what ever happened to the This Is my child campaign?

Again what zzzz said.

I get you, zzzzz. Absolutely no one has the right to draw a line at which a life is 'worth' living. I find that abhorrent, personally, although I have my own line drawn for me alone. I would not draw a line for anyone else, I have no right to do that.
If Charlie's existence was at a level, non-degenerative point free of pain and discomfort then that would be for the people closest to him to decide on what would happen next. But it's not level, it is rapidly degenerative and no one can say he is not in pain. It's not a disability issue, it's an end of life issue.

But TIMC is about awareness. We all have a stake in a fairer and more understanding society and a right to comment on issues preventing that.
If we take TIMC as a starting point for this site then people commenting may or may not be 'untouched' by it. Who is to know who is 'untouched' by it, anyway? Does everyone have to whap out their experiences and credentials for commenting acceptably? It's really combative to demand that and you'll just end up with an echo chamber where no one outside of it becomes more informed about issues affecting children and adults with a disability.

Its funny that zzzzz ignores the actual points discussed but prefers to keep trying to start an argument..

I find these threads unbelievably upsetting. I do understand that people like to discuss and explore. Perhaps only those untouched by it all can do that?
You were the one who asked me to elaborate on my previous post
Was it just so that you could complain that I'm posting (a reply to you )? or what?

What on earth stops you discussing TIMC, zzzzz? The issue is that, in a thread directly linking it to the CG threads, you want to stop people mentioning CG.

zzzzzz you haven't said much about TIMC yourself, other than to say that nobody is letting you talk about it

Feel free…..

I think it is a shame TIMC has been left to fade away and isn't linked to as it was originally intended by MNHQ.
It is irrelevant to Charlie Gard, however.

That's disingenuous, zzzzz. Framing a question in terms of "is this one to talk about TIMC, or just an attempt to round up those you assume have a single stance and harass them about it because it's easier than reading what they actually say?" is a blatant misrepresentation of what I and other posters have said, and an equally blatant attempt to shut down discussion on the very topic this thread relates to.

What did you mean by your previous post Tinsel?

I mean, that there are ways of speaking about terminal illness that are wholely appropriate when talking about terminal illness which would not be an appropriate thing to say about someone who is stable and has disabilities (or gay, or BAM, or female etc)

Because it's TERMINAL ILLNESS and its tragic and awful and unthinkable and horrific and other words that would be a massively inappropriate way to describe a disabled person who is going about their life

It's okay because it's not like for like

taking the piss out of people less clever (ie Charlie's Army)

There threads express major concerns around the fact that Charlie's Army have been talking about physically attacking GOSH , its staff and lawyers, and have been repeatedly describing them as murderers, perjurers, and liars, and indeed worse than the people running Nazi concentration camps. Posters also reasonably worry about the parents of children at GOSH who have to run the gamut of their demonstrations, or parents who are told that if they ever consent to ventilation being withdrawn they don't care about their children or are weak. And good has come out of it, in terms of offensive CA posts being withdrawn, and supportive messages being sent to GOSH staff. Yes, in amongst those concerns is a degree of incredulity at how people can believe these things, how they can ignore and misrepresent the facts, and indeed about the ethics of selling and buying tacky memorabilia. But the role of social media is in itself an aspect of this case that is worth discussing.

If you characterise all of that as "taking the piss" you are using some weird definitions of that term.

Glad it wasn't just me, Myrtle
I think that direct comparison on mainstream news isn't helping anyone to look at the CG case and separate the issues there from the issues faced by a child who has a disability.

There's a thread to talk about Charlie, is this one to talk about TIMC, or just an attempt to round up those you assume have a single stance and harass them about it because it's easier than reading what they actually say?

zzzzz, my posts have specifically been in response to posts on this thread, including OP's, therefore they are directly on topic. On what basis do you seek to dictate what posts people can answer? And your own post reveals that you haven't read mine properly.

Well there are ways you could say "I wouldn't want my child to be gay" that would be unbelievably offensive and ways you could say it that might be more understandable. Context and audience are surely important

I don't believe that anybody ever in the history of ever would disagree with anyone who said that they wouldn't want their child to be terminally ill

Charlie is terminally ill and nobody ever ever would want that for their child

Not even vaguely in the same ballpark as saying "I wouldn't want a disabled child"

nutritional*

I saw that saucery and was shocked that the other dcs case was even mentioned. They were completely different. Discussing removing nutrional therapy, rather than respiratory/life support. It was disturbing.

However yes you're right, that bears no resemblance to the posts on any of the threads I've seen here discussing CG.

What Polter and zzzz said

An example of disablism coming from the CG case, to me, was the BBC report last week, where a mother was talking about her DD who has severe additional needs. I tried to get my head round the point they were trying to make, as in my opinion the two children were not in any way similar.
Charlie has a terminal illness, the other girl does not. It was a clumsy attempt to conflate the two.
It's a contrast to the CG threads on here where there has been a distinct lack of disablist posts, just ones recognising that he is terminally ill.
They are not saying that any damage to cognitive function isn't worth treating and that he would be better off dead because of that.