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.

Cross-posted with a million peolpe there.

I agree posting the details identities of the medical staff are wrong, however the hospital as a whole should deal with it. The parents are angry, I would be too. Their child is dying and all he's know is those four walls. Love isn't rational. Why hasn't the hospital issued reasons why it can not occur. Even in a general sense, nothing to do with the case.

Of course people are angry, and the "the hospital can't trust the parents" really?!? So there holding the baby hostage. Given that I've seen somewhere the hospital agreed to give them the time to say goodbye. Now they don't appear to be. Again I'm not medically trained. It could be a case of emotional parents but I feel for them being told that the justice system decides your child gets to die, must be horrific.

No parent should have to bury their child. But this situation could have been better dealt with. Especially the last days of his life. I know I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at least try.

Sadly the parents and the hospital staffs relationship will be tainted

Parents generally do have the right by default, Angel, which is why this went to the courts.

Anybody who would support a protest against a hospital full of seriously ill, vulnerable children being cared for by some of the best paediatric staff in the world, because they disagree with a decision made by every COURT in the land is an utter scumbag.

This poor boy's last moments of life and his inevitable death are being made so undignified because of bandwagon jumpers turning the heartbreaking situation into a fucking circus! Shame on every one of them.

Medical staff have too much authority ... a baby does not have capacity. Parents should be able to replace that capacity, but doctors can override the parents' decisions as they see fit, and that is wrong.

Absolutel bollocks. Parents do not always do things in the best interests of their children. Are you really saying they do?

And are you saying it would be better for Charlie to be kept alive as he is? For how long? And why?? A child is not the property of his parents; he is a separate person. That's why children have appointed guardians to represent them in court. It's about what's best for the child. Not the parents.

Parents should generally have the rights by default, and doctors need their wings clipping.

For the reasons above.

Quite Shakira.

The doctors have had their wings clipped angel, by the courts. It is they who have decided here.

And if you think best interests should only be articulated by the parents, I'd be interested to hear whether you would apply this to all parents. I presume, for example, that you don't think eg parents who have been convicted of abusing their children should retain these rights (and do bear in mind that some forms of abuse involve inflicting unnecessary medical treatment or withholding it when necessary). If that's so, you evidently agree with some mechanism to prevent parents from exercising unrestrained capacity. If not, then you'd happily allow child abuse. You said 'not necessarily' so I am presuming the former is true, but in this case, the treatment the parents wanted him to have in the US would have been experimental, sooo...

Even in a general sense, nothing to do with the case.

Probably becasue there is no "general sense". The details of this case are likely to be exactly why he can't go home. The decision was probably made based on his medical condition which cannot be discussed by the hospital.
Really the hospital do not owe a single thing to the general public, I've no idea why people are expecting them to justify their decision to people who aren't involved.

because they disagree with a decision made by every COURT in the land is an utter scumbag.

The reason it went to court is because of the hospital. Hence the protest. And it is legal to protest in this country. And the very nature of a protest means that people are not always going to agree with what the protest is about.

I've no idea why people are expecting them to justify their decision to people who aren't involved.

Because the actions of the hospital have caused it to become a public issue. It is in the public interest that reasons are disclosed, as decisions taken against patients' or their advocates' wishes could affect anyone.

So Angel do you think a JW parent should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion that would save their child?

Of course people are angry, and the "the hospital can't trust the parents" really?!? So they're holding the baby hostage. Given that I've seen somewhere the hospital agreed to give them the time to say goodbye. Now they don't appear to be.

No, the hospital can't trust the parents. Thanks to the amount of frenzy whipped up on Twitter etc., the hospital has no way of knowing what would happen if it were possible for Charlie to go home. They're not keeping him 'hostage' - it's exactly that kind of emotive, misguided terms that inflame the situation - they are keeping him ALIVE. He cannot survive outside a hospital.

I don't think there's any benefit in speculating about exactly when Charlie's life support system will be switched off, or how much time his parents have left with him. You have no idea about that - and nor should you - or any of us. They have known for a long time that he is going to die.

And the justic system has decided it is in Charlie's interest that he be allowed to die, to end his suffering.

Hear hear, wank you.

A comment about medical staff having too much power- As the parent of a child who has a very very rare medical syndrome and for which medical decisions can be quite confusing and unclear, I can categorically say that the doctors and staff have worked with myself and my husband and our son to always take into consideration our views and desires as far as his medical care. We have said no to treatment and we have driven forward treatment that we have researched and provided evidence for.

We have worked collaboratively with the staff, at times it has become emotive and stressful but never once would I have doubted that, in spite of our disagreements, the staff have our son's absolute best interest in mind. The power wielding has never ever felt draconian.

No it isn't just because "of the hospital". It's because the hospital and the parents didn't agree.

Because the actions of the hospital have caused it to become a public issue. It is in the public interest that reasons are disclosed, as decisions taken against patients' or their advocates' wishes could affect anyone.

I would say it's the actions of the parents that have made it a public issue.
And the decision wasn't made against the patients advocate wishes. The appointed independent guardian who is there to speak for Charlie, you know the poor little boy at the centre of all this, agreed with the doctors.

I have just donated a bit of money to GOSH - they are under horrible pressure and the comments on their face book page are shocking.

I agree posting the details identities of the medical staff are wrong

... and yet you posted earlier on that if it was you, then you'd name the doctor. Make your mind up

The reason it went to court is because of the hospital.

It went to court because the parents took took it there.They did not agree with medical advise and so, quite rightly, followed due process and exercised their right to have their point heard in court.

They also exercised their right to appeal the courts decisions when the judges sided with the doctors about what was best for Charlie.

So it went to court because of the parents, and now life support will be stopped because the courts have ruled that it is in Charlie's best interest.

It's a horrible situation all round, but taking it out on the hospital who have been proven to be acting in his best interests is utterly wrong!

I have had to make life-changing decisions about one of my DC, including a second opinion with Drs at GOSH. They couldn't have been more ethical. Kind, factual, giving us the facts, facilitating us talking to other parents who had made the same or different decisions.

Skilled, kind, professional. And not at all high handed.

The wild allegations based on nothing make me very angry. Peolle seem to think being a doctor is all attitude and no knowledge, training, education, experience , research or professional ethics. And people who could barely pass a biology GCSE seem to have no difficulty pronouncing on a medical prognosis from the safe side of their computer screen.

PeanutButter: I am going to donate to GOSH too.

To ask people to PLEASE not picket hospitals

you are actually BU to ask on here, the thick-as-fucking-shit demographic that are barely literate and don't even have the wit to search this case - are not on Mumsnet!

sorry- I am being very ranty about this, for some treason this happening, after all the events hit in London has fucking enraged me

get angry about Grenfell, about austerity cuts, about white privilege. not this tragedy FUCKING MORONS

lets see these fucks go cap in hand to GOSH when their kids fall sick (which I obviously hope doesn't happen)

I've just set up a monthly donation to GOSH.

This is about end-of-life care for a little boy, not Britain's Got Talent.

This.

We all feel for the parents and God knows what I would do in the same situation to keep my little girl alive but this is why we have to trust the experts. They want to keep all children alive but it's not always possible. Such a sad day.

"Why hasn't the hospital issued reasons why it can not occur. Even in a general sense, nothing to do with the case."

Because it is nobody"s business but the parents, who will have been kept fully informed. The hospital would be very wrong to give out any information to anyone else.