14
   

Charlie Gard Has Passed

 
 
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 02:56 pm
I'm very surprised that there hasn't been a topic devoted to the tragic case of the infant Charlie Gard. I've searched for one but with no success. I've no desire to start a new one if a thread has already been started, so if one has I would appreciate being directed to it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/28/parents-of-charlie-gard-say-he-has-died-reports/?utm_term=.5dcc3255726d&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-world%252Bnation&wpmk=1

First and foremost this is a heartbreaking tragedy that has to have devasted the child's parents, but I do think it raises important issues concerning the role of government in our lives.

For those not familiar with the story, Charlie Gard was a British infant born in August 2016 with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, a rare genetic condition that causes irreversible brain damage. It took away his ability to see, hear, move or breathe on his own.

At some point in Charlie's young life a dispute arose between his parents and the Great Ormond Street Hospital ("GOSH") where he was treated from a period of about two weeks after his birth until he died, concerning the treatment he would receive. (Note: He may have recently been moved from GOSH to hospice, but I'm not certain about this, however I think it irrelevant to the discussion)

This is a fairly complex story so you may not wish to rely on my brief summary. There are numerous articles on Charlies plight and the legal dispute available on the web.

Briefly, GOSH determined that there was no hope of a recovery and that all life sustaining treatment should be discontinued and the infant be allowed to die. They concluded that Charlie was in pain and distress and given the hopelessness of the case, the most humane action would be to end all efforts to sustain his life.

The parents believed that there was an experimental treatment available in the US that might cure their son and they wished to take him to an American hospital that had advised them that they were willing to treat Charlie.

The Gards were able to secure through private donations enough money to cover all costs associated with moving Charlie to the US and his undergoing the treatment, so this is not a matter of any health insurance, private or national being asked to pay for a treatment with highly questionable chances of success.

GOSH disagreed with the parents' intentions and took the matter to the court to prevent the Gards' from moving Charlie from their facility to the US. The British courts consistently ruled in the favor of GOSH and the matter was taken European Court of Human Rights, which refused to hear the case and so the Gards' legal remedies were exhausted.

Eventually the parents agreed to remove Charlie from his ventilator and as noted he just passed away.

The case received international attention with both Pope Francis and President Trump advocating for all efforts to be made to continue Charlie's life, although Trump's was more implied than explicit.

There are questions about whether or not the experimental treatment actually offered any hope at all and if the American doctor that first communicated with the Gards about it, behaved in an entirely ethical manner.The Gards believed up until the end that if Charlie had received the treatment early enough (when they originally wanted to move him to the US) there was a chance that he might have been saved.

For the purposes of this discussion I think we can refrain from a debate upon the chances of the procedure to treat Charlie. Suffice it to say, I would suggest, that British medical experts involved in the case believed it had either no chance or such a remote chance that it wasn't worth considering. On the other hand there were medical experts in the US who thought differently but never suggested that there was anything but a low chance of success. At some point before Charlie died it became moot because all experts agreed that, during the course of the legal battles, he had suffered irreversible brain damage and if the treatment ever had a chance of success it existed no longer. The parents, in the end, acknowledged this to be the case.

This was a case of parents wanting to take whatever slim chance might be available to them to save the life of their son, and the government interceding, ostensibly, on behalf of the child and refusing to allow them to do so. Again, it had nothing to do with whether the UK's national health care would be expected to fund any costs associated with the treatment.

I do not mean to suggest that GOSH was insincere in their belief of what the best coarse of action was for Charlie or that they were in anyway cavalier about their decision or insensitive to the feelings of the parents, but I do think that at some point professional heels might have been dug in and a good faith dispute with the parents may have expanded into an unnecessary one with American doctors. Whether this was the case here is relevant to the larger question only to the extent that it could possibly be true. In other words is it possible that the government's decisions in cases like these could be influenced by factors external to a pure consideration of the patient?

There was never any doubt expressed that the Gards were motivated by anything other than sincere and complete love and concern for their son and so the Big question is, in such cases, who gets to decide? The parents whose concern and love for their son obviously supersedes that of the State, or the State who is able to view the matter more dispassionately?

What would have been the harm done in allowing the Gards to take Charlie to a US hospital? GOSH had to understand that the Gards weren't going to just give up and go along with their finding, and no matter how accelerated the court proceedings might have been given the nature of the appeal processes there was no way the matter could be legally resolved overnight or in a matter of days or even weeks. In reality it took months during which Charlie could have been moved to the US and received the treatment. Does this even matter?

Even if we assume that due process might only take a matter of days and not months, is it appropriate for the State to overrule the decision of a sick child's parents who want to get him additional treatment? This was not the case of the State needing to intercede to make certain that a child gets appropriate treatment, instead it was a case of the State telling the parents you do not have a right to hope your child can recover and to act on that hope.

Note: If anyone believes I have misstated or left out any important facts concerning this case, please comment accordingly






  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 14 • Views: 3,255 • Replies: 170

 
emmett grogan
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:05 pm
Quote:
is it appropriate for the State to overrule the decision of a sick child's parents who want to get him additional treatment?


Why would the US government not have the right to overrule a British citizen's wishes about anything at all?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:11 pm
@emmett grogan,
I'm having trouble understanding your question.
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:13 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
This is a good one - I did hear about this but did not hear the child had died.

