Charlie Gard Has Passed

Quote:

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.

How do you feel about Seventh Day Adventist parents who don't want their kids to have blood transfusions? Or parents who don't want their kids to be immunized? Are you really saying there is "no reason for the government to be involved" in medical decisions?

If you are consistent on this, than you are taking a respectable stance. But I don't think that saying that the government has no role in being involved in medical decisions is as simple a stance as you are pretending. Western governments regulate quite a bit based on medical ethics; there are laws on abortion, and human cloning, and organ donation... all of these things are regulated even if a parent wants them to give hope to their child.

I agree with Finn, the issue is whether the State has the right to make life or death medical decisions against the will of the parents. However, I believe that in cases like vaccinations, and blood transfusions, and ethically questionable procedures, that the State does have that right.

Too late. Patient died.

Unless the parent is abusing their child...

There have been similar cases in other countries. In Ireland practically the same scenario played out in 2014, when the case of a child with mitochondrial syndrome came before the Irish High Court. The family's lawyer said this week: "The parents never believed there could be a miracle, but wanted to know they had done everything they could to help their child. At the hearing, everybody accepted that the condition was terminal. Everybody accepted that the child in question was going to die.” He also said that he advised the parents at the centre of the Irish case against going public. He was concerned that “ultra religious” people would try to become involved, that "situations like this" could lead to the family in question becoming ”part of someone else’s agenda, to the point it’s no longer about your child’s needs”. He commented: "As is the case in Charlie Gard’s case, it’s now about the everybody but Charlie Gard. The parents are tied up in a circus."


House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said on July 13, “Health care should be between patients and doctors. Government has no place in the life or death business.” Sound familiar? Ryan didn’t frame the debate quite right in his Facebook post. Health care should be between physicians and patients, he said — but it was Charlie’s own doctors who were pushing for a palliative care-only approach. Ultimately, it wasn’t Ryan’s government bureaucrats, but rather Charlie’s health-care providers who decided that his condition was beyond treatment. (British courts agreed with them.)

I think that it always difficult for someone used to a certain legal system and legal procedure that it may work elsewhere differently.

In the USA, clinicians cannot withdraw life support without the consent of a decision-maker. Such decisions in England have largely been left to courts to decide.
Under the Children Act of 1989, patients in Charlie’s situation can be assigned their own independent legal representative to ensure that their interests are met, rather than the interests of their families.
Charlie’s guardian agreed that life support should be withdrawn, generating a complex legal case involving the hospital, Charlie’s appointed legal guardian, and his parents. (See the EHCR's decision linked above.)

hightor wrote:

Too late. Patient died.

That's pretty unfeeling.

In fact your whole comment is.

Quote:

Unless the parent is abusing their child...

Ah, but who decides what qualifies as abuse? For some, not giving treatment which is readily available would meet the standard.

Quote:

Unless the parent is abusing their child...

Ah, but who decides what qualifies as abuse? For some, not giving treatment which is readily available would meet the standard.

I must admit that especially this "State" confuses me quite a bit.
But since it's decades ago that I studied law (and Scottish [and English] law more or less as a guest for one semester in Dundee), I might have forgotten such

And if that second opinion was from another respected doctor saying they have an alternative treatment that has a slim chance of helping would you want the opportunity or at least a chance

Finn, you're coming over like an identikit American far-right crank. Certain signs - frequent use of words like 'overreach' and 'State' with a capital S, plus the overall tone. OK, have your views, you're entitled to them, but understand that many don't share them, and won't be altered in their views by what you post.

Read any of the comments in favor of the hospital/doctors whatever in the UK - not one of these individuals commenting have even hinted at any sort of sympathy towards the parents of this child.

Very telling.

Thank you God that I do not live in the UK and I live in the USA where I can decide what is best for my children.

I think someone ought to be able to comment of the story without first stopping to genuflect.

I do know that in cases like the use of antibiotics, and the demand for medically unnecessary MRIs, the insistence of parents in the US to override the decisions medical experts hurts the quality of care in a measurable way.

The ultimate goal is to get the best medical outcomes for the children involved. Making the parents feel empowered is not a part of this. The UK has better outcomes than the US for most medical conditions, your child would get better care in the UK with less chance of complications.