Doctors can withdraw baby's life support

[ProfessorDavey]

Sanctimonious crap. The doctors should be listened to, as they are the experts. One feels for his parents, but they are too emotionally involved to make good decisions.

I agree, but I think it is right that in cases where the medical opinion and the opinion of the parents aren't the same that the case should be referred to the courts for a final decision.

Both the parents and the medical team involved in the care are too close to the situation to be completely objective and an independent third party should ultimately be responsible for the decision.

Watching the news tonight this case has really got out of hand - the notion that Great Ormond St staff and parents of children being treated are being harassed is simply unacceptable.

[Shaker]

He won't be alive much longer, whatever happens. Not necessarily referring to HWB, but often the so-called "pro-life" movement proves heartless, cruel and cold.

Like this sort of thing, you mean?

IMHO that means more than "well wishers" who want him to die

[SteveH]

Like this sort of thing, you mean?

Yes, like that. Who posted it?

[Shaker]

Yes, like that. Who posted it?

You'll be amazed.

Not.

http://tinyurl.com/y8bwhjzm

[floo]

It is appalling that death threats have been sent to the staff at the hospital! There are some very sick people around! I believe the doctors treating that poor little boy are thinking of what is best for him. His latest brain scan is not good apparently.

[Nearly Sane]

And looks like the legal part of this is now over. Let's hope that the end of the poor child can be something that gives the patents some closure.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40708343

[Rhiannon]

I don't think there ever is such a thing as 'closure' with the death of a child. Just the next thing to deal with. From talking to parents who have lost children it's a case of finding a way of living with the loss and grief and the sense of someone always being missing.

The phrasing I've heard in regard to the judgement is that it is 'too late' for the treatment to be effective. I wonder if the next thing is going to be a suggestion that GOSH have been negligent in not securing experimental treatment for him sooner.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest there would be closure for the death just that they the next steps need not to be in the public eye, and to get some closure on what has happened because of that. I agree that the term 'too late' could cause further problems as it implies that there was a time it wasn't too late which is not clear.

[floo]

Poor little chap. I think it is kinder this way, better than the parents going to the US and discovering that in the end there is nothing which can be done for their son.

[Enki]

I don't think there ever is such a thing as 'closure' with the death of a child. Just the next thing to deal with. From talking to parents who have lost children it's a case of finding a way of living with the loss and grief and the sense of someone always being missing.

The phrasing I've heard in regard to the judgement is that it is 'too late' for the treatment to be effective. I wonder if the next thing is going to be a suggestion that GOSH have been negligent in not securing experimental treatment for him sooner.

I suspect you may be right, Rhi. I think it's such a sad case though which, for various reasons, has hit the headlines and inflamed emotions from a variety of people on both sides.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect you may be right, Rhi. I think it's such a sad case though which, for various reasons, has hit the headlines and inflamed emotions from a variety of people on both sides.

It's very difficult to express an opinion on the case without of sounding as if you are condemning some of those involved. If you say that it is for the best that no treatment happens, it feels like you are saying the patents don't want the best for their child. If you say that the parent's wishes should be respected because they care for the child, it reads as if you are saying the medical staff are uncaring

 It seems tragic all round, and in addition to those closest to the child, it must be horrendous if you were a judge or a lawyer in the case. The need for a 3rd party is clear but these type of decisions take their cost. It's not a job any judge can have wanted.

[Rhiannon]

I don't think this case is going away. And I'm uncomfortable by the hate it seems to have unleashed.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think this case is going away. And I'm uncomfortable by the hate it seems to have unleashed.

I would suggest the hate has always been there. It's a perfect case to get people angry. It's complex and we are effectively powerless. Any opinion creates a side. There are vested interests involved. As I have noted previously, if you want to be disturbed by hate, visit some of the nerdy sites on Dr Who.

[ProfessorDavey]

And looks like the legal part of this is now over. Let's hope that the end of the poor child can be something that gives the patents some closure.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40708343

I think this is the right decision and the way in which the case has been considered through the legal system is a testament to the way that the best interests of the child is alway put first in the UK.

While I cannot begin to think about what the parents are going through I do not believe they have come out of this with a great deal of credit. Even today in their statement they were implying that had Charlie been treated a few months ago he would have potentially been cured. That view has been flatly denied by the medical professionals involved. They still seem to be railing against the system, believing that the legal system prevented their child from being cured, rather than protecting his best interests.

I hope now that the media will move along and leave everyone involved in peace and to find some closure.

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree with much of what his parents have chosen but I doubt I am in a place to judge them as to their credit coming out of this. I am not sure what that place might be.

[Rhiannon]

I think railing against someone is natural in times of extreme distress. And they strike me as being very young.

[Sassy]

Sanctimonious crap. The doctors should be listened to, as they are the experts. One feels for his parents, but they are too emotionally involved to make good decisions.

We have had several infants die in our family and two survived because we didn't listen to the doctors who sent them home to die.
You are not in a position to judge anyone, anyone who have lost children at various ages.
Sanctimonious crap...  which you refer to - comes from experience of grief and watching children die. Something I hope you never have to experience.

My nieces both born with endocardialfibroelastosis  the first in 1986 and after heart scans and echos was sent home to die with the condition and suffering apneoa too. We asked for a second opinion and was told no. It was our GP who gave us the idea to take her to a different hospital saying she has suffered an apneoa attack whilst passing. Before we left the other hospital our vicar came and annointed her for healing and because she would never get to be christened. Children do not live past 12 weeks and her condition critical.

