Charlie Gard

[gwb72tii]

and every single doctor that has examined this child's condition has come to the same conclusion that he will not recover, he is in pain and he will, unfortunately, die.

it's a complex moral question whether or not parents have a right to keep a child alive who is near death and in constant pain and unlikely to recover.

Baloney, it's not a complex decision whatsoever. It is immoral and unethical for anyone but the parents to have a decision in this. There are laws preventing abuse of the child, of the parents making irrational decisions not in the child's best interests.The decision should be left with them.

This is a slippery slope that should concern anyone that believes their healthcare decisions are better left to the state and some faceless bureaucrat.

And 318is, I have made similar life decisions having to do with dementia and quality of life for me and others, but it is my decision, not the state's decision. Apples and oranges comparison to the child.

[z31maniac]

If you aren't conscious, can you feel pain?

I'm still confused as to why allowing an experimental treatment, just see the results, would have been a bad idea in the eyes of the NHS?

Treating the child as a guinea pig? Yes. Could it help advance medical science? Absolutely.

[BraveUlysses]

As was already stated:

Parents raised the money, had the means to get him somewhere that was willing to use experiential treatments and give him a chance.

They wanted to give him a chance, but the Government and Hospital denied them that.

It's disgusting.


Even if keeping him alive would have created a burden for them, that's their choice to make, and no one else's.


The fact that the British Government is now dictating who is worth trying to save and who isn't, to the point of prevention those with the means of seeking treatment from doing so is frightening.

and every single doctor that has examined this child's condition has come to the same conclusion that he will not recover, he is in pain and he will, unfortunately, die.

it's a complex moral question whether or not parents have a right to keep a child alive who is near death and in constant pain and unlikely to recover.

[Schnitzer318is]

As was already stated:

Parents raised the money, had the means to get him somewhere that was willing to use experiential treatments and give him a chance.

They wanted to give him a chance,

A chance at what though? It was my understanding that it was just a chance at literal life, but no brain function, or semblance of psychological existence could be regained due to the damage caused by all of his seizures.

^If my above understanding is incorrect, then I withdraw my position.

You can say it's the parent's choice, and you'd be right. I support their right to make the decision (though I realize my first post made it sound like I was for "death panels") even if they are making the wrong one. It's the wrong one for themselves, possibly their future children, but most importantly... the wrong one for this boy who died existentially back in January.

[Exodus_2pt0]

As was already stated:

Parents raised the money, had the means to get him somewhere that was willing to use experiential treatments and give him a chance.

They wanted to give him a chance, but the Government and Hospital denied them that.

It's disgusting.


Even if keeping him alive would have created a burden for them, that's their choice to make, and no one else's.


The fact that the British Government is now dictating who is worth trying to save and who isn't, to the point of prevention those with the means of seeking treatment from doing so is frightening.

[Schnitzer318is]

I am a parent.

I wonder if you'd make the same choice if the shoe was on the other foot...

I'm a parent of 2. Yes, I would make that same choice. My wife and I discussed this at length before having children. Fortunately, our children were born healthy, but we had genetic and other tests done to indicate any problems while in-utero so that we could terminate if necessary.

To further emphasize my feelings on this. I EXPECT my wife and/or kids to pull the plug on me should I lose my mental faculties to the point of being non-functional or not being able to recognize family/friends. I will not be a drain on the people I love... neither financially or emotionally.

Edit: Let me be clear though. This is a very sad situation. I do empathize with the parents and feel for them and the decision they are dealing with. But that does not change the fact that they are holding on to a child that is not able to live a life. They are grasping on to him and will be hurting their future financially, emotionally, and both of those things would seriously affect the lives of any future children they have.

[gwb72tii]

In this particular case... I'm all for it. The child will have no life other than the literal physical sense from what I understand. The parents are being extremely selfish keeping that poor child alive and need to think about his QOL vs. satisfying their own needs/desires. It's a tough choice... Welcome to being a parent.

I am a parent.

I wonder if you'd make the same choice if the shoe was on the other foot...

[Schnitzer318is]

Thank you. For those that wish single payer upon all of us, this case is exactly what you wish for, ceding control of yourself and family's healthcare to the state.
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

In this particular case... I'm all for it. The child will have no life other than the literal physical sense from what I understand. The parents are being extremely selfish keeping that poor child alive and need to think about his QOL vs. satisfying their own needs/desires. It's a tough choice... Welcome to being a parent.

[gwb72tii]

This case has zero to do with insurance..... again the family has cash to pay for treatment, as well as offers to treat at no charge. It is a case of the hospital/govt claiming custody of a child over the legal parents wishes..... where Im from this would be considered kidnapping if it were anyone other than the govt.

Thank you. For those that wish single payer upon all of us, this case is exactly what you wish for, ceding control of yourself and family's healthcare to the state.
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

[mrsleeve]

Insurance companies operate in the exact same manner. They are socialized by their very nature. I have in fact been denied for treatment before. Although I am fairly satisfied with my insurance.

Hard to be for profit and "socialized", and you were not "denied" treatment you declined treatment because someone else was not going to pay for it, aka not covered by your plan, or because you didnt have the cash or means to afford it(there are ways around this for most), or did not deem it "necessary" for your self just how is this your insurers fault again ..........

Plenty of people with some means, from places with govt H/C systems come to the the US and pay cash for treatments here, that they cant get or cant get in a timely manner in their home countries. There are time zone clocks all over at the Cleveland Clinic IN OHIO set to UTC+3, aka home time in Saudi Arabia, since they cater to so many Saudis getting their heart fixed........

[naplesE30]

This case has zero to do with insurance..... again the family has cash to pay for treatment, as well as offers to treat at no charge. It is a case of the hospital/govt claiming custody of a child over the legal parents wishes..... where Im from this would be considered kidnapping if it were anyone other than the govt.

[LBJefferies]

the Gard situation is in fact a complete repudiation of Obamacare and all socialized medicine, something more than a few here think is a good idea.

Gard cannot get to the medical treatment they desire because of socialized medicine. He's too young and the cost is too high so sorry mom and dad, your son is going to die. If they allow him treatment (and then others) it will bankrupt their medical system.

So Holmes, maybe you'd like to be the one to explain tot he parents that for the good of the many, their son must be denied. As Sarah Palin said, you can be on the death panel.

Insurance companies operate in the exact same manner. They are socialized by their very nature. I have in fact been denied for treatment before. Although I am fairly satisfied with my insurance.

[naplesE30]

^Oh I know. This case is unique though in the fact the govt is basically advocating for death..... or dying with dignity as their courts put it. Many of the cases in the US, while maybee misguided, have been to help or protect the child.

[mrsleeve]

^

Happens here too, like when the gods will people refuse treatment ( I know kinda the other way around) for their kids. Or when someone calls the cops and CPS shows up to take your kids because you let your 9 year old walk 3 blocks home from the park to the house. Or when your kids are playing in the yard "unsupervised" or when schools start to punish kids or get CPS involved for what they do out side of class hours off school property etc.... Lots of instances of where govt get between parents and their kids even here in the USA.

[naplesE30]

The alarming thing about the Charlie Gard case is the hospital has taken custody of the child, and are fighting the parents to seek outside care. They parents have the funds $1.5mil at last I heard, and medical facilities willing to admit Charlie. Some free of charge. Yet the hospital and govt are not willing to let the lawfull parents seek alternative medical care. Fucked up. In an interview the parents gave on the court docket it was them vs the hospital and their own son. SCARY stuff and a glimpse into the future.