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.

I think this sums up the situation

Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.

And I think sadly that is what has happened here. Hope that there might be some way of bringing him back, the experimental treatment that has worked on others, that the doctors have got it wrong etc leads to another Nietzsche quote

In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.

and on a legal point there has been for awhile a distinction between the withdrawal of care that leads to death and actively inducing death (euthanisa). It is the former that would happen here life support systems that are keeping him alive would be removed.

@stopfuckingshoutingatme, most commenters are either dealing in fact, or they're hijacking a small and desperately ill boy for their own agenda, then there is a third, much smaller group who are directly emotionally involved. Those are the true divisions or groups.

It's more directed at myself serf

I just want to tread very carefully in how I word my thoughts here

As for every CA loony there are people that are good people and also believe it's not right . Just felt the need to say that

My opinion is the same but I don't want to be fast to say harsh words that's all

No one has suggested he is 'suffering'. Indeed if he were, life support would indeed have been withdrawn months ago.

You are wrong. Read the judgements. They are very, very clear about this.

I do not understand how you can feel so strongly that the court decisions are wrong while not knowing what those court judgements have actually said.

GOSH are amazing, they've done so much for children I know personally, who would not be here today.

Did anyone see the Loose Women poll? I'm guessing it was biased as the link was posted on the CA Facebook page. Most of those who voted seem to be the heavy supporters of Charlie getting a 'chance', whereas anyone who disagrees and isn't passionate about the case won't have voted on a random poll.

I think the important thing to remember is that everyone is on Charlie's side. There are just different opinions on what is best for him.

Personally, I'd agree with the High Courts decision and doctors over arm chair specialists on Facebook who insist he is being denied the chance as he is, "not in pain as he is not crying."

It breaks my heart through. It's become a media circus. It's all a load of hype. Any dignity this little boy had has gone out of the window. I truly thought it would all be resolved on Friday, but alas he has more time with his parents.

I want peace for Charlie.

I must say as well that the remaining threats here are mostly respectful and well rounded. It is nice to know we can discuss such an emotive topic calmly and respectfully. Facebook is another palava.

the decision to withdraw life support is indeed a call for euthanasia

I respectfully don't agree. Euthanasia is actively causing death to occur.

Ventilation and extreme measures such as this poor little soul is existing on to prevent his organs shutting down and to force his body to keep breathing are actively, vigorously and to some extent violently preventing death from naturally occurring. Ventilation and ICU care is not gentle.

The question is ethically, when there is no hope of recovery or improvement, is it in the child's best interests to endure every possible medical intervention they can be subjected to before even on full ventilation, their body dies? Is it ethical to keep putting in more and more IVs and more medications around collapsing veins, and more tubes, when no one knows what the child's perception of these invasive, painful procedures are? A ten month old baby is not going to enjoy this. His parents face the utter agony of no longer having their child to touch and hold, I can't imagine what they are going through, but the question that has to be asked is what is in this for Charlie?

Charlie has certainly not has his right to live removed. He has had his right to no longer be forced to live respected. He has had his right to have his needs and welfare and wellbeing objectively considered separately from his parents or from the medics, and his best interests represented in the decision.

Sometimes the best interests of the parents and the best interests of the child are not the same thing.

I do know what you mean.

MissHavisham, you would have to apply that logic to any patient on life support.

"He has had his right to no longer be forced to live respected." This, is fundamentally wrong.

Who has the right to say 'its what Charlie would want"? And if you agree that someone indeed has the right to assert 'Charlies wishes', then why wouldnt that fall first and foremost to his parents?

caroline
Have you read the real information about the case ....
www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case
Charlie has absolutely zero chance of recovery, zilch, nothing.

So why is he still hooked up to the machines that push and pull his lungs for him ?

Because the interests of the child and the interests of the parents are not always the same. This is why it goes to court, so that when there is a conflict of opinion the child's best interests can be viewed objectively.

If someone has been put on life support it is because their body is trying to die. The medical intervention is actively preventing their body from doing so. Do you believe that anyone on life support should continue receiving all and every possible intervention, no matter how painful or violent (and yes, cut downs, tubes, re starting heart etc can be violent, it's last ditch medicine) should continue in every single case until there is nothing left that can be injected or electrically applied to make the heart keep beating even on full ventilation? Is enduring this in the best interests of every person? Should no one ever have the legal right to NOT be forced to the very bitter and inevitable end?

In this case, how do you feel about organ donation?

Badly phrased, sorry, I meant if you do not agree that it is ok to ever stop treating someone on life support, how do you feel about organ donation?

Notice you didn't answer the question about your legal qualifications carolinesbeanies. Are we to deduce from this that you don't have any? Because if so, the less you have to say about armchair experts, the better.

As for the rest:

• As has already been pointed out, it's wrong to say there is no suggestion he is suffering. That has absolutely been suggested. Read the court judgements, seriously. Do it now.

• There is a legal definition of euthanasia in this country. This situation doesn't meet it. That's not a matter of opinion. By all means consider it morally equivalent to euthanasia if you want to (although you seem to differ from the Pope there) but that's got nothing to do with anything.