The hospital did further tests and part of the disease had completely healed in one ventricle.  They said if they could get her through to twelve then a heart transplant would be the only hope.  She is a very beautiful woman now. She has her own business three beautiful children and still has an heart condition. Regular checks show no deterioration and had we just gone home without annointing and without the second opinion she would have been left to die because doctors said no cure and cannot get better.

When you can speak from a place of knowledge in such situations then you can tell me I am speaking Sanctamonious crap.
Truth is, I know better than you when it comes to doctors and conditions they give no hope for.
We have lost children and we have experienced the trauma of them being sent home to die of terminal conditions.
We have been blessed  by God and the medical science has become enlightened to the fact not everything is as it first appears and can be changed.

The two separate scans and echos show the before and after. My other niece who had her first heart attack by the age of 2 years is still alive. They said the condition does not clear up and does not go away. But she was anointed too, and she was worse than the first niece.
Her condition appears to have cleared however she is 29 years old and after being raped became depressed and suicidal.
Some will remember from the time we asked for prayers. She is Bi-polar and now has MS.

Married with 2 sons she is brave and gets on with life.  Sometimes you do not realise how blessed you actually are.
Sometimes you don't see or know the stress in the life of others.

[floo]

I am of the opinion Charlie Guard's doctors knew best in his case.

[Aruntraveller]

Crikey, Sass - your family has more than its share of bad luck.

On the issue of the parents - it is impossible for most of us to contemplate how they are feeling so I don't feel as if we should be passing any kind of comments/judgement about them at what is an incredibly painful time for them.

But linking to Rhi's comment about the hatred engendered by the case; it is something that worries me more and more about our society that the more sensible, evidence based approach to issues is rejected in favour of an emotion heavy response that is based on a need to blame someone, anyone -  for a situation where blame should not even be in the equation.

Maybe it's a case of Plus Ca Change as NS suggests - but it doesn't feel that way to me. It feels to me as if there is more of a fundamental shift away from sensible discussion towards a self-centred belief in the force and validity of one's own feelings and emotions with a complete disregard for all other arguments no matter however good they are with respect to any given situation. 

[Rhiannon]

I agree to some extent Trent. I think this situation has seen the power of social media (which the parents here knew exactly how to use, as many young people do) and the era of fake news and so on.

That said, some of the reaction has reminded me of that to the death of Princess Diana, when the much of the country seemed to lose its marbles and hate and grief were hard to distinguish. I guess her death and the reaction to it owed a lot to her use of the media too, but I still can't account for why the nation went quite so mental. And I think her death was sadder now than I've ever done.

[Aruntraveller]

the power of social media

Yes - a double-edged sword if ever there was one.

[Shaker]

Yes - a double-edged sword if ever there was one.

It has its uses (for those interested, which I'm not, personally), but as the Charlie Gard case demonstrates (and many others) it allows people to emote and in some cases be an arse faster and to a wider audience than ever before.

[Rhiannon]

It has its uses (for those interested, which I'm not, personally), but as the Charlie Gard case demonstrates (and many others) it allows people to emote and in some cases be an arse faster and to a wider audience than ever before.

And it allowed feelings to be stoked, and by false information and lies. It's concerning.

[Nearly Sane]

I feel I need to clarify a little after Trent's comments. It isn't so much a case of plus ça change but that this is just a long line in issues where this 'hate' has been apparent. I've argued before that the change isn't that we hate more but there are more ways for the hate to be expressed and scene. Where once hate was merely shown by shouting at the TV it is now across social media and is echoed by being reported.


I agree that there is an issue with ignoring other's arguments but I'm not sure if that has not always been there. In terns of studies of how we defend opinions, this appears to be nothing new. I wonder if there was a time when,due to a particular mix of societal consensus and the development of technology, it felt as if there was less disagreement.

 Janan Ganesh has an interesting column in the FT today arguing that Brexit and Trumpism arise not out of a general uncertainty but because things are relatively stable and people have not ever experienced real uncertainty. Therefore they are willing to take more risks with the status quo because they are used to things turning out OK. I'm not sure how much I buy into it but certainly it seems to me there was a consensus once about society stumbling on together as in a three legged race. We now seems to being in all directions at once and kicking each other, and yet we are not in a bad place in many ways.

I am always conscious when we comment on how things are getting worse in some way, that that has been a refrain of curmudgeons throughout the ages, always looking back to some mythical golden age. Also I am often reminded of the film Pleasantville, where what is obviously a beneficial change for many and for society, can cause difficulties and issues for some. That we listen more to people rather than just riding roughshod across them is surely AB advance. The great work carried out by GOSH has been built around listening to and understanding parents and children. Something that once would have been extremely unusual. On this occasion,due to a mix of circumstances, it has become a full three rung circus, but it is not the norm.


Despite the media coverage of this case, I think it is one where there is little to learn. As I noted on this before, the nostrum 'hard cases make bad law' seems to apply. This feels much more significant in a grand scale, I suspect, than it actually is. It's significance in the specific is undoubted but beyond that a tragedy of circumstance.

[Nearly Sane]

It has its uses (for those interested, which I'm not, personally), but as the Charlie Gard case demonstrates (and many others) it allows people to emote and in some cases be an arse faster and to a wider audience than ever before.

Message boards are a form of social media, Shaker, so in the sense of using then and having administered more than 1, I don't see how you can say you aren't interested.