Doctors can withdraw baby's life support

[Bubbles]

What a terrible decision to have to make, against the wishes of the parents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39568388

As they had raised millions to take him to the USA would it be such a big problem to just give it a go?

It would be very hard to turn off the life support while the parents regarded you as a murderer.

I suppose there might be a time to let a baby slip away rather than suffer.

, but what a heartbreaking decision to have to make.

[Robbie]

It is heartbreaking Rose, I feel for the parents and that poor little baby. Still I believe the doctors have the best interests of the child at heart &even the American doctors now agree with them,previously that were not so aware of the gravity of his condition. Travelling to the USA for treatment would be gruelling for him, parents thought he might have a chance but looks as though they were clutching at straws.

He may pass away peacefully here now if life support is withdrawn & I do hope his parents will come to terms with it in time. it's so hard for them, and for the hospital staff.

[john]

Let us say the poor child did go to America and they did manage to stabilise it in someway so that the child would not actually get worse or not die... big if.

Presumable the child would then continue it's existence in a semi vegetative state (irreparable brain damage having all ready been done). Who would look after and support the child? What would be it's quality of life? What would be it's parents quality of life and who would support them?

Very sad though it is I think it is much better to let it go.

[SusanDoris]

I agree with John.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

This is wrong. He (not "it") is his parents baby, they want to try to keep him alive, and the money that has been raised for this cause should be spent as it was intended.

Great Ormond Street has gone down in my estimation.

[Harrowby Hall]

This is wrong. He (not "it") is his parents baby, they want to try to keep him alive, and the money that has been raised for this cause should be spent as it was intended.

Great Ormond Street has gone down in my estimation.

The judge stated (what I have always believed to be the case) that parents do not own their children and they must act in the best interest of their children. I have no idea what kind of promise the parents received about the treatment available from the American interest - I have seen it referred to as "pioneering". That does not look promising, it suggests that it has never been done before and that no-one knows the likely outcome. The baby may be subjected to invasive procedures and then die - an experimental subject who supports the null hypothesis.

The judge said “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."

Charlie's prospects are bleak. Is it not better that he leaves his short life in relative comfort and peace? And what has the Great Ormond Street Hospital done that is so bad?

[Robbie]

A good post HH and I agree with what you say. Very glad I don't have to make the decision as i am sure are most of us but someone has to. The poor little lad deserves to rest.

His parents will need much TLC when it's over.

[Rhiannon]

I agree so much with HH.

[ippy]

What a rotten decision to have to make, I would have to go with the judge.

ippy 

[Nearly Sane]

Agree with Ippy, what a horrible decision to have to make. There isn't a right answer here, only a choice between two tragedies. Incredibly sad for the parents but I think in terms of Charlie, it's the the least worst option.

[ippy]

Agree with Ippy, what a horrible decision to have to make. There isn't a right answer here, only a choice between two tragedies. Incredibly sad for the parents but I think in terms of Charlie, it's the the least worst option.

That's about it N S; a modern saying but apt, 'shit happens', I don't particularly like this saying but in this case it fits.

ippy

[Humph Warden Bennett]

The judge stated (what I have always believed to be the case) that parents do not own their children and they must act in the best interest of their children. I have no idea what kind of promise the parents received about the treatment available from the American interest - I have seen it referred to as "pioneering". That does not look promising, it suggests that it has never been done before and that no-one knows the likely outcome. The baby may be subjected to invasive procedures and then die - an experimental subject who supports the null hypothesis.

The judge said “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."

Charlie's prospects are bleak. Is it not better that he leaves his short life in relative comfort and peace? And what has the Great Ormond Street Hospital done that is so bad?

His parents think that it is better that he is alive, than he is dead.

I agree with his parents.

[Nearly Sane]

His parents think that it is better that he is alive, than he is dead.

I agree with his parents.

So you want him to suffer to indulge your emotion.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

His parents want him, alive, not dead.

So you want him to suffer to indulge your emotion.

That is bollocks.

His parents want him alive, rather than dead. I agree with his parents.

[Nearly Sane]

His parents want him, alive, not dead.
That is bollocks.

His parents want him alive, rather than dead. I agree with his parents.

And he will suffer because of your indulgence in your emotions.

[jeremyp]

His parents think that it is better that he is alive, than he is dead.

I agree with his parents.

With the best will in the world, it is impossible to understand why the parents would have a better understanding of the prognosis than the medical professionals involved.

