Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Charlie Gard case

999 replies

LovelyBath77 · 06/07/2017 09:41

AIBU to feel the drama over this poor little boy is not helpful? I read the Pope and Donald Trump were suggesting they help- when several courts have agreed it is in his best interests to let the little boy die with dignity. I feel sorry for him as he may be in pain and it is unfair to add further to false hope for the parents as well. I also feel that many, many people has awful situations where babies die, sadly, for example stillbirths and other cases which are just un-heard and un-noticed and people have to deal with it, so why is there such a huge focus here.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
PacificDogwod · 07/07/2017 09:07

Info on mitochondrial disease Maud.

The truth is that Charlie will die - the only question is when and under what circumstances and how long a baby who cannot express his distress will be kept alive by intensive care measures.
Have you even been to an ITU? A paediatric ITU??
'Life support' is grim - worthwhile of course if there is a chance of recovery, but grim nonetheless.

It breaks my hear to think of him unable to cry Sad

53rdWay · 07/07/2017 09:09

'Glimmer of hope' Sad The Guardian has 'fresh hope for Charlie Gard' too. I really feel this is cruel, floating this treatment as having a chance however slim for his full recovery.

If every treatment the parents think might help but the doctors don't is a 'glimmer of hope', why would it end with this treatment? There'll always be something else a hospital can try, if they aren't restricted by any likelihood of success or by the child's best interests. Where would it end?

annandale · 07/07/2017 09:10

Logical I'm an hcp, i sometimes work in critical care, I'm not oblivious to what it takes to actually care for someone in this position. I see though what you mean, i was trying to say that the parents can't be said not to have done 4gruelling amount of care but i agree that they don't have the skills to keep him going in his current condition.

Masudlin it seems to me that the baby became unable to breastfeed rather than deteriorating when it was stopped?

Zoflorabore · 07/07/2017 09:11

indigo- devoted yes but also deluded.

Maudlinmaud · 07/07/2017 09:11

Yes PD. I'm just repeating what the mother said in an interview. I have been on ICU both as a patient and as someone sitting by a bedside. It is indeed grim Sad

MissHavishamsleftdaffodil · 07/07/2017 09:16

If the precedent is set here that a child's best interests are no longer the priority, that a child's suffering come second to parental rights and issues - and this is about adults in extreme denial, the hospital and courts position is that every day they have to treat this child is abusive to him - and that even the supreme court and the ECHR can be overturned by enough bad publicity and pressure, then God help children in the U.K. A lot more are going to suffer.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 07/07/2017 09:17

you can sympathise with somebody and their tragic circumstances, without respecting or endorsing their actions

Very wise words Flowers

That Mail article reported that Charlie's parents now want "just two or three months" (!!) to see if the treatment works ... the very same treatment path that's been refused by four different courts, except that it seems they've found five doctors worldwide to support them and consider this to be "new evidence". However for all I know the doctors could be holders of a Phd in a non medical field , still entitled to use "doctor" but not meaning what many assume it to mean when they see the word

In their natural despair, it's clear that these poor parents aren't going to let this matter go peacefully and with dignity for Charlie. Reputable proof of his condition is ignored and any quote or idea - no matter how ridiculous - is instantly seized on and then plastered all over social media

I hope and pray that GOSH will quickly feel able to do the right thing for everyone' sake

Maudlinmaud · 07/07/2017 09:17

Anna I don't know how to do links, the mother said that upon Charlies first admission they told her to stop breastfeeding, she also mentioned it was around 8 weeks when he should have got his first round of injections and they noticed he wasn't putting on weight.
My thoughts on this are pretty much with the courts and medical experts. I have read the judgements etc. I'm just saying what the parents are putting out there.

User843022 · 07/07/2017 09:19

'Life support' is grim - worthwhile of course if there is a chance of recovery, but grim nonetheless'
Have you ever been in ITU because then surely you must know that it is far from true that it is only ever used when there is a 'chance of recovery'. People are intubated all the time before the full picture is clear and then when recovery is unlikely it is withdrawn, but ime only with consent. The fact they don't have it here is clearly the issue but I don't think they should have ever taken the family to court.

