To ask people to PLEASE not picket hospitals?

[SerfTerf]

Or consider any kind of direct action against a hospital because of decisions concerning any individual patient.

It's irresponsible.

If you want to see how Trump's intervention and the entire case is being presented in the US look <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6l0nkj/trump_backs_fight_to_save_baby_charlie_gard_from/" target="_blank">heree*

The irony is that if this was happening in the US it would've been over months ago when the insurance company pulled funding for his care

oooh @SerfTerf I actually replied to that comment hours ago but I suspect it wasn't posted (not been back to check, my blood pressure couldn't cope).

Not that I haunt the DM comments section, I was led onto the DM by a link on another thread and foolishly checked out that article.

I commented something along the lines of "I think you mean 'gesture' not 'jester' though that accurately describes a clown like Trump"

Ignore the stupids ! Or be be
Bemused by their very low intelligence

GOSH won't be harmed by this - really it's a very upsetting interlude though

How fucking tense must be that atmosphere though ? For the medics who have the manage this whilst knowing they are being slated on social media . How can a nurse comfort them knowing that they are re tweeting Donald fucking Trump

Nightmare

How can a nurse comfort them knowing that they are re tweeting Donald fucking Trump

Not to mention having their names and addresses revealed to the whackos of the world.

I wonder if there's been any resignations from staff (legitimately) worried about the safety of themselves and their family

GOSH have a duty of care to all their patients not just the current 'cause celebre' (for want of a better phrase). They also have a duty of care to their staff. That's why I think they might bow to pressure and let that poor child be transported home so that everyone else dragged into this shitstorm get their rights acknowledged.

"The irony is that if this was happening in the US it would've been over months ago when the insurance company pulled funding for his care"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/family-carves-out-its-own-path-in-fight-against-4-year-olds-rare-disease/2015/09/04/7d18d8b0-2c91-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ecstory.html?utmm_term=.28c8a2894dcf

Art is also today 1000% improved on where he was 2 years ago.

As the Pope steps in to offer medical facilities this week, I again back the parents right to try everything at all possible to help their son. This legal blocking has been horrific, and Charlie would have been over in the US at the start of the year, succeed or fail, every side would have acknowledged they tried everything. As it stands, the 'animal rights' views on here are as unsavoury as GOSH view. Hes not a dog thats been hit by a car and 'deserves' euthanising. This is human life.

This is a really unsettling legal precedent that denies parents and children the right to seek medical help elsewhere. I thought we'd learnt from the Ashya King case, but clearly not. The Parents are now the pariahs, (just read this thread full of armchair medical experts braying for euthanasia) they are criminalised by our courts, and Charlie is now discussed as a dog would be. This is about the right to try. As Ive posted before, GOSH dont have a problem with experimental treatment, as long as its their experimental treatment. Its the legal precedent theyve set that is so so wrong. Charlie does not belong to GOSH. Hes not their lab rat.

Charlie's army have posted a link to this poll and at the moment are massively skewing the results.

Would mumsnet members care to present a more balanced view? Obviously, voting according to your own opinion...

Are impartial highly trained medical staff ultimately the best people to decide what happens in the event of a terminal illness in a child? Assuming all avenues of reasonable treatment have been exhausted? Or should parents instincts and love always take priority in these end of life decisions?

www.itv.com/loosewomen/get-involved/poll-should-parents-not-doctors-have-the-final-say-over-a-sick-childs-life

Ironically caroline its the doctor in the usa who wanted to treat charlie as a lab rat, til he realised that he couldn't help him at all anyway.

If the "chance to try" causes charlie even more suffering and has no real prospect of improving his life then is it morally the right thing to do?

The guilt of not trying everything would eat away at me..however if did try experimental treatment and it didn't work and just led to complications and suffering that could've been avoided that eat at me more. Of course parents would want to fight for their child it's natural. This is why agree should in extreme cases like this be taken from the parents. Child needs should come first not the parent

Carolinesbeanies you must surely be aware of why the courts have decided that experimental treatment is not in Charlie's best interests. That it could not reverse the irreversible brain damage he has suffered - all it could do is hold out a very slim chance of slowing or stopping the progress of the disease. In a best-case scenario, where this treatment works for Charlie, he is still living like he is now - no ability to move, breathe, hear, see, react to the world around him, but very possibly to feel discomfort and pain from what he's going through. How can you think it's in his best interest to put him through more of that, with no hope of it ever getting any better for him?

