Charlie Gard and St Jude--Photo of a Child His Parents Could Not Save

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pianistclare said:
Obviously written before he passed, but I will post the article we are speaking about,
I urge people interested int his case to read it.

catholicweekly.com.au/simcha-fisher-charlie-gard-will-die-but-is-it-murder/
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I definitely don’t see it as murder, but I believe the parents had the right to determine if they were willing to try additional treatment. The government only added to the pain and suffering of the parents. I do believe that there are predatory doctors who play on the emotions of grieving relatives, but
who knows what they could have learned after trying this experimental treatment.
Again, I don’t ever want to live in a country that has that much control over someone’s fate. I understand an EU court was also involved?
My prayers for the parents of this precious little baby. Praying God will help them heal from their loss and ordeal.
 
It appears to me that many posters don’t quite get the whole picture. They are blaming the NHS for Charlie’s tragic situation. Actually, it was his physicians who felt further interventions would be futile.

Here is an excellent article explaining the problem, by a physician:

In part, it says:
"Finally, it was never about “socialized medicine.” The means by which a health-care system is funded neither creates nor resolves these difficult situations: They are instead the inevitable consequence of the mid-20th–century invention of the ICU and of life-support tools like ventilators. I would wager that most, if not nearly all, critical-care clinicians have found themselves in scenarios where they felt they were doing a true disservice to another human being — performing invasive procedures, maintaining life support, prolonging suffering — because they were compelled to push ahead by a sick patient’s family. I most certainly have.

And therein lies the crux of the Charlie case: There was no consensus between family and physicians."

.

.
 
Viki63 said:
It appears to me that many posters don’t quite get the whole picture. They are blaming the NHS for Charlie’s tragic situation. Actually, it was his physicians who felt further interventions would be futile.

Here is an excellent article explaining the problem, by a physician:

In part, it says:
"Finally, it was never about “socialized medicine.” The means by which a health-care system is funded neither creates nor resolves these difficult situations: They are instead the inevitable consequence of the mid-20th–century invention of the ICU and of life-support tools like ventilators. I would wager that most, if not nearly all, critical-care clinicians have found themselves in scenarios where they felt they were doing a true disservice to another human being — performing invasive procedures, maintaining life support, prolonging suffering — because they were compelled to push ahead by a sick patient’s family. I most certainly have.

And therein lies the crux of the Charlie case: There was no consensus between family and physicians."

.

.
Click to expand...
And who do the physicians work for?
 
7_Sorrows said:
The parents wanted to take him home and were denied. the parents wanted to keep him alive until his first birthday and were denied. I pray I never live in a country that has that type of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Amen to this. . And is why I left the UK absolutely.
 
7_Sorrows said:
And who do the physicians work for?
Click to expand...
The physicians work for the hospital, and their clients are the patients. This is not about socialized medicine, it’s about a judgment of futile care. (incorrect, we can see in hindsight.)

.
 
Rosebud77 said:
“the establishment”? Never to be trusted. Of course they argue that they are right. As they did with the proton beam child.

They do not learn and are trying to avoid censure and being sued. saccharin
Click to expand...
…the Judge is trying to avoid being sued? What on earth are you talking about??

If you’re going to condemn a judgment, at least know what the reasons for the judgment were. That’s not too onerous a request
 
SolicitorPirate said:
…the Judge is trying to avoid being sued? What on earth are you talking about??

If you’re going to condemn a judgment, at least know what the reasons for the judgment were. That’s not too onerous a request
Click to expand...
Oh dear! You just to not get it. I know this case through and through and yes, the family have grounds for legal action in this instance. I hope they do that.
 
Rosebud77 said:
So? None of this excuses what the drs did.
Click to expand...
Agreed. They’re just making lame excuses to defend their pet project NHS. The NHS must go on even if innocent life is taken so they can virtue signal about “good” great big government in London.

It’s so great, it requires excuses and lies upon lies to live on.
 
7_Sorrows said:
And who do the physicians work for?
Click to expand...
Irealise that few will see this as we do, and there is I think a strong male/female divide here.

And if you live where drs do not have the autocratic power they do in the UK? Hard to see this as it is.

Wondering if folk there heard about Dr Harold Shipman? The UK GP who decided to euthanise/murder over 200 of his patients.

See

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman

Until another dr made waves and persisted nothing was done. Complaints from the public got nowhere.

When I made complaints in the UK re a GP, it was all sent round in circles as the establishment protects itself there.

My life had been in real danger through her actions and Health Board staff agreed on that.

When I persisted, it all finally y went to a tribunal. And she lied. Blatantly.

And her profession protected her.

It took a visiting Christian dr to set my records straight, who knew what was really going on, and who had no position to protect as he was so near retirement. I thank God for that man!

I learned recently that she , the dr who nearly killed me, has now been struck off.

Here? we have an excellent complaint procedure which has a time limit and works. It really does work. We are listened to and action is taken. With minimal stress.

As I pointed out earlier, no one tries to stop parents from taking their children overseas for treatment that is not approved or used here. Which is the basis of this case.

Charlie’s parents had that right. It was taken from them in the typical highhanded UK fashion . There are no excuses possible

And all that is happening in the face of international criticism is that the establishment in the UK is closing ranks to protect ITSELF. Not protecting those it is paid to help
As we have a two tier system that is not free as the NHS is.
 
Rosebud77 said:
Oh dear! You just to not get it. I know this case through and through and yes, the family have grounds for legal action in this instance. I hope they do that.
Click to expand...
Um, alright. Then two questions; 1) What is the statement of claim? 2) How do the plaintiffs bypass judicial immunity?
 
SuperLuigi said:
Agreed. They’re just making lame excuses to defend their pet project NHS. The NHS must go on even if innocent life is taken so they can virtue signal about “good” great big government in London.

It’s so great, it requires excuses and lies upon lies to live on.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Viki63 said:
The physicians work for the hospital, and their clients are the patients. This is not about socialized medicine, it’s about a judgment of futile care. (incorrect, we can see in hindsight.)

.
Click to expand...
No; in the UK the drs work for the NHS not the hospitals as the hospitals are owned and run by the NHS

It is a monopoly. And it is indeed about socialised medicine. About fixed methods and power. I put on the article re the little boy whose father literally had to kidnap him in the UK to take him abroad for a controversial treatment not approved by the UK; proton beam therapy. They sent Interpol out after him; a manhunt

In that case the boy was dying from a brain tumour. So yes, same criteria … standard treatment etc? Futile.

And he is now fully recovered and now the UK is using proton beam therapy.

Because his parents did what Charlie’s parents sought to do. Try every possible treatment. His disease was progressive so of course the longer they delayed the more "right "the drs were going to be.

The issue here is that of parental rights. Of well informed choices as in the proton beam treatment.

All medical progress gets attacked,
 
Rosebud77 said:
No; in the UK the drs work for the NHS not the hospitals as the hospitals are owned and run by the NHS

It is a monopoly. And it is indeed about socialised medicine. About fixed methods and power. I put on the article re the little boy whose father literally had to kidnap him in the UK to take him abroad for a controversial treatment not approved by the UK; proton beam therapy. They sent Interpol out after him; a manhunt

In that case the boy was dying from a brain tumour. So yes, same criteria … standard treatment etc? Futile.

And he is now fully recovered and now the UK is using proton beam therapy.

Because his parents did what Charlie’s parents sought to do. Try every possible treatment. His disease was progressive so of course the longer they delayed the more "right "the drs were going to be.

The issue here is that of parental rights. Of well informed choices as in the proton beam treatment.

All medical progress gets attacked,
Click to expand...
👍 Thanks for your post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top