[Robbie]

And he will suffer because of your indulgence in your emotions.

No he won't because the judge will rule against it.

HH you never know, even without going to America he may live and feel well for a while longer. That is something to hope for.

[Rhiannon]

With the best will in the world, it is impossible to understand why the parents would have a better understanding of the prognosis than the medical professionals involved.

This isn't about reason though, is it? This is two parents who feel ferociously protective of their child. From what I can gather from talking to parents with disabled kids the protectiveness goes way beyond that which most parents experience.

And then there is the perfectly understandable fear about what happens once they let him go.

[jeremyp]

This isn't about reason though, is it? This is two parents who feel ferociously protective of their child. From what I can gather from talking to parents with disabled kids the protectiveness goes way beyond that which most parents experience.

I agree, but that surely calls into question their ability to think clearly about what is best for their child and what is the best use of the £1.25 million they seem to have raised.

The article says the boy has "irreversible brain damage". Now I haven't done any further research to find out what that means in this case, but it could be anything from minor learning difficulties to total destruction of higher brain functions. If it's towards the latter end of the scale, then I'm afraid he is already gone and no amount of being desperate to keep him alive is going to make any difference.

[Nearly Sane]

No he won't because the judge will rule against it.

HH you never know, even without going to America he may live and feel well for a while longer. That is something to hope for.

Yes, he will by Humph's position. The treatment is not about recovery but prolongation of suffering that has no proof.

[Rhiannon]

I agree, but that surely calls into question their ability to think clearly about what is best for their child and what is the best use of the £1.25 million they seem to have raised.

Yes, it explains their actions, but it doesn't make them right.

[Bubbles]

With the best will in the world, it is impossible to understand why the parents would have a better understanding of the prognosis than the medical professionals involved.

Just now and again the experts get it wrong, people do better than they predict especially the young. I think those parents just want to try.  It's natural to want to protect your baby.

If I was in the medical profession I wouldn't want to be the one pulling the plug. I understand where Humph Warden Bennett is coming from. The parents aren't ready to let go, they need some sort of counselling to deal with the whole thing.

I don't want the baby to suffer either, but nothing is going to happen for 3 weeks anyway because they have time to appeal. Why not fly the baby out to the states in the meantime just to see if it works?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/12/parents-fighting-keep-sick-baby-alive-charlie-gard-appeal

[Nearly Sane]

Just now and again the experts get it wrong, people do better than they predict especially the young. I think those parents just want to try.  It's natural to want to protect your baby.

If I was in the medical profession I wouldn't want to be the one pulling the plug. I understand where Humph Warden Bennett is coming from. The parents aren't ready to let go, they need some sort of counselling to deal with the whole thing.

I don't want the baby to suffer either, but nothing is going to happen for 3 weeks anyway because they have time to appeal. Why not fly the baby out to the states in the meantime just to see if it works?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/12/parents-fighting-keep-sick-baby-alive-charlie-gard-appeal

So, you know the baby isn't suffering despite not being an expert? You think the extra treatment isn't going to be adding to the suffering?

[Rhiannon]

Just now and again the experts get it wrong, people do better than they predict especially the young. I think those parents just want to try.  It's natural to want to protect your baby.

If I was in the medical profession I wouldn't want to be the one pulling the plug. I understand where Humph Warden Bennett is coming from. The parents aren't ready to let go, they need some sort of counselling to deal with the whole thing.

I don't want the baby to suffer either, but nothing is going to happen for 3 weeks anyway because they have time to appeal. Why not fly the baby out to the states in the meantime just to see if it works?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/12/parents-fighting-keep-sick-baby-alive-charlie-gard-appeal

Because flying could cause further suffering, no matter how careful his care. And that is without the possibility of the unproven treatment making him suffer too.

All we see are pictures of an apparently peaceful sleeping baby. We've no idea of the reality of that baby's life.

[Bubbles]

Reading further it's very sad, in the USA he would have got the treatment, but even the doctor offering to treat him with the pioneering treatment thinks it won't make a difference.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/11/high-court-rules-doctors-can-withdraw-life-support-treatment/

Quote.

"It was even the opinion of the US expert who Charlie's parents hoped would treat him that it was was "very unlikely that he will improve" if he underwent the pioneering therapy being offered.

A US doctor said in evidence submitted to the Family Division of the High Court that he would be happy to treat Charlie with experimental nucleoside therapy and that the baby would have received the treatment if he lived in the US.

But the doctor also added: “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.”