ShatnersWig · 07/07/2017 09:19

It may have been denial early on, it's now something more - at least delusion. Unusual for two people to be so totally deluded though. You might have one parent genuinely deluded but not both; the other could just "go along with it" thinking it was being supportive. I say that as someone who has known people with denial following very traumatic experiences.

The last place I would be now is on the sofa of GMB rather than at the beside of my child.

goodbyestranger · 07/07/2017 09:23

Absolutely MissHaversham. This is about the parents interests exclusively.

Zoflorabore · 07/07/2017 09:23

indigo- " vegetables " really?

You sound thick

CA is that way>

JaneEyre70 · 07/07/2017 09:23

I really hope that GOSH are going to take the moral high ground today and enforce the court order. It's well overdue, for Charlie's sake. No more.

Polly99 · 07/07/2017 09:25

Has Charlie been made a ward of court?
I know he had a guardian ad litem in the court proceedings (as is the norm when there's a hearing involving someone who cannot speak for themselves) but that is different from wardship, for which a specific application should be made and following which the court would be in the position of guardian.

FinallyThroughTheRoof · 07/07/2017 09:26

Am.not commenting on this case as it's nit my child.

Comments like "any sign of brain damage and i'd have pulled the plug on my child' and calling people "vegetables" are really offensive though.

I know many people with children with brain damage, often severe who are loved and have quality of life.

Plus it's easy to say what one.would do if not in a situation , totally different if in it.

FlyingElbows · 07/07/2017 09:26

Please can we not lower ourselves to insulting posters with differing opinions? It's not necessary and the thread will just end up deleted.

FinallyThroughTheRoof · 07/07/2017 09:27

Yes but can we also not call people "vegetables". Would be nice.

goodbyestranger · 07/07/2017 09:28

Apologies - MissHavishamsleftdaffodil.

I don't know why she's on GMB either. When my child was in a neonatal ICU it was agony being asked to leave at intervals through the day and night so that the doctors could do their rounds. But I guess Charlie is stable so there's no danger he might slip away at any time and presumably the Dad is with him.

Rhubarbginisnotasin · 07/07/2017 09:28

What would the benefits be of making Charlie a ward of court?

Ive started wondering about this over the last few days.

It really has gone to far now with the parents talking of seeking sanctuary in the hospital chapel, the Pope trying to get Charlie a Vatican passport, and Trump supposedly wanting May to answer his questions at the summit.

User843022 · 07/07/2017 09:29

'Yes but can we also not call people "vegetables". Would be nice.'

Yes or call the parents 'grabby'. Equally offensive.

ShatnersWig · 07/07/2017 09:31

On the other thread someone "not part of the army" has come on and told us we clearly all want Charlie to die and repeating stuff that is simply untrue. This is what it has descended to.

ErnesttheBavarian · 07/07/2017 09:33

Myrtle - why should I?

I am genuinely shocked at how cynical a photo that is. There are hundred and hundreds of churches in London. Not many, I'm guessing with that verse on the altar. Someone has had the idea, based on the new angle of papal involvement, found the right church and staged that photo. I think it's wrong. It's all an attempt to get Joe Public behind their cause. I just think the media involvement is too much (understatement) and ill-advised.

Alittlepotofrosie · 07/07/2017 09:34

I think the chapel is inside GOSH so the verse makes sense in a children's hospital.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 07/07/2017 09:35

According to ITV, Ms Yates said five doctors in Europe and the US who specialise in Charlie's condition now agree that the experimental treatment could work

She said there were 18 people on the medication and some had experienced "amazing responses, very quickly"

"There is potential for him to be a completely normal boy, but you don't know until you try,"

So he has a condition so rare that only 16 have ever suffered it worldwide, but she claims there are 18 currently being medicated for it??!! And despite the terrible brain damage she insists he can be "completely normal"??!!

As I've said, I very much hope GOSH will bring this to a sad close and end this utter delusion

JonSnowsWhore · 07/07/2017 09:36

Just seen that my young family member is at GOSH today for some follow up treatment after his op. I really hope he doesn't get caught up in whatever shit storm might erupt after this announcement Angry

Thing is, GOSH could backtrack & now let him have the treatment, it probably won't work as everyone has agreed, but it'll still be GOSH's fault because 'they should have given it to him sooner'