R.I.P little man

Poor mite

Has touched a nerve with me as he was four days older than my son. Thank goodness his suffering is over.

Sad sad sorry with lots of emotive reactions.

Good night little fella

Unfortunately for the parents a new nightmare is about to begin. They received well over £1 million in donations which they're going to use to start a charitable foundation. The gutter press are going to be all over them, watching for any whiff of a hint of an extravagance. And if they're photographed so much as looking at a glass of champagne at any point in near to mid the future they'll be splashed all over the front pages of the gutter press publications and publicly shamed in much the same way footballers are if they decide to go for a drink one night and one of the 100 photographs taken makes them look far more drunk than they are.

It's a shame for the child,but i'd question the motives of the parents going against the best paediatricians in the world.
Yes i accept mistakes happen but when Great Ormond Streets finest have their expert opinions questioned,well the knock on effect could be very damaging to an already struggling NHS.

Are they the best, if there are paediatricians in the USA, that may have a more advanced approach, which 'could' potentially improve upon a child's illness?

In that position, which parent wouldn't want to try to improve the life of their child?

So sad that this very situation has been played out in the full glare of the media.

The expert in the USA came across as a Dr Nick from the Simpsons in my opinion, he was willing to take risks with Charlie's life, albeit with the knowledge that Charlie was going to die anyway. He appeared to want to experiment with Charlie's life to expand his own research.

RIP young Charlie

bartons baggage wrote:It's a shame for the child,but i'd question the motives of the parents going against the best paediatricians in the world.
Yes i accept mistakes happen but when Great Ormond Streets finest have their expert opinions questioned,well the knock on effect could be very damaging to an already struggling NHS.

You're expecting the parents to make rational decisions. I'm sure some can, i'd like to think i'd be rational in their shoes, but desperation and rationality rarely co-exist in one person.

Rick_Muller wrote:The expert in the USA came across as a Dr Nick from the Simpsons in my opinion, he was willing to take risks with Charlie's life, albeit with the knowledge that Charlie was going to die anyway. He appeared to want to experiment with Charlie's life to expand his own research.

RIP young Charlie

I've not seen or read much about the expert in question and I'd agree, if this was the case, that risks shouldn't be taken without sound medical evidence in respect of new or supposed revolutionary procedures / medicines.

TheFamilyCat wrote:So sad that this very situation has been played out in the full glare of the media.

Agreed 100's of kids die every day and make it no further than the local rag.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're expecting the parents to make rational decisions. I'm sure some can, i'd like to think i'd be rational in their shoes, but desperation and rationality rarely co-exist in one person.

I can't counter that statement,as i lack the intellect,so i agree, well sort of,i think.

bartons baggage wrote:I can't counter that statement,as i lack the intellect,so i agree, well sort of,i think.

Ok. So we're being dicks are we, you and I? I'm game.

This is the downside of the site. One upmanship on each other and sly jibes. A boy has died, give him the respect he deserves in remembrance. Not through petty bickering.

Hey up touched a nerve have we?.
Not trying to make you look small or anything,just saying you made a fair statement,now climb down off your high horse ffs.

RIP little Charlie x

Imploding Turtle wrote:Unfortunately for the parents a new nightmare is about to begin. They received well over £1 million in donations which they're going to use to start a charitable foundation. The gutter press are going to be all over them, watching for any whiff of a hint of an extravagance. And if they're photographed so much as looking at a glass of champagne at any point in near to mid the future they'll be splashed all over the front pages of the gutter press publications and publicly shamed in much the same way footballers are if they decide to go for a drink one night and one of the 100 photographs taken makes them look far more drunk than they are.

Couldn't agree more. Hopefully they will be allowed to grieve in private now but I don't think that will be allowed.

The doctor from the US had a financial interest in the medication he was prescribing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -questions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great Ormond Street is the finest Hospital. The advice they gave has been correct. Sadly, the parents have done everything they can to prevent the child's death.

The American doctor hadn't even read the patients full notes. He gave hope, but false hope.

If the parents had accepted the hospitals diagnosis, the child could have been in a hospice weeks ago.

It's a very sad story. A lose, lose scenario.

this little lad should've been allowed to pass away months ago.

i understand that the parents didn't want to let go. who would?

but unfortunately it has descended into a cause celebre. the images of those fat slobs outside great ormond street screeching and balling was pathetic, especially considering their vitriol towards doctors who actually save folks' lives on a daily basis.

and the death threats? gosh.

bf2k wrote:Couldn't agree more. Hopefully they will be allowed to grieve in private now but I don't think that will be allowed.

