S
StudentMI
Guest
Dying in agonizing pain is somehow different from experimental methods that could save a life?
- Status
D
DeniseNY
Guest
Charlie Gard parents given more time to say goodbye to terminally ill son
bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40462831
bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40462831
S
St_Francis
Guest
Altho the doctors, or some of them, or maybe just the courts, say he experiencing pain, it would seem that since other, or some, or all the doctors say that the baby has lost a lot of his brain function. So, is Charlie conscious and experiencing pain? Or is he not? It’s very hard to tell from the information we have.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I am having trouble understanding your comment to me. Could you clarify?
S
St_Francis
Guest
Or maybe you, StudentMI, are saying the same thing NonTimendum is saying?
I was responding to a comment made by a poster who seemed concerned about this point. However, my posts on this thread, particularly to Kaninchen, have been against the courts’ involvement. I think the parents should have been able to make their decision, since they were able to pay for the additional treatment.
At the same time, I understand that discontinuing treatment is also, given my understanding of the situation, a moral decision Edited to change “decision” to “option.”
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
I completely agree. My statement was more hypothetical: I’m saying that it isn’t necessarily wrong for a state to allow doctors to trump the parents in a court of law. I can’t speak to the specifics of this case, only that on the surface I can’t say for sure that either side is ‘right’ without more info.
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
Yes but it seems (again, I don’t have all the info) that the parents (who are naturally biased and not doctors) think the treatment might work and the British medical staff (more capable of being objective and have medical education) do not. I mean, if a kid had cancer, I wouldn’t want parents to have the right to experimentally try a treatment for a completely different strain of cancer that medical staff believed would not treat the child, just because they heard of children who had been cured of a different cancer strain by the aforementioned treatment.
I’m mostly speaking hypothetically because I don’t have enough info on the likelihood of this treatment working for Charlie, which doctors believed it wouldn’t work and whether any believed it would. But I’m not ‘horrified’ by the decision: it has the potential to be a perfectly moral one.
Y
YADA
Guest
Many patients have undergone treatments for which their Doctors and others did not believe would work … experimental treatments are just that - but Doctors learn from them …
I have a friend who was diagnosed with Stage 4 Lung Cancer and given 6 months to live and to get his affairs in order -He was not offered any treatment [Stage 4 is considered terminal and they dont even try to treat it] -
A surgeon refused to operate because his tumors were so large … he applied to a clinical trial - was turned down … applied a second time and was accepted … the last patient accepted at that facility … 13 in all there … he got the drug not the placebo … 6 months after the end of the clinical trial he was the only patient still alive and he had responded well … his tumors had shrunk.
He returned to the surgeon who had turned him down as inoperable. The Clinical trial people told the surgeon not to operate - they wanted to see how long he would live without any other treatment … luckily that surgeon refused and operated any way …
That diagnosis was 14 years ago and that man is a walking talking miracle … his wife a woman of prayer … a prayer warrior …
Now every story does not have a happy ending - those other 12 persons in that clinical trial participated in an experiment - they wanted to help cure cancer - if not theirs than others … that Surgeon violated the protocol - but a man’s life - written off my the medical community consensus - is alive today …
Medical advances are often time built upon the courage of people who believe and try … Medicine is not advanced by those who “pull the plug”
N
NonTimendum
Guest
That is 100% the right of the parents, and if they decide to continue treatment that should be the absolute end of it no matter what.
Anything else is cold-blooded murder.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes this is true and a court case in my state (sorry no link; long ago) proved that at Hospital X they had allowed extraordinary means to be terminated for a patient that had no ability to pay for hospital bill while denying the same right to end the life support for a paying patient. Interesting enough the family member of the patient cancelled their insurance, quit paying premiums and a few months later the " hospital changed their mind." They sued and settled out of court. It was a dismal day to realize that most hospitals are for profit.
Mary.
B
bekalc
Guest
You can’t compare the situations. First of all your friend was an adult. Who was capable of communication his own wishes. Capable of saying if he was in pain or not. He was also not brain damaged, so while he may have been in pain, he could still spend more time with family/friends.
**If your friend had said I am in immense pain. I don’t think the treatment is worth it, I just want to spend the time with my friends family. NOBODY would say that’s Euthanasia.
**
This little baby, has a horrible disease where he cannot move, make sound, likely see etc. For as long as this was the only issues, the doctors in the UK were willing to consider the treatment. If it gave the little one the chance of getting a little bit better. Although the treatment would merely pro long his life. However in January, he experienced seizures that left him brain damaged.
The doctor in the US says that the treatment will not save his life. It may at best allow him to open his eyes… And may pro long his life a few months?
However the doctors in UK say sure, but that they think the child may be in immense pain too. Because they are giving him medical procedures that cause pain in people who can express their pain. So they are asking is it worth it to prolong his life and let him open eyes, and ignore that the ventilator is likely really painful? Especially since he’s brain damaged.
It is one thing to allow a lucid person to choose to be a part of an Experimental treatment. It is another to say its a good idea to allow brain damaged people who cannot speak for themselves be part of said treatement if the doctors say the treatment won’t help their condition.
It is also another thing to let a child be part of a medical experiment when said child cannot even communicate pain.
