[Very sad!] Charlie Gard Parents Lose European Court Appeal

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ARSpade said:
Probably none.

But there’s been recent law changes in the US even about using experimental drugs and treatments on terminal patients that bypasses the usual FDA process because (1) it might work, (2) they’re gonna soon die anyway if it doesn’t (or it it makes things worse) and (3) scientists get data either way that can be used to help others.

Plus, as a parent, they get the benefit of knowing they tried everything. Knowing your child died and you left stones unturned will be an awful feeling. They will forever wonder if it would have worked.

The doc’s don’t think like that because, heck, they’ve probably had somebody die on them because the doc stayed up late the previous night watching football.
Click to expand...
That is correct.

It is the Right To Try.

righttotry.org/faq/

Right To Try has been signed into law in 37 states and counting: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. If your state is not listed, and you want to bring Right to Try to your state, click here to find out how.

The Goldwater Institute in Texas has adopted this cause:

goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/healthcare/right-to-try/texas-becomes-21st-state-to-allow-terminally-ill-t/

Governor Abbott signs Right To Try Act into Law
 
The Right To Try allows people one last attempt … a hopeless disease might yield to some treatment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law

It is particularly “helpful” when off-label applications for medications are used or when a medication is still experimental and has not yet worked its way through years and years of trials.

In a lot of cases, the cost is minimal. And we might learn something new.
 
Oh, in addition to “no, you can’t take him to the US for treatment” the court and hospitals have also decided that he can’t die at home, which was also the wish of the parents.

Yup, they can’t take him home to die there, if he’s going to die. Has to die in the hospital. Because they said so.
 
Kaninchen said:
Let’s build up the situation in stages - what do the American doctor/hospital say?
Click to expand...
Although the baby’s condition is very bad and worsening (descriptions vary but all agree on that), and altho the treatment holds very little hope even to arrest the worsening progress of his disease, it is still the parents’ choice.

The hospital can tell the parents they will no longer keep Charlie on life-support as they need the bed for other patients, or another valid reason; however, the issue is not that.

And it would certainly be moral to choose to discontinue treatment; no one is arguing that.

But I believe that this decision, considering all the circumstances, should be made by the parents rather than by the court.
 
St_Francis said:
Although the baby’s condition is very bad and worsening (descriptions vary but all agree on that), and altho the treatment holds very little hope even to arrest the worsening progress of his disease, it is still the parents’ choice.

The hospital can tell the parents they will no longer keep Charlie on life-support as they need the bed for other patients, or another valid reason; however, the issue is not that.

And it would certainly be moral to choose to discontinue treatment; no one is arguing that.

But I believe that this decision, considering all the circumstances, should be made by the parents rather than by the court.
Click to expand...
Let’s try another way, what was it that the Courts actually decided?
 
Kaninchen said:
Let’s try another way, what was it that the Courts actually decided?
Click to expand...
What I am arguing is that the courts should not be making this decision.

The baby was at the hospital. The hospital decided that they thought Charlie should be put on palliative care, ie, all treatment stopped and Charlie allowed to die. The courts agreed with this. (I am sure that if the ECHR had disagreed with the UK court that they would have ruled rather than saying that it should be decided in the UK court.)

Charlie’s parents disagreed. They wanted him to receive another treatment. They raised the money to pay for this other treatment.

Why should the courts be involved with this? The hospital should simply provide the service requested of preparing the baby to go to receive the treatment which the parents of the baby have decided upon.
 
St_Francis said:
What I am arguing is that the courts should not be making this decision.

The baby was at the hospital. The hospital decided that they thought Charlie should be put on palliative care, ie, all treatment stopped and Charlie allowed to die. The courts agreed with this. (I am sure that if the ECHR had disagreed with the UK court that they would have ruled rather than saying that it should be decided in the UK court.)

Charlie’s parents disagreed. They wanted him to receive another treatment. They raised the money to pay for this other treatment.

Why should the courts be involved with this? The hospital should simply provide the service requested of preparing the baby to go to receive the treatment which the parents of the baby have decided upon.
Click to expand...
So, intrinsically, the Courts supported the doctors?