The guilt of not trying everything would eat away at me..however if did try experimental treatment and it didn't work and just led to complications and suffering that could've been avoided that eat at me more. Of course parents would want to fight for their child it's natural. This is why agree should in extreme cases like this be taken from the parents. Child needs should come first not the parent

And Carolinebeanies, I think you'll find GOSH - and all other reasonably medically trained individuals - do have a problem with random experimentation, when there is no evidence that it will produce even an iota of improvement, let alone extend life.

You're right, Charlie isn't GOSH's lab-rat. He is a human being that has reached the end of his tragically short existence. He isn't anybody's lab rat. Not the parent's, not the keyboard psychos that have adopted his cause, not the Pope's and certainly that of the clown-in-chief of the world.

In fact, as incensed as I am by this case, I find myself increasingly admitting that he also shouldn't be anybody's to kick around or talk about on social media - including mine.

Woops double post

Caroline I will as you again have you read the transcript of the judgement? There's no point in people just telling you the same things over and over while you willfully choose to ignore fact. Everything you seem not to understand is very clearly explained in that judgement. Charlie should not be ANYONE'S lab rat.

And you find people are against animal testing yet this situation is fine to test something..how does that work?!

This is a really unsettling legal precedent that denies parents and children the right to seek medical help elsewhere

This is absolutely not true. Unfortunately, courts have had to step in before when relatives have not been able to think straight and put the child/next of kin first.

I am not going to criticise the parents, it is the outrageous, unintelligent and offensive behaviour of 'Charlie's Army' that I take issue with.

Calling GOSH murdering scum (which they deny but have allowed their supporters to post), blocking anyone with an ounce of medical knowledge who has tried to inform them.

Direct abuse to a mother who lost her child there and is praising them.

Disgusting grief tourists.

Not to be too glib, but in all honesty we might as well discuss the "chance to try" Elastoplast and germolene for all the good it will do poor Charlie.

This is a really unsettling legal precedent that denies parents and children the right to seek medical help elsewhere.

No it really, really, really doesn't caroline. The only legal precedent it would be capable of forming is one for another scenario where there's no doctor who thinks the treatment has any realistic chance of improving the patient's condition. Given that you think it's acceptable for a child to be experimented on, for no benefit to them, I shan't try and appeal to your better nature. If you support that filthy Mengele shit, you don't have one, however much you pontificate. But I will point out where you're factually incorrect.

And the irony of you decrying armchair experts whilst posting shit like that! Tell me, and I say this as a solicitor myself, what are your legal qualifications?

just read this thread full of armchair medical experts braying for euthanasia

If that's all you got out of this thread then I'm not sure you can read at all caroline.

There's never any point tying to talk to so-called "pro-lifers". They're always illogical and always cruel.

Without wanting to offend anyone, the Pope can fuck right off on this one. Shame on him offering ambiguous and meaningless 'support' to Charlie's parents in a lost cause whilst his church declares its opposition to progress that could actually help prevent future babies being born with mitochondrial diseases. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11380543/Scientists-accuse-Church-of-ignorance-over-three-parent-babies.html

Wank (nice name by the way), there are 3 strings to this awful situation. You will be completely aware of the right of a person to 'live' using medical equipment. Whether that be an artificial heart, dialysis, life support etc. Charlies case is no different in this regards, and the decision to withdraw life support is indeed a call for euthanasia, just as refusing to give dialysis would.

The second string is Charlies 'quality of life'. This has been based on Charlies mental capacity. The 'profession' have claimed that as Charlies brain activity is very low, his mental capacity is at such a level he indeed 'qualifies' for euthanasia. No one has suggested he is 'suffering'. Indeed if he were, life support would indeed have been withdrawn months ago.

The 3rd string is the parents rights to decide. This has been removed from them. There is no suggestion they are abusive or neglective parents (despite posts on here).

For GOSH to have reached the legal position they have, they have secured a judgment on those 3 areas. Charlie has lost his right to be supported by life support. Charlie has lost his right to any further mental capacity assessment. Charlie has lost his right for his own parents, with their own funds (not the states funding which is hugely significant) to seek any further potential medical treatment, experimental or not. If a parent has no rights in a matter of life or death, when does a parent have any rights?

Im absolutely with the Pope on this on all 3 of those areas.

Yep, Pro life is a bummer serf.

I think we need to be very careful that we don't turn into a polar version of CA.

Being abusuve to people that don't agree for example
Casting aspersions in people that dont agree with the common view

I know what I think . but we all need to tread carefully here or else we are as bad as they are

carolines
No one has suggested he is 'suffering'. Indeed if he were, life support would indeed have been withdrawn months ago.
You need to read the court papers.
There is no way of knowing if Charlie is suffering as he cannot move in any way and his brain damage is such that his readings are not properly testable.
THAT is why GOSH wanted to cease forcing his body to keep breathing several months ago.