Charlie Gard. Should the parents just let him go?

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • I'm not sure. The alternative is to always wonder whether they did all they could. Tough choice.

    If it weren't for the fact that the baby has irreversible brain damage, then there might be hope for him. But the day our medical science can reverse brain damage is the day when disease and illness is a thing of the past.

    His parents are just too much in the thick of it to see clearly. Would I have done differently to them? Probably not.

  • We've had to put a lot of animal companions down over the years and you learn to know when you are prolonging death not saving life, to quote Professor Chris Barnard the heart transplant pioneer.

    Charlie seems to have deteriorated fast because I've seen earlier pics of him without the life support machines. If he can't see, speak or swallow, will never run around or be able to achieve anything and is brain damaged and will without doubt deteriorate further, they should try to come to terms with the fact that Charlie would be better off out of all that.

    I'm sorry that Trump has put his foot in it. He should have stayed out of it.

  • I wonder if the Pope will be willing to accommodate all of the world's terminally ill children in the Vatican hospital. The media are now calling this and Trump's throwaway offer a gesture of "hope". How cruel and stupid of these dumb hacks. There is no hope for Charlie. He has become a sort of human Grenfell Tower and is being utilized as a chance to attack certain things whilst supporting others, none of which have anything to do with the very real tragedy of a child who is alive only because he is on a machine and has a disease that is progressive and incurable.

    Squeezing every drop of juice from the orange on this tragic story. Getting the world into a lynch mob mood through social networking. They now refer to Charlie's death as "killing". "Don't kill him!" they screech. It should not be allowed. It's reprehensible and one of the reasons why I hate social media with a passion. Playground for intellectually challenged.

  • That prayer to St Jude reminds me of my sojourn with the Catholics during my father's second marriage and for ten years at school in a convent. (I wasn't a Catholic, I was an infidel Protestant.) 8)

  • Great Ormond Street Hospital has applied for a fresh hearing in the case of Charlie Gard following claims of "new evidence relating to potential treatment for his condition".

    It comes after seven medical experts suggested unpublished data showed therapy could improve the 11-month-old's brain condition.

    Fresh court case

    ====

    This story has made the front pages of most newspapers today and Charlie's mum was on breakfast tv yesterday too insisting that her baby was not in pain and she is trying everything she can do to help him.

    I don't know about this "unpublished" data, but top doctors were interviewed yesterday and they explained that Charlie's disease breaks down the cells in his body and nothing can be done about that, but the international scientists who are experts in his condition say differently.

    I respect the parents, they are fighting for his life and life is precious and perhaps they may yet be proven correct.

    If I had listened to the doctors, my dad would have died four years ago instead of last year.

  • I read that this morning with a sinking feeling. The treatment they are going to offer isn't for Charlie's kind of condition and would be experimental on him, to say the least.

    He will never be okay and is going to die. That is a fact. Keeping him alive is a hopeless and hugely expensive effort that is actually creating all kinds of nonsensical emotional rage and argument across the social media and now the media circus. Poor Charlie is simply never going to be okay. Whether he dies at home or in hospital, he isn't conscious of where he is, who he is and he never will be.

    I find this whole thing to be mostly driven now by religious people punting the God myth. If there was a God he wouldn't have allowed Charlie to be born with this terrible condition in the first place and I fail to see the point of God hanging about deciding when to command that this child's life be ended by him in the second place.

    I don't know what is a bigger tragedy, the fact that they won't allow this baby to be released from his bubble of nothingness, attached to machines, or the fact that enormous sums of other people's money is going to spent on a hopeless situation because they are waiting for God.

  • I read that this morning with a sinking feeling. The treatment they are going to offer isn't for Charlie's kind of condition and would be experimental on him, to say the least.

    It's been tested on mice... which begs the question, do these scientists/doctors that want to use the treatment, just see the baby as a guinea pig, "well, if he's going to die, what's there to lose," kind of attitude? A lot of doctors are unscrupulous, especially if it means furthering their careers. Although I suppose the counter argument to that is, if it helps future people it would be worthwhile to them.

    He will never be okay and is going to die. That is a fact. Keeping him alive is a hopeless and hugely expensive effort that is actually creating all kinds of nonsensical emotional rage and argument across the social media and now the media circus. Poor Charlie is simply never going to be okay. Whether he dies at home or in hospital, he isn't conscious of where he is, who he is and he never will be.

    Exactly.

    I find this whole thing to be mostly driven now by religious people punting the God myth. If there was a God he wouldn't have allowed Charlie to be born with this terrible condition in the first place and I fail to see the point of God hanging about deciding when to command that this child's life be ended by him in the second place.

    Obviously the Pope has his own agenda, but I otherwise I'm so sure about that, especially in this country where we "don't go God any more" as I keep hearing it be phrased.

    I don't know what is a bigger tragedy, the fact that they won't allow this baby to be released from his bubble of nothingness, attached to machines, or the fact that enormous sums of other people's money is going to spent on a hopeless situation because they are waiting for God.

    I don't think he would survive the plane journey, if he were to go to America.

    I think because of Twitter (hardly just a pure chat medium, when it can have such a impact) has created an unnecessary extension of this sorry tale.

  • My father was inveigled into a guinea pig testing of a medication for prostate cancer. Didn't help him. He died of a heart attack and when I tried to find his doctor, he was eating out and didn't respond. He didn't come to the care centre to assess the death and just accepted the death certificate signed by a nurse there. I nearly had an autopsy done, but a little voice said to me, "I'm happier where I am, don't waste the money."

  • About 30+ years ago, my grandad who was diabetic, had a severe stoke that left him paralysed and he was going die. His leg had to be taken off and when he noticed that, that did indeed kill him. Just before that happened, my mum was asked by the doctors if they could trial new diabetes drugs on him, so that they could measure the impact on his red blood cells, sugar levels, panaceas and other things besides. He was never going to recover, he was going to die, but they said it would help others. She agreed. He was put to sleep, the drugs were used, they did their tests and he died a few days later when he saw his leg was gone. The drugs are now in common use for treating diabetes.

    I don't think anyone should be lied to or deceived and if there is a chance of recovery, doctors should be very cautious of using a person as a guinea pig. But, where the cases are terminal, and no undue suffering would be caused, I am in favour of it with lots of caveats attached of course.

  • As I type this, Charlie's parents are in the High Court and the judge (the same one who originally ruled against them) is hearing the new evidence from the seven doctors and scientists about the new treatment. Charlie's parents are hoping the judge will authorise them to allow Charlie to be taken overseas for the experimental the treatment.

    Great Ormond Street Hospital still maintain that Charlie has extensive and irreversible brain damage and any treatment is futile and prolongs his suffering. The parents maintain he is not in pain and some hope is better than none. The treatment has been used on other children and there have been results, excellent ones, but the other children's conditions were not as advanced as Charlie's.

  • A lawyer for Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) said that the "new" evidence was available to the judge back in April when he first heard the case. He went on to day that the evidence was purely lab based and was only related to patients with muscle problem only rather than the brain damage that Charlie has.


    The case continues and should conclude on Thursday which is just as well as a convicted yank evangelical preacher turned up at the High Court for "prayers." (nothing at all to do with gaining media attention for himself too...)

    Article on court case

  • The news just reported on the court case today and said that relations between GOSH and Charlie's parents has totally broken down. GOSH's doctors are saying that Charlie's brain is not growing, whereas Charlie's parents have said it is, but the hospital is saying that only the outside of the head is growing. The judge has ordered that the baby's head be measured with a tape measure and to report back to him on Thursday.

    What a mess.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!