Of course it is up to the parents. Unless a parent is abusing their child, there is no reason for the government to be involved. As far as the child being in pain and distress - one - there is pain killers; two - how often do human beings go through pain even when there is no hope of recovery and we keep them alive? In the case where a person (whether it child or adult) cannot decide for themselves - a proxy is put in place in this case the parent.

As a parent this irks me. The government should have no say in this. The parents were caring; it wasn't as if they were allowing the child to suffer unnecessarily, or had a witch doctor suggesting some crazy care - they had well known respected doctors offering, although highly unlikely chance - a chance nevertheless.
centrox
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:14 pm
@emmett grogan,
emmett grogan wrote:

Quote:
is it appropriate for the State to overrule the decision of a sick child's parents who want to get him additional treatment?


Why would the US government not have the right to overrule a British citizen's wishes about anything at all?


I think he meant to say this, which makes sense:

Why would the US government have the right to overrule a British citizen's wishes about anything at all?
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:15 pm
@emmett grogan,
emmett grogan wrote:

Quote:
is it appropriate for the State to overrule the decision of a sick child's parents who want to get him additional treatment?


Why would the US government not have the right to overrule a British citizen's wishes about anything at all?


The US government is supporting the British citizen's wish - the British government is not allowing the parents to seek care for their child - the US is just offering to help the family.
centrox
 
  4  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:17 pm
Unfortunately this case has become a kind of political football for fucktards in America and Britain. From what I can gather, he has been a vegetable since December 2016. The parents said it was "too late" to save him this week. It was too late then. Also, the American doctor has a financial interest in his miracle drug.
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:19 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
We have lives, you know.

I am interested, at least in part re the situation for the hospital, but all the med and familiy considerations too.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:21 pm
@centrox,
centrox wrote:

This case has become a kind of political football for fucktards in America, from the White House downwards, who have some kind of agenda, to stick their (unwanted) noses in Britain's business. Let me spell this out clearly, guys: if we want you advice, we'll bloody well ask for it. Until then, **** OFF. Is that clear enough for you?


Huh? What about the British citizens who reached out for the help? Isn't it the parent's business? In a sense the British parent's are who we should be concerned about - clearly these two British citizens did want the US to make it part of their business. I think these two British citizens did bloody well ask for the advice.

Perhaps I just shut out the political crap and personally just focused on the poor family.
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:23 pm
@ossobucotemp,
Sonny, I am not a fucktard.
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:25 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
clearly these two British citizens did want the US to make it part of their business.

The President of the United States is not the President of Great Britain. Butt out, bigmouth.
emmett grogan
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:29 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
He's asking if its proper for a government to disallow a parents wishes.

I'm asking why specifically would the US government not have the right to deny a British citizen's request about anything at all in the world.

The US has deported children back to El Salvador after their mothers sent them to the US to keep them from being murdered by gangs, who subsequently were murdered in gang violence.

Trump doesn't want to accept those threatened by violence from al Qaeda and ISIS from Syria.

What made this poor sick doomed infant such an important political football?
emmett grogan
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:31 pm
@centrox,
And I'm saying the US government has every right and protection to deny any non US citizen's wishes.
centrox
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:37 pm
In any case, it wasn't the "government" that decided this, it was the hospital, and the independent judiciary, in accordance with the law.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:39 pm
@centrox,
centrox wrote:

emmett grogan wrote:

Quote:
is it appropriate for the State to overrule the decision of a sick child's parents who want to get him additional treatment?


Why would the US government not have the right to overrule a British citizen's wishes about anything at all?


I think he meant to say this, which makes sense:

Why would the US government have the right to overrule a British citizen's wishes about anything at all?



It doesn't make any sense at all.

Nothing in this story even remotely approaches a claim that the US government tried to or was interested in overruling a British citizen's wishes about anything.

You and he have serious reading comprehension problems likely secondary to the affliction of thin skin.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:40 pm
@ossobucotemp,
ossobucotemp wrote:

We have lives, you know.

I am interested, at least in part re the situation for the hospital, but all the med and familiy considerations too.



I feel like I have ventured into Bizarro World.

What the hell does your first sentence mean?
emmett grogan
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:42 pm
@Linkat,
OK, why would the government of the UK not have the right to deny any of its citizen's wishes?

Ironic, isn't it? The US wanted to offer heroic medical measures to a foreign child with a totally incurable illness with an extremely short prognosis from a country that offers superb single payer health care, meanwhile trying so terribly hard here to keeps its own citizens from even any sort of basic treatment.

I have children and grandchildren and I cannot imagine what those parents went through. It breaks my heart to think of it and it also burns me up the way some here in this country think young Charlie would make a wonderful "thing" to make political hay with.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:42 pm
@centrox,
centrox wrote:

Linkat wrote:
clearly these two British citizens did want the US to make it part of their business.

The President of the United States is not the President of Great Britain. Butt out, bigmouth.



Not **** Sherlock. What the hell are you going on about?

Do me a favor and butt out of this thread until you are sober.
0 Replies
 
emmett grogan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:43 pm
@ossobucotemp,
Quote:
Re: ossobucotemp (Post 6473376)
Sonny, I am not a fucktard.


This isn't a very nice place, is it?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Jul, 2017 04:45 pm
@emmett grogan,
emmett grogan wrote:

He's asking if its proper for a government to disallow a parents wishes.


Well you got that right but the rest of your post is nonsense. This case has nothing to do with the US government.

 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Charlie Gard Has Passed
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 06:39:56