You couldn't agree more with something that hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen.

Well done Charlie Turtle, another one for the fan club.

RIP Charlie, I hope you find the peace you never had in life.

Unfortunately I have seen similar situations when I worked in ICU with adult patients.

Patients clearly never going to survive and family ignoring medical advice and wanting to keep life support going. It's an extremely difficult situation for all parties. The doctors have to be very careful when withdrawing life support. Sadly I have seen patients suffering because families fight against medical advice. Although it's hard to say until in that situation, I am confident what I would want the doctors to do

RIP Charlie

Inchy wrote:Unfortunately I have seen similar situations when I worked in ICU with adult patients.

Patients clearly never going to survive and family ignoring medical advice and wanting to keep life support going. It's an extremely difficult situation for all parties. The doctors have to be very careful when withdrawing life support. Sadly I have seen patients suffering because families fight against medical advice. Although it's hard to say until in that situation, I am confident what I would want the doctors to do

RIP Charlie

Very true, sadly it's often a contest between the children as to who loves mum or dad the most and what's best for them, not the patient.

When the dust has settled on this case I will be interested to read the full story, including what all the medical and legal goings on have cost us, the taxpayers, and was it justified.

I realise there was a lot of emotion involved for the parents, but is this another case of not believing experts?

RIP Charlie. Regarding the money raised if I was in their dreadful situation I would give every penny to Gt Ormond St. My family are supporters and when you read about the amazing work they do and just what they achieve and want to achieve it is awe inspiring and gives hope for the future.

On Monday, Great Ormond Street hospital made a statement to the court strongly criticising Hirano, who gave evidence to the court by video link and was never cross-examined, because Charlie’s parents gave up their case.

“On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts, all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the judge’s decision made on 11 April,” the statement said. The hospital also criticised Hirano for not declaring earlier his “financial interest” in some of the drugs he wanted to prescribe.

Its a tough place for the Paediatricians to be. They had always to act in the best interests of the Child (Children Act 1989, Section 1 Para 1). When it was clear that Charlie's parents had a different view on what constituted his best interests the Hospital had to put Charlie's interests before the parents. They had no choice but to ask the Court to intervene as the Hospital cannot override parental consent on its own. In these circumstances, the Court appoints somebody to act as the Child (effectively against his Parents).

Its very sad that communications broke down; even now the Parents are saying that Charlie could have been saved with earlier treatment (which is manifestly incorrect - this is an incurable disease and had already progressed beyond remedy at the time of the initial application in April).

I feel hugely sad for them and what they have gone through, but could never agree that the parents' wishes on the treatment of a child should always be followed. Parents have neither the expertise nor the emotional detachment to make rational choices in such circumstances.

Dr Hirano on the other hand I have nothing but contempt for. I wonder how much he stands to make from the publicity for his new drug?

To my mind, it's shame on the parents. When my son was on the slippery slope to oblivion, the last thing on my mind was legal action. All we wanted to do was make sure we all were as comfortable as possible, especially Ryan. I absolutely abhor the notion that judges should be involved in such a personal trauma, it's just so wrong on so many levels. RIP Charlie, you deserved better.

Inchy wrote:Unfortunately I have seen similar situations when I worked in ICU with adult patients.

Patients clearly never going to survive and family ignoring medical advice and wanting to keep life support going. It's an extremely difficult situation for all parties. The doctors have to be very careful when withdrawing life support. Sadly I have seen patients suffering because families fight against medical advice. Although it's hard to say until in that situation, I am confident what I would want the doctors to do

RIP Charlie

Totally agree with inchy. Cases like this make me glad I gave up ICU

BennyD wrote:To my mind, it's shame on the parents. When my son was on the slippery slope to oblivion, the last thing on my mind was legal action. All we wanted to do was make sure we all were as comfortable as possible, especially Ryan. I absolutely abhor the notion that judges should be involved in such a personal trauma, it's just so wrong on so many levels. RIP Charlie, you deserved better.

Not sure how it can be 'wrong on so many levels' when the reason for them going to court, was to give their child, what they thought, was a possibility of helping him by taking him to America. They weren' going to court to try and be financially compensated, whilst he was still alive in hospital. They were doing it for the reason they thought, as parents, to help them.

