Charlie gard case thread 2

[Fancythat69]

The last thread is full, Not sure if another has been started.

Theres a CA rally at GOSH planned for tomorrow. What are these people on?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4678532/We-ll-make-Charlie-Gard-American-save-life.html

They are now talking about making Charlie an American citizen FGS.

This hearing could be arranged quickly because the paperwork is already in place, all that had to be added is a few updates; because the basic legal principles have been set out and decided, so it is a relatively straightforward factual issue they are dealing with; and, probably, because it has become more urgent in light of Charlie's deterioration.

This is more about the parents than it is about that child.

Does anyone feel like this CA stuff, pulling in Trump, the Vatican, is a bit like an episode of Black Mirror?

This one?

Will HMRC/ Charities Commission be looking into the 'donations' paid into the family's bank account?

.

Poor little soul, he doesn't look right at all. I think they have to let him go now, or he will deteriorate further and suffer more.

While poor little Charlie is obviously dying, and his parents need to accept that and put him first, I can't help thinking that maybe it would have been better if GOSH had let him have the treatment last January. It would probably have been hopeless, but at least the parents could have felt they'd tried, and everything wouldn't have got so awful, both for Charlie and for all the dedicated staff of GOSH.

Or am I missing something?

I think this dissecting of the mum's smile in that pic is a bit unfair, is a terrible pic to stage anyway but I don't think her smile means she's enjoying it or anything , or him wearing sunglasses.

I'm sure they do still smile but it doesn't mean their not in terrible emotional pain.

Pemba you're missing the fact that medical ethics, certainly here in the UK, would have absolutely prohibited that.

I don't see that the doctors treating Charlie can - or would - act unethically now even if they pass that unethical decision onto the judiciary to make. Ultimately, that would still be unethical. So hopefully all that they're looking to the court for is even stronger backing than before to move to palliative care.

I agree molly, I am fully in support of Charlie's life support being removed and I am appalled by the actions of "CA". I don't really think the parents are acting in Charlie's interests anymore but criticising her in a photo for smiling is bizarre. Otherwise she'd be accused of pulling the the standard daily mail "sad face". Same goes for the glasses really, can't see the issue there.

Pemba if you read the first court judgement then you can see that GOSH were planning to let him have the treatment in January. They had applied to the ethics committee and there were plans for him to have a tracheostomy with a date given in January.
Then his condition worsened and so it didn't happen. Also there were no cost implications for the parents - if he had been considered well enough then it would have been done through the NHS.

Yes pemba

but at least the parents could have felt they'd tried, and everything

This is what you are missing, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE PARENTS!!! Flying Charlie across the Atlantic for a procedure not tested on any other living thing so the parents could have 'felt' better??

I despair

Are CA aware that if he transfers to the USA his medical bills will be astronomical? £2 million would last a matter of months.

All hypothetical I know as there's no way the Courts would allow such a sick child to travel that far.

Oh, so it would have caused him pain/distress to be moved, even back in January? I see. And because the treatment was untested?

I do see why they can't let him go to the parents' home to die.

In the CA page there is now a neuroscientist with a similar condition to Charlie saying that she's all right and so Charlie should have the chance and that any neuroscientist would say so.

There's also a poster of Stephen Hawking saying that being on a ventilator hasn't stopped him. Somehow I doubt he knows this is being used although maybe he would support it.

I still don't properly understand the "make him a US citizen and then the courts can't stop him being moved" part. Can someone's citizenship be changed just like that?

Pemba The decisions were made based on what was right for Charlie and what was in his best interests, not what was best for the parents.

Children in the UK have more rights than they do in other parts of the world.

It's not about the parents and their feelings, and that's what the barmy army are missing the point on. And "give charlie a chance". A chance at what? A chance at living unable to eat, hear, see, walk, talk or move? Who would benefit from that? Would they care if he was a 40 yr old? If course not.

Looking on CA fb page

There's a scientist on there now who claims to have same MDDS that Charlie has!!!

She's saying she survived, thrived and is now a mother/scientist etc etc

Great!!! Let's guinea pig this treatment on her then..... inject her to see if she recovers and is no longer reliant on meds??

Ellie yes absolutely right - stick the petition in the bin.

I don't think GOSH are being dictated to on the big issue, because I don't think they're going to capitulate to anything these people are demanding. But the frustration they must feel at watching a child suffer like this - and the photos show it graphically now - that must be excruciating for doctors. As for how they feel at the squillions of pounds of money wasted, and any negative impact on other patients who aren't quite so self absorbed as Charlie's appear to be, that must be gut wrenching too.

Loony the Charity commission only regulate actual charities, which have to conform to various regulations to be able to be a registered charity. (like GOSH's charity is). registered charities eg don't generally pay tax as long as they spend their funds on the stated charitable purpose. They can also claim back tax that is otherwise deducted on donations via the Gift Aid scheme. (Claiming back 25p for each donated £1)

Making direct payments to Charlie's mum's bank account isn't the same as donating money via a registered charity. And seemingly the charity commission couldn't get involved with that because it wouldn't be in their remit.

HMRC would be relevant assuming that what has been donated would be classed simply as personal income. I'm sure others on here will know more about how taxation might be applied to donations to help Charlie if they are paid into a personal bank account.

I don't think they are saying he will improve by 10%, it's more that there is a 10% chance of improvement.

Yes this. And according to the court judgement linked to earlier, the improvement that could be expected is a 4% increase in life expectancy.

Oh God, Charlie looks so very, very unwell in the most recent photos. The terrible oedema is clearly stretching his skin. It's clear that his organs have begun failing. What a travesty.

Please let him be released soon, in whatever way.

I can't look at the Charlie's Army page any more. It makes me angry and anxious