Columbia University Neurologist Will Examine Briti... - Page 7

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@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

I've read the baby cannot breathe on his own. Probably they would just disconnect the breathing tube.

Stray · ‎04-20-2013

@proudlyfromNJ wrote:
@Annabellethecat66 wrote:
My friend told me about this. It sounds like their healthcare system isn't so good.

I worked with the Brits back in the mid and late 60's. They weren't very happy about the healthcare system back then.

However, the people I worked with was a Wing Commander (same thing as Lt Colonel) and his secretary who was employed by the Embassy. I don't remember about her insurance company.
It has to do with experimental and controversial drugs, etc. nothing to do with healthcare or wing commanders from the 60's.

@proudlyfromNJ- it does actually have to do with insurance as the NHS will not cover experimental medications, especially one never tested on humans.

Stray · ‎04-20-2013

@hyacinth003 wrote:
I think MOST parents would want to try anything to save their baby. Even IF the chance is remote. And I believe it probably IS remote.

However, I think parents should speak for this baby, not government. WHY would you prevent these parents from taking the baby for possible treatment? He is all but terminally ill anyway. At least they can know they tried EVERYTHING for their precious baby.

They have raised the money, offers have come in from elsewhere to help them, WHY not let them? If it is privately funded, WHY? I have yet to hear a LOGICAL explanation for this.

Hyacinth

@hyacinth003- I agree and it's not logical by our standards. But, in the U.K., if parents disagree with a diagnosis or treatment or withholding treatment, it comes under The Children's Act; it goes to court....the government council assigns an advocate and represents Charlie. It is felt that parent's rights/wishes don't trump Charlie's rights. The physicians feel Charlie is in pain but can't express it and survival is remote and if he did survive, he would not funcion, even to breathe. The court feels, it is in Charlie's interest to die with dignity and offer palliative care only. As a parent, I'd want my child to receive anything if even the slightest chance but I also couldn't bear to see him in pain...or think that he is....a very difficult situation....he's a beautiful little boy.

Stray · ‎04-20-2013

@Isobel Archer wrote:
@WenGirl42 wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
@proudlyfromNJ wrote:
@Annabellethecat66 wrote:
My friend told me about this. It sounds like their healthcare system isn't so good.

I worked with the Brits back in the mid and late 60's. They weren't very happy about the healthcare system back then.

However, the people I worked with was a Wing Commander (same thing as Lt Colonel) and his secretary who was employed by the Embassy. I don't remember about her insurance company.
It has to do with experimental and controversial drugs, etc. nothing to do with healthcare or wing commanders from the 60's.
Actually it does have to do with health care - and potentially what single payer would mean for us. In this case, the parents are not asking the British system to pay for their child's experimental care - they raised the money themselves to bring him to the U.S. for treatment. The British healthcare system, however, is saying - and is being supported by the government - that the boy should die. They don't believe further treatment will be effective and thus they are not allowing the parents to pursue further treatment.

Is that what we want here?
It isn't about single payer, though. It's about whether parents have the right to prolong their child's suffering when medical opinion is that it's hopeless and harmful. These doctors decided it was in Charlie's best interest to remove his life support, and have been forced to act against that decision (therefore prolonging harm in their opinion) for as long as the appeals have gone on. It would play out differently here (and has) because our judicial system is much more likely to allow the parents to make this decision. The doctors aren't "preventing" him from going, despite the headlines. They aren't agreeing to prolong his life support and give the treatments that would be necessary for him to be subjected to such a trip. The parents could take him on a flight tomorrow if they wanted to...but without additional (perceived to be harmful) intervention by the doctors, he'll die. It's very complicated and sad, and my heart breaks for Charlie, his parents, and these doctors.
Well obviously there are differing medical opinions about whether the case is hopeless or the U.S. doctors wouldn't have agreed to do the experimental treatment. Yes it has no guarantees, but would you want to be denied treatment - that you were willing to pay for yourself - just because the State said your quality of life was too poor and you should just agree to die?

This is not a case of parents insisting that life support be maintained indefinitely.
Nor are the parents even asking the British health care system to pay for this.

And I don't know how you can say the parents could "take him on a flight tomorrow." As I understand it, the hospital wouldn't even release him to die at home.

@Isobel Archer- I guess the basis of the case is Charlie's rights vs parent's. The courts are advocating for Charlie & want to allow the child to die with dignity and they feel he is in pain ....maybe, the parents can't let go of their child, denial is very powerful. It's a heart wrenching decision on both sides. As long as the medication doesn't cause terrible discomfort and pain, I'd want to take that chance as a parent and I think I'd know if my child were in pain....but, that's their legal system, and the Children's Act was meant to protect children from parents/guardians who do not act in the best interest of the children....the court feels that is the case....I think the parents just love their child and hope for a miracle....I hope Charlie gets a chance at life and a miracle....

Stray · ‎04-20-2013

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:
Not about this case specifically, but sometimes parents are in denial about the truth about their child's health.

Remember that story about the girl who went in for a tonsilectomy, and was later declared brain dead, but the family insisted that she was not brain dead, and is in fact, still being kept "alive" through artificial means, in some nursing home, in I think Florida?

At some point, parents need to stop being in denial, and accept the reality, painful as it may be, that their child is not going to survive, or is already gone.

@Plaid Pants2- Jahi McMath....I think she turned 16

Stray · ‎04-20-2013

@reiki604 wrote:
It makes me wonder how many patients this MD has turned away here in the US because he did not accept their insurance.Great Britain has some of the best Health Care and Outcomes in the world. They are rankel above the USA. Most 1st world countries are.

@reiki604- I don't think anyone is debating which health care system is better but government intervention in end of life decisions and the rights of parents vs a child who can't speak for himself...