There are huge ethical issues here. But we actually need to consider the fact that no keeping people on life support, who cannot speak for themselves, who have no hope of recovery, just so we can maybe perform medical experiments on them. Isn’t right. And its against the child’s dignity.
The doctor in the United States refuses to give his name, says he cannot cure the child. But will be happy to take the million dollars and the baby for his research. You realize the potential for abuse this could cause…
Y
YADA
Guest
My point is that doctors do not know everything …they think he is in pain …they think he is brain damaged …they think this will give him at most months …think think think
His parents want to try …the experiment may not work but it could advance medical knowledge… and the parents wishes in this case …you think they desire to keep their child in a torturous state for evil purposes … Or are totally thought less
Who gets to decide what amount of brain damage there has to be when family no longer decides a loved ones life and care … but the government does …
And I believe that with God all things are possible …
B
bekalc
Guest
God doesn’t need life support or a questionable medical procedure to heal the baby if it’s his choice.My point is that doctors do not know everything …they think he is in pain …they think he is brain damaged …they think this will give him at most months …think think think
His parents want to try …the experiment may not work but it could advance medical knowledge… and the parents wishes in this case …you think they desire to keep their child in a torturous state for evil purposes … Or are totally thought less
Who gets to decide what amount of brain damage there has to be when family no longer decides a loved ones life and care … but the government does …
And I believe that with God all things are possible …
I think the parents are grief stricken, don’t want to accept their child is gone, and aren’t in a place where they are thinking clearly.
I think its possible though the doctor in the US is thinking hey I get a million dollars and a baby to perform tests on. That doctor refuses to give his name and even said he doesn’t recommend the treatment anymore, but if they parents bring him.
The parents don’t know if the child is pain and keep on saying it’s impossible. The doctors point is the child is being giving medical procedures that cause pain to Patients who can communicate. For example venilators are painful. They are.
Little Charlie. Cannot move or make a sound. So how can these parents say they know for sure he’s not in pain? Is that really a rational thing to say on there end.
And medical tests show this little one is brain damaged.
Once again the UK is right, we should be careful about allowing children to participate in medical trials- regardless of what the parents want. Because not all parents 100% have their children’s best interest. There are plenty of cases of this.It is one thing if a baby has a chance of surviving. But if even the doctor prescribing the treatment says the little one won’t life. It’s absolutely wrong to subject the child to potential pain-just because it may benefit others.
Y
YADA
Guest
The part of this story is the Hospital will not let them take this baby home to die either - so what is the reason for that? Socialized medicine will lead to ever more people being discarded . .so while I get that this case is extreme - the reality is that the medical field is not all knowing - nearly every advancement has come through learning where patients died - and research is necessary … so all participants in this case have a stake … the UK hospital staff would not want to have fought this fight and have their position proved wrong, the American doctor may just be a greedy SOB and the parents just love their child … one hopes that all have the child;s best interest in mind … who is the most ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ hardly matters - but actively ending the child’s life may be **and especially not allowing him to go home with his to die is wrong - forcing his parents to watch him die in a sterile hospital environment surrounded by strangers is hardly compassionate **
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jaxon-emmett-buell-father-of-baby-born-with-rare-disorder-responds-to-critics-saying-parents-should-a6670121.html
B
bekalc
Guest
But the Doctors think the parents have stopped considering the baby’s best interests. There are cases in the US where the doctors can petition if the courts if they can prove that the Parents/loved ones have stopped the legal duty of considering the baby’s best interest.
In the case of the baby, if he’s in pain, don’t you think it might be incredibly painful for the child to be moved out of his hospital bed? To have the machines moved And whats to stop the parents from taking him on a plane. The plane ride could kill him.
The child hasn’t been home for 8 months and may not even know what it is.
The doctors are saying no. Because they think it won’t ease the baby’s suffering and may make it worse… Notice the parents are saying WE WANT. What about what the child wants? Whose considering the child’s needs.
If there is even a miniscule chance that moving the machines and transporting the little guy could cause him harm. It’s cruel to move him.
The doctor’s case in this scenario. Is to consider the well being of their PATIENT.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Well said and frightening to think of someday being under government run hospital control.
Mary.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
I agree,this is both frightening and appalling!
B
bekalc
Guest
The doctors can refuse a transfer. IF they feel the transfer won’t medically benefit the child. Parents aren’t allowed to do just whatever they want to children.
If the hospital has strong evidence that the parent’s decision would cause harm to the little child their patient. Evidence based on their medical expertise. Do you really want to say they have no duties to respond? Legally they do have a duty.
N
NonTimendum
Guest
Of course they have the best interests of the child at heart. That’s why they’re going to steal him from his parents and murder him. For his best interests.
What are the organ donor laws in the UK?
B
bekalc
Guest
If the hospital was only interested in Organ donation. Wouldn’t they have insisted on it months ago, when his organs might be of better use. The hospital even applied to do that treatment on the little one. They were willing to try the treatment on him As long as they thought the baby might benefit. But once the brain damage happened and the seizures. They felt the experimental treatment won’t benefit him. The treatment cannot erase brain damage.
He’s been on a ventilator for 8 months…
- Status