**
 
JimG said:
It seems strange to me that the parents of the child are not free to seek other treatment, which has been offered and for which private funds have been raised. It is as though the child has become hostage to the desires of the NHS, even though the NHS has done everything they can and stopped treatment. Now they say the child can’t go elsewhere for treatment.

mises.org/blog/government-medicine-court-declares-child-should-die-rather-receive-privately-funded-health-care
Click to expand...
The NHS issue is a red herring.
 
Absolutely unacceptable, but unfortunately predictable. Murder is now not only legal, but legally mandated. In every way we truly have degenerated to the days of Noah. I hope all those involved repent before their deaths; the demons have a very deep pit waiting for them.
 
Kaninchen said:
So, intrinsically, the Courts supported the doctors?

**

It seems to have been the hospital which brought the suit, and the court ruled for the hospital. Not sure If they ruled intrinsically or not…

Shabbat shalom… see you later!
Click to expand...
 
If no patient ever received experimental treatments, even when the expected outcome was certainly not expected to be positive most very successful cancer treatments and treatments for many other conditions would be non existent today and far more people would die today …

Thirty years ago St Jude’s cancer survival rate was less than 30% today it is 80% …

Little Charlie’s life with this treatment could help doctors learn and someday treat this condition successfully …giving great meaning to his life and his parents …

Instead, the Courts have determined his life is not worth living …

Socialized medicine is not the way to move …very sad …
 
NonTimendum said:
Absolutely unacceptable, but unfortunately predictable. Murder is now not only legal, but legally mandated. In every way we truly have degenerated to the days of Noah. I hope all those involved repent before their deaths; the demons have a very deep pit waiting for them.
Click to expand...
From a Catholic point of view, discontinuing the baby’s life support was not at all problematical. One can discontinue “extra-ordinary” (outside the ordinary) means, and then death results from the disease or the condition of the body.
 
Kaninchen said:
The NHS issue is a red herring.
Click to expand...
Whether it’s the NHS, the doctors, or the hospital, someone is taking away the parents’ right to seek other treatment at their own expense. That’s what amazes me. I can see if the hospital or physicians or the insuror might say, “we don’t do experimental treatments.” But to say ‘the child is now ours, and under our control. Parents rights are terminated,’ seems extreme.
 
JimG said:
Whether it’s the NHS, the doctors, or the hospital, someone is taking away the parents’ right to seek other treatment at their own expense. That’s what amazes me. I can see if the hospital or physicians or the insuror might say, “we don’t do experimental treatments.” But to say ‘the child is now ours, and under our control. Parents rights are terminated,’ seems extreme.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I don’t understand, either.
 
St_Francis said:
From a Catholic point of view, discontinuing the baby’s life support was not at all problematical. One can discontinue “extra-ordinary” (outside the ordinary) means, and then death results from the disease or the condition of the body.
Click to expand...
That is a very… interesting… way of describing what is happening here.
 
St_Francis said:
From a Catholic point of view, discontinuing the baby’s life support was not at all problematical. One can discontinue “extra-ordinary” (outside the ordinary) means, and then death results from the disease or the condition of the body.
Click to expand...
cough Subsidiarity cough
 
StudentMI said:
thefederalist.com/2017/06/30/vaticans-statement-baby-condemned-die-frightening/

I don’t even know what to say. I’m ashamed of the Church right now. I’m disgusted.
Click to expand...
When I first read of this case on a pro-life website, I read the change.org page. They described the situation and were asking people to sign a petition to ask Teresa May to do something. From that page, which was slanted in favour of the parents, I didn’t come out with the opinion that the UK doctors were necessarily wrong. This is in line with catholic teaching throughout the ages.

I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that’s Withdrawing food and water is not OK, but might be if the person is being fed through a tube and its causing them extreme pain. Withdrawing life support can also be moral if the person has no hope of recovery and their life is being artificially prolonged.

In this case, the grieving parents are understandably biased (not faulting them there). The UK doctors must firmly believe that this treatment is a waste of time and will only cause more pain to the child. I don’t think any of us have enough details to firmly state who is right and wrong here, which is why the Vatican statement isn’t very specific.

Think of it this way. If the parents wanted to take him to America to be healed by a famous homoeopath, would you have an issue with the ruling??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top