capacity to consent. The courts have the authority to rule.

So the question is only about the interest of Charlie.

[woohoo]

Also the pope is involved. Didn't Jesus cure sick people. It's now science versus religion is they allow him to die when the Vatican says he can go there.

I read an article in the New York Times about this. They actually had Christian organisation representatives stating how the bible could be interpreted as for and against treatment in this case.

I just couldn't understand how in a respected paper in this day and age religion should have anything to do with deciding if treatment should or should not be given.

[MarillionFan]

I read an article in the New York Times about this. They actually had Christian organisation representatives stating how the bible could be interpreted as for and against treatment in this case.

I just couldn't understand how in a respected paper in this day and age religion should have anything to do with deciding if treatment should or should not be given.

In this day and age. Infidel.

Allahu Akbar.