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?

"Our public institutions should never usurp the rights of parents "

Clearly the batshit pastor has no understanding of British law. He needs to go back to America and stop stirring things up.

A hospice isn't appropriate at all.

It's for people to receive palliative end of life care for their final weeks and days, to make things more comfortable for them. It is for when medical treatment is no longer needed or appropriate
It is for people who will cope with the move

Charlie is none of these things. He will live for minutes once he is taken off ventilation

Hospices aren't set up to receive him fully ventilated and he wouldn't last the journey from hospital to hospice without one

He's on life support soda, which isn't really an option in a hospice setting unfortunately. Moving him to disconnect life support wouldn't be in his interests and might well kill him.

If he hadn't been treated aggressively and intubated then ending his short life in a hospice setting might have been an option months ago. It's heartbreaking.

@LapinR0se 🤤

Oh, Charlie you really don't deserve this circus around the decisions of your life. Even celebrities who die get more privacy than this.

I feel increasingly angry at this case. I feel angry at the way the media is reporting it - encouraging the parents in their delusions and pretending there are two sides to the case. There aren't. Charlie's parents and their supporters are completely irrational and, simply, wrong. It's incredibly unfortunate that the GOSH doctors aren't allowed to put forward the reality of what's happening. But the media should be more responsible and stop inviting the parents on to give a point of view that is, at the very best, self-deluding and at worst deliberately misleading and deceitful.

teaandakitkat since the NHS will be bankrupted if every parent was allowed in law to try every experimental treatment they'd come across on the internet, regardless of expert medical opinion, the parents' can't be allowed to succeed. So permitting Charlie to travel would have a negative effect way beyond any possible harm to Charlie. The parents' insistence have made this case about far bigger issues than Charlie himself.

Doubledottvremote

I am quite shocked to learn that Charlotte is still alive, I remember her case well and their subsequently giving up their Parental Rights when the going that they fought for got tough.

The fact he's due to profit from writing a book about her makes me feel sick.

If anonymous get involved I hope GOSH have excellent IT security because they wlll try and hack into the systems.

I think the BBC, ITV and LBC have a lot to answer for in their quest to get the interviews. I know it is a case of much national interest but they should not be fueling it and encouraging the family to be on TV instead of at the hospital.

I agree with others that a media blackout at this point would be very wise.

Lexie

Even celebrities who die get more privacy than this.

How true. When the celebrity is a lifelong object of your respect and admiration (love?) and they die, you feel sad, listen to their records/watch a movie, and just respect the wishes of their grieving family and get on with your life.

Maybe that's the point? These people don't know, have never met, and have no past connection to Charlie whatsoever.
It's easy to get behind a cause when you have no vested interest in the outcome.

1122 i know that's how anonymous operate. That's why I was so horrified when I saw their tweet

I agree with a PP (sorry, can't remember who, it was a few pages ago) about the people interviewing Connie - why don't they challenge what she is saying when she is contradicting herself and seems to be blatantly lying/making stuff up.

I think there are twin factors which mean presenters will be very, very cautious indeed about challenging Connie and Chris. One is that they will be hyperaware that whatever else they are, they are also grieving parents watching their child die slowly and painfully, not politicians pushing a policy. If they challenged Connie on one of her contradictions, all it takes is for her to get a bit visibly distressed and they're arseholes.

The other is that the medical and end of life issues around this case are very complex, and they would need to be extremely well briefed and would still be at risk of catching themselves out. Challenging Connie directly is a lose-lose unfortunately. The opinion pieces, and court judgements, that have been produced have all been extremely careful to empathise with and praise Chris and Connie.

I mean, would you want to be the presenter who publicly challenged Connie Yates? I sure as hell wouldn't, especially with my livelihood on the line.

A threat from anonymous. Seriously?

When poor little Charlie dies, the outpouring from the likes of CA will be like a mini Diana situation all over again (thank God we didn't have social media back then, was bad enough as it was)

disappointd with anonymous thy usually only gt involvd in political causes not individuals

The most distasteful conspiracy theory that I've read so far was on the CA USA page. The poster said that in her opinon the reason GOSH wanted "to kill" Charlie was so that they could have his body in order to "steal" his DNA to use in their own future research.

Not just distasteful but stupid. Charlie has been in GOSH for months, if they wanted his DNA they could've obtained shitloads of it by now. If she was saying they wanted the body to experiment on or something, that would at least make the most basic logical sense and be merely awful.

While I realise lawyers have to present all kinds of arguments in their clients' interests, I admit I'm surprised they were prepared to go with that one

I'm not. As a lawyer (I am one) you present your client's case to the court/relevant authority and the clients here are the parents, not Charlie. Of course this also is a good example of why it's so important for children in scenarios like this to have their own Guardian and representation.

As an aside, also it's not a particularly unusual philosophical view to think that parents should be the only ones who should be able to make a decision about withdrawing treatment, that it shouldn't rest with the state. It isn't one I agree with at all, but I think it's probably held by a significant minority of people. It's not that much of a stretch to think at least one of the barristers and solicitors who volunteered to do this free of charge actually believes that, is it?

This is true slutty. So infuriating.

It seems wrong to have someone on air speaking untruths without challenge or a balanced debate.

The staff can't come on and defend themselves. They are sticking to their ethics and can't discuss charlie. The parents of the other patients in that hospital aren't invited on to tell the world about the disruption going on on that ward.

Lapin That screenshot is a prime example of what keeps happening in this case. What you have put on here is NOT from Anonymous but some random person who set up a Twitter. They only have 591 followers which is the giveaway. It's the same as people sharing that MRI stuff and claiming it to be evidence.

Sluttybartfast call me a cold hearted bastard if you want, but I would ask questions that haven't been allowed to be asked, yes.

Particularly, "Do you think it might silence the critics of your decision to appeal based on his progress, if you were to show people not an image of you stood in church, but one of Charlie 'proving the doctors wrong' as you both say he is?

Blind people can open their eyes. It doesn't mean they 'see'.

your right shatnrs its not anonymous

I listened to the radio interview again. I think he does actually challenge her at some points but in a very sensitive way. He asked about the more controversial support they have received.
I'm confused though, the mother believes the child's brain damage can be repaired using this new treatment. How?
She also said her lawyers where in possession of this evidence during the last trial but did not bring it forward.

*sorry, trial is the wrong terminology.

I can see why the people interviewing her haven't questioned the blatant lies being told. They would be opening themselves up to a shitstorm of hate if nothing else. However If they aren't willing to question inconsistencies and lies then they shouldn't be doing the interview at all IMO.

Thank god for that @shatners