Community Chat

[hyacinth003]

---

@WenGirl42 wrote:

---

@hyacinth003 wrote:

It's kind of asking WHO does the child belong to?  Does he belong to the government?  I would think the answer would be a resounding NO.

In the end, a child is in the care of his or her parents.  As parents, we have much responsibility when it comes to our children.  So, this child belongs to his parents.  They have raised money and have gotten offers to help.  They should have that RIGHT.  No one is asking the government to fund it.  What does it hurt government or society in general to allow them to seek treatment elsewhere for their baby?  I see no harm to anyone but the parents and potentially the baby.

As an RN, I am not generally in favor of lost causes.  But if someone has the resources to pay for treatment (and no one else has to), I say let them. 

I am in favor SOMETIMES of government intervention.  For example, parents refusing medical treatment for a type 1 diabetic child, like no insulin.  They want just to pray or go through faith healing.  It comes up sometimes in Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusion for a minor, who may die without it.

Since the child is said to be terminally ill, it hurts no one but the child or his parents not to let them seek alternative treatment.

Hyacinth

---

It hurts the doctors, too, who have to act against their consciences and ethics and prolong the child's suffering at best, or administer painful treatment at worst, while the alternative treatment is waited for/arranged. But I'd put Charlie first, parents second, and doctors third in priority order. I agree with you that there are times when the government must step in and stop parents from hurting their children with their decisions. And I don't think this is one of those times, even though I don't think I would do what the parents are doing.

---

As a health care professional, I have been involved many times in situations that I disagreed with.  Futile treatment for a terminal condition, and yes, it does hurt and bother.  However, it is not nearly the amount of suffering these parents are doing.

I probably agree that the baby will have no quality of life, outside of a miracle.  I don't know what I would do in their place.  I hope I could let him go of his earthly suffering. 

Outside of a medical emergency, it troubles me that some entity is making this decison rather than the parents. 

Hyacinth

[SeaMaiden]

My question is, how would they let the baby die? Take away food and water? That sounds cruel.  I do not think the baby requires life support at this time. 

[MyShadowLove]

---

SeaMaiden wrote:

My question is, how would they let the baby die? Take away food and water? That sounds cruel.  I do not think the baby requires life support at this time. 

---

@SeaMaiden...The baby is on life support.

[SeaMaiden]

---

@MyShadowLove wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

My question is, how would they let the baby die? Take away food and water? That sounds cruel.  I do not think the baby requires life support at this time. 

---

@SeaMaiden...The baby is on life support.

---

@MyShadowLove  so it can not breathe on it's own? 

[WenGirl42]

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

---

@MyShadowLove wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

My question is, how would they let the baby die? Take away food and water? That sounds cruel.  I do not think the baby requires life support at this time. 

---

@SeaMaiden...The baby is on life support.

---

@MyShadowLove  so it can not breathe on it's own? 

---

He is a boy. His name is Charlie. His doctors' decision to take him off life support started this chain of events. Presumably his parents don't believe he'll survive, which is why they appealed the decision.

[Moonchilde]

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

---

@MyShadowLove wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

My question is, how would they let the baby die? Take away food and water? That sounds cruel.  I do not think the baby requires life support at this time. 

---

@SeaMaiden...The baby is on life support.

---

@MyShadowLove  so it can not breathe on it's own? 

---

According to CNN he's on life support.

You know that end-of-life Alzheimers patients are not given food or water? Next of kin has to make that decision. If they don't, the patient would remain on tube feedings and until they stop breathing; they actually forget to breathe.

[MyShadowLove]

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

---

@MyShadowLove wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

My question is, how would they let the baby die? Take away food and water? That sounds cruel.  I do not think the baby requires life support at this time. 

---

@SeaMaiden...The baby is on life support.

---

@MyShadowLove  so it can not breathe on it's own? 

@SeaMaiden...

• Why terminally ill infant Charlie Gard's case has created a global ...
  https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/6/15923758/charlie-gard-global-controversy-trump-francis

---

[SeaMaiden]

---

@MyShadowLove wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

---

@MyShadowLove wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

My question is, how would they let the baby die? Take away food and water? That sounds cruel.  I do not think the baby requires life support at this time. 

---

@SeaMaiden...The baby is on life support.

---

@MyShadowLove  so it can not breathe on it's own? 

@SeaMaiden...

• Why terminally ill infant Charlie Gard's case has created a global ...
  https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/6/15923758/charlie-gard-global-controversy-trump-francis

---

 @MyShadowLove  wow. I  had not realized just now disabled this child is. Can not even move on its own either.... 

---

[JustJazzmom]

What is even sadder is that BOTH PARENTS found out after Charlie's birth that they are carrier's of this rare disease. 

This is truly a lady or the tiger decision on the part of the parents.

I hope that the treatment is not being done with just the goal to further research into this disease. 

[SeaMaiden]

---

@occasionalrain wrote:

It's the responsibility of the court to protect the child from parents who, because of their refusal to accept their child's condition, are prolonging his suffering.

---

@occasionalrain  I  guess the question is... how do they know the baby is "suffering"? The child has no reactions or emotions...  nothing.....it really is the parents that are suffering, not the baby.   Perhaps letting the baby die would stop the prolonging of the PARENTS SUFFERING....?