Parent's Drop Attempts to Bring Charlie Gard to U.... - Page 2

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@Pearlee wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
@Marp wrote:

The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard have ended their legal challenge to take him to the US for experimental treatment.

A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court that "time had run out" for the baby.

It means Charlie will not reach his first birthday on 4 August, his father said afterwards on the court steps.

"To let our beautiful little Charlie go", is "the hardest thing we'll ever have to do," his mother said.

They made the decision because a US doctor said it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy. (emphasis added)

More: bbc.com/news/uk-england-40708343
Yes, I thought all along that one reason they were dragging this out was to make it "too late" for the treatment. Then they couldn't be proved wrong in their claim that it wouldn't work.
Wow that's really harsh. We don't know what was in the parents' thoughts. It may very well have had to do with that las dire MRI (or whatever test it was last week) that was presented in court before the paretns had even seen it.

I'm talking about the hospital and courts(not the parents) dragging this out - rather than letting the parents take him for treatment. No other interpretation even makes sense. I'm not sure why you have such difficulty with my posts - as this is the second time in just a couple of days you have done this.

Oznell · ‎11-08-2014

Am deeply sorry for Charlie and his parents. Although America and Britain have so many values and ideas in common, there is something of a split in the jurisprudence of the two countries.

Generally speaking, in the U.S. the courts have been motivated to recognize families (barring abuse or other criminality) as being properly making decisions regarding the welfare of their minor children. At least some courts in Britain have accorded more power in the hands of the state when it comes to children. To me, that is subverting the natural responsibility of the parents. The U.K. is still enough like us that fairly large segments of their population lean against the statist viewpoint, and thus they have supported the parents in this instance.

There is one ray of light, for me, in this tragic situation. At one point, the deciding court relented and "allowed" the parents to call in another medical opinion. This is a legal precedent established now, that I hope future citizens can plausibly cite when caught in this kind of bureaucratic nightmare...

Plaid Pants2 · ‎03-14-2015

The thing is, there is only so much money to go around to help take care of the sick, and the government has to weigh the risk/reward.

Is it worth spend a truckload of money, when there is less than "X" percentage (for example, 1%) of the patient getting better?

WenGirl42 · ‎07-05-2012

@millieshops wrote:
I would not want to be Charlie's doctors nor the judges and most of all not his parents.

I do have other thoughts, but right now those are paramount.

I completely agree. My heart breaks for Charlie, his parents, his doctors, and the judges called upon to rule in this situation. Not I job I'd want to have to do.

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:
The thing is, there is only so much money to go around to help take care of the sick, and the government has to weigh the risk/reward.

Is it worth spend a truckload of money, when there is less than "X" percentage (for example, 1%) of the patient getting better?

That is certainly true - and a cautionary tale for single payer. And the reason Medicaid patients are getting substandard care according to studies.

However, the parents were not asking the hospital or the state to pay for this treatment - and that is what I find so terribly horrifying. That the state would not even allow them to pay for it themselves.

ms traditional · ‎03-09-2010

@Isobel Archer amen. it was horrifying to see how helpless the parents were even after having raised money for experimental treatment. and all the time and money wasted, perhaps having denied Charlie a shot at some kind of life. awful. just awful.

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

@Isobel Archer wrote:
@Plaid Pants2 wrote:
The thing is, there is only so much money to go around to help take care of the sick, and the government has to weigh the risk/reward.

Is it worth spend a truckload of money, when there is less than "X" percentage (for example, 1%) of the patient getting better?

That is certainly true - and a cautionary tale for single payer. And the reason Medicaid patients are getting substandard care according to studies.

However, the parents were not asking the hospital or the state to pay for this treatment - and that is what I find so terribly horrifying. That the state would not even allow them to pay for it themselves.

@Isobel Archer ^THIS!!! Private funds were raised to bring Charlie to the USA.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

@Isobel Archer wrote:
@Pearlee wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
@Marp wrote:

The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard have ended their legal challenge to take him to the US for experimental treatment.

A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court that "time had run out" for the baby.

It means Charlie will not reach his first birthday on 4 August, his father said afterwards on the court steps.

"To let our beautiful little Charlie go", is "the hardest thing we'll ever have to do," his mother said.

They made the decision because a US doctor said it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy. (emphasis added)

More: bbc.com/news/uk-england-40708343
Yes, I thought all along that one reason they were dragging this out was to make it "too late" for the treatment. Then they couldn't be proved wrong in their claim that it wouldn't work.
Wow that's really harsh. We don't know what was in the parents' thoughts. It may very well have had to do with that las dire MRI (or whatever test it was last week) that was presented in court before the paretns had even seen it.
I'm talking about the hospital and courts(not the parents) dragging this out - rather than letting the parents take him for treatment. No other interpretation even makes sense. I'm not sure why you have such difficulty with my posts - as this is the second time in just a couple of days you have done this.

@Isobel Archer I guess she read your post too fast. Nobody in their right mind would accuse you of putting that statement on the parents. My gosh.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

Krimpette · ‎03-09-2010

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that the decision for treatment can lie in the hands of anyone other than the parents. What an awful ordeal this has been for the parents. No parent should have to go through that, especially when dealing with such a tragic situation.

Natasha218 · ‎07-23-2017

@millieshops wrote:
I would not want to be Charlie's doctors nor the judges and most of all not his parents.

I do have other thoughts, but right now those are paramount.

Doctors??? It's not the doctors' fault that the parents couldn't leave the country with their child or seek experimental treatments. I'm sure they would like nothing more than to let the parents do what they think is right. They are caring for that child heroically, doing everyhting that they can legally and medically do but they cannot perform miracles. That's the problem here, the blame game. The hospital, the doctors, the courts...everyone is following the law and doing what they believe is in the best interests of the patient. So, there's no need to feel sorry for the doctors or even the judges.