They were told by a medical professional, that in his opinion, he could help Charlie. Now, unless you're a doctor, you're going to take any last chance you can get to help your child. I think what they did was totally understandable.

Desperately sad for the family. A very good, well-balanced article on reaction.life by Charles Arthur: https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hipper wrote:When the dust has settled on this case I will be interested to read the full story, including what all the medical and legal goings on have cost us, the taxpayers, and was it justified.

I realise there was a lot of emotion involved for the parents, but is this another case of not believing experts?

What's the life of a child worth?

It looks very much like it's a case of not believing the experts, and it also looks like on this occasion the experts were right. But that can't be used as a justification for always doing what the experts say, because of course experts can be wrong.

FactualFrank wrote:Not sure how it can be 'wrong on so many levels' when the reason for them going to court, was to give their child, what they thought, was a possibility of helping him by taking him to America. They weren' going to court to try and be financially compensated, whilst he was still alive in hospital. They were doing it for the reason they thought, as parents, to help them.

They were told by a medical professional, that in his opinion, he could help Charlie. Now, unless you're a doctor, you're going to take any last chance you can get to help your child. I think what they did was totally understandable.

There was never any possibility of a tangible improvement to Charlie's quality of life, and that was stated by the professionals looking after him. All the parents did was prolong the misery for all concerned. I appreciate what you are saying but there is a point at which they should have said this is going to happen whatever we do, so we should just accept it and let it happen in the 'best' possible way. As for law suits and compensation; watch this space.

BennyD wrote:I appreciate what you are saying but there is a point at which they should have said this is going to happen whatever we do, so we should just accept it and let it happen in the 'best' possible way.

But we're people looking from the outside looking in. When you're in that zone, you must be only thinking that they'll try anything. The fault doesn't lie with the parents, it lies with the doctor in America who may have only said he could have helped due to his own financial gain. Again - that's not the fault of Charlie's mum and dad. You can't blame them for trying to force through anything so long as their son had a chance, however slim.

It's from a different angle, but my mum had terminal cancer. A doctor said they would try radiotherapy, even though other hospitals had said the tumour was too big to treat. Now, my mum wanted to try it and we wanted to try it - we'd have done anything to at least try it. I don't see how this is any different to what they did. They were told one thing - but another doctor in the same profession told them something else.

Doctors can be (and are sometimes) wrong, so in my view we can't blame them for trying.

Having been there, I agree with you. However, the scans showed no possibility of any meaningful recovery but they sought to bring in lawyers to further their own ends. In the, tragic, end he died within hours of switching off life support which bore out the doctor's assessment. IMO, the one thing the parents didn't address was Charlie's quality of life if he'd survived. A bed-ridden vegetable is no way to live, and we know that from ITs mad ravings.

that would have been a good post benny but for the insult at the end.

hijacking a subject like this to have a go at another poster shows a real lack of class.

BennyD wrote:Having been there, I agree with you. However, the scans showed no possibility of any meaningful recovery but they sought to bring in lawyers to further their own ends. In the, tragic, end he died within hours of switching off life support which bore out the doctor's assessment. IMO, the one thing the parents didn't address was Charlie's quality of life if he'd survived. A bed-ridden vegetable is no way to live, and we know that from ITs mad ravings.

What you've been saying tells me you simply don't know the story. Not even what the public know, because you're mentioning things that you should know even by watching the news, but you've got wrong.

I just feel incredibly sorry for Charlie. It's not fair that he had to go through this. I couldn't care less about the politics behind it.

/////////

I agree. Unfortunately, his parents didn't.

BennyD - you have written some awful posts on this thread.

I hope you are a teenager who will learn from what they have written.

yTib wrote://///////

BennyD wrote:I agree. Unfortunately, his parents didn't.

I hope I'm not reading too much into what you've just posted.

not sure what you're getting at regarding my post.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're expecting the parents to make rational decisions. I'm sure some can, i'd like to think i'd be rational in their shoes, but desperation and rationality rarely co-exist in one person.

I make decisions daily, some are good news for clients, some are bad news, either way I don't mind making them. I can normally make them in a rational manner, without too much hesitation (once i have all the information I need). However, having once been placed in a similar situation to these parents, albeit with regards to a parent and without being in the glare of the media, all the normal logical process goes out of the window. Fortunately, for me, I didn't need to make the decision in the end.