• The rest is basically just platitudes that don't mean anything. You telling us you don't agree with the system. None of that pertains to the argument you've made about precedents.

Fundamentally caroline, you have said a silly thing about the legal precedent this sets, and neither the factual errors you have made nor you outlining your moral position in the matter are evidence. This doesn't set a precedent as you claim it does. You can disagree with the decision on ethical grounds and still understand that.

I do not understand how you can feel so strongly that the court decisions are wrong while not knowing what those court judgements have actually said.

Because there's no accounting for stupidity. Or arrogance, or hypocrisy.

Ventilation and ICU care is not gentle

Is it ethical to keep putting in more and more IVs and more medications around collapsing veins

100% agree having seen my premature son go through it. In the end they were taking blood samples from veins in his head as his tiny veins could no longer take the needles. That was the point where I nearly broke.

In my son's case his condition was considerably less serious than Charlie's (once they were able to diagnose it) and he made a full recovery. There was a point, however, where I didn't want him to take any more invasive and painful procedures.

Unlike Charlie he could (and did) vocalise his pain. I think that's one of the differences here as the parents and supporters can fool themselves that because he 'isn't crying' then he can't be suffering. Erm, how about the many experiences of people who feel every cut under GA but cannot let the medics know because they are paralysed and unable to speak or move eyes/limbs to express what is happening to them?

"Badly phrased, sorry, I meant if you do not agree that it is ok to ever stop treating someone on life support, how do you feel about organ donation?"

I dont agree in that where we have the right to choose, we can.

We have a very basic human right to refuse medical treatment. Thats a given.

We also have the right to let our wishes be known in advance, and also our desire or lack of desire to be an organ donor. Im absolutely fine with any of that.
Charlies case is the flip side of this. If we have the right to refuse, then those who have no ability to let their wishes be known, surely have the right to life first and foremost?

Sorry badly phrased too!!

I dont agree. In that..... (should have had a full stop!)

Caroline if you bothered to read the judgement you'd know that Charlie has an appointed legal Guardian. Please, read the judgement because you're just writing baseless opinion. You can have the "right" to as much life as you like but there has to be life in the body in the first place! Ventilation is not life.

Can anyone who has it please post a link to the judgement?

Music One of the things these threads have really brought home to me is how many women on MN are mothers of kids who have gone through so much. I'm so glad to hear your ds made a full recovery.

Caroline I see what you mean, and it's highly grey area stuff with many angles to debate from. I agree strongly with right to life, and I'm also a supporter for parental rights not being infringed without a powerful reason. But I do think in extreme cases such as this one where there is no hope of recovery and so very sadly treatment is only going to stall the inevitable for a relatively short period of time, that the benefits of treatment have to be weighed against the impact and experience of that treatment. Particularly when the person who cannot state their own wishes is a very young child.

Three courts have looked objectively at the rights and potential wishes of the person in this situation and found that the suffering involved in continuing treatment which so very sadly for this poor family is achieving no more than stalling the end, outweighed the possible benefits of it. It's a terrible situation for all concerned.

Links :

High Court 11 April :
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/gosh-v-yates-and-gard-20170411-1.pdf

Summary by barrister at top, then scroll down for 23 May 17

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed178127

Supreme Court judgment: www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/charlie-gard-190617.pdf

Here:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/press-summary-great-ormond-street-hospital-for-children-v-gard/

It says press summary, but there is a link to the full judgment too.

My question about organ donation - someone may have agreed for their organs to be donated, certainly, but many people whose life support ends with donation could have had their treatment prolonged because if ventilation was succeeding in keeping their organs viable they were still alive.

If ventilation and treatment to pursue life at all costs until the very end is the right of everyone who cannot express their wishes, then long term care on ICU to the point of full organ death occurring despite all possible treatment to stop it is the other option. Many donors in this situation would not have viable organs to donate.

Jahi McMath's parents are seeking to question legally in the states if brain death should no longer be counted as a reason to end ventilated care, as they are unwilling to allow their child's life support to be ended as it would cause her death.

at the centre of this theres an extremely unwell little boy who has a right to a dignified death its utterly tragic and i cant imagine the pain his parents are in but we have to trust the knowledge of the those that count ie the medical staff no one wants to see a baby die but he doesnt have a life at the moment, i myself have a child with a rare genetic disorder he has considerable disabillities but thankfully he is happy and healthy

Thanks for the 19 June Supreme Court 53rd. I hadn't saved that one.

(b) it was not certain whether Charlie is suffering pain but it is likely that he is suffering it and at more than a low level (paras 22, 113, 114);

This is so sad

I've just read the entire judgement. How can the parents argue, that he can both feel pain, that his life as it is isn't worth sustaining, and yet treatment which no one, even the actual Doctor thinks will work should happen?

The poor baby sounds like he is trapped in Hell. 8 hour seizures, constant need for uncomfortable suctioning, unable to move so much as a finger. Endless blood tests, scans etc. Just horrific.