Charlie Gard Case 4

[LovelyBath77]

A new thread to follow on from the others about this case

The 10% chance is a very powerful myth. If there really were a 10% chance that a child might have a reasonable quality of life you could imagine many kinds of suffering being justifiable in trying to get there.

I don't know whether the parents really believe it but they've decided to use it in any case because it's so effective.

Like many of the best lies it is fantastically slippery. It could mean just about anything and probably means something different to everyone who's embraced it.

ExConstance See now I just don't believe you. It is impossible to spend more than 10 seconds perusing the CA FB page without seeing GOSH described as murdering scum, the guardian's barrister as a witch, anyone who disgrees as a hater, supporters of GOSH called cunts....

Nauticant It's interesting isn't it? Because I've always said that if I got cancer and I was told that it was incurable and that chemo would extend my life by a year or two, or that with chemo there was no more than a 25% chance of being cured, I wouldn't have the chemo. I would rather have six healthy months then bugger off to Switzerland than spend six months dreadfully ill due to chemo and then find it had done no good and I had a couple of weeks left.

This very spurious treatment would not cure Charlie. There is a very small (and it's less than 10% as we've seen) chance it may extend his life. It would not improve his life. It would just extend the very poor quality of life he has now. So we're talking about extending his likely suffering but potentially making him worse during the treatment.

I wouldn't make that choice for myself. So I certainly wouldn't choose to make a worse choice for a tiny baby already suffering to, at best, prolong that suffering or, at worst, causing him serious pain and suffering due the treatment. It's inhuman.

ExConstance based on that logic I assume you never use the NHS, public schools, and wouldn't call the police if you were burgled etc

cos you know.. the "establishment" has made a small number of mistakes in the past, which makes outright attacks on them always justified?

ExConstance its not the establishment its doctors who have been working for Charlie for months who have reached the point where they feel morally and ethically that there intervention is causing him pain and suffering and that it is time to let him go

But Ex Constance in the cases that you mentioned there was a cover up of a personal interest that caused the scandal.

In Grenfell there was a financial interest in using a cheaper cladding which was highly flammable.

In whose interests is it, other than Charlie Gard's that GOSH and the Courts take the view that he is in pain etc? It is more likely to be a medical scandal (in a person or pharmacuticals interests) to keep a person alive rather than to say that they are in so much pain and with so few prospects of survival that the fairest (most humane) thing to do would be to let them die.

So that argument does not follow, for me, at all.

ExConstance I don't believe that you 'can't find' the unpleasant stuff.

It's actually harder to find anything pleasant on that page, it would take you seconds.

Plus, I posted a screenshot on this very thread.

The 10% thing is really baffling. It is just completely made up - it was confirmed in court yesterday, But the supporters are still using it as fact.

Oh i am now being jumped on.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

They are not good men thoug, they are pretty nasty, abusive cackling pitchfork wavers.

The 'good men' are in that hospital with no right to respond.

I'm really confused, Charlie looks to be very, very big for his age - whether that's swelling or down to the fact he is being fed but not moving, I don't know but on the CA page, his Aunt says he is still in 9-12 month clothes. How? He looks bigger than my 2yr old. Is it just the angle the photos are taken at?

I feel quite...sad? I don't know if that's the right word for the members of CA. They obviously want to be involved in something but it's just utterly ridiculous. 4 people held a protest today. 4. That's it. They got some people to sign a bit of paper but with no header as to what the petition is and no addresses, they've not really signed a petition have they? It's just very, very strange. I can't get my head around it at all.

I am finding the photos of Charlie heartbreaking, I hope judgment is made on Thursday, for all of their sakes.

Exconstance. Asking for a second opinion, therefore challenging the establishment is understandable. But still ignoring the advice of countless doctors all saying the same?
Why do think GOSH have taken this extreme action? And let's be clear this is a very, very rare and extreme situation. Why would a world renown hospital risk everything to challenge the parents in this way? The only logical reason is that they truly believe it is in the best interests of their vulnerable patient.

@ExConstance

Charlie's case has been through the High Court, Court of Appeal and to the European Court of Human Rights and now back again to the High Court.

At every point Charlie's parents have been given the opportunity to present their case, using their own independent medical experts and evidence.

The findings of these court cases are in the public domain.

It's absolutely their right to take this matter to Court if they dispute what the medical team at GOSH assert.

However, before court hearings started, GOSH had already invited specialists from outside their unit to assess Charlie's case.

To date, no-one has provided any evidence that the determination on Charlie's quality of life currently and also with treatment (even if it worked which is far from certain) would be viable.

There has been every possible opportunity for anyone globally to present evidence to the courts that demonstrates that the withdrawal of life support is not in Charlie's best interests.

This isn't a case of conspiracy or people not challenging authority.

It's come down to intransigence and a failure to accept that belief without evidence is not sufficient to prolong the suffering of a child that is critically and untreatably unwell.

Someone in the Barmy has spent money buying an extra bright star to name a star after Charlie. Of course, we all know those things aren't legal or legitimate. They are just a way to get money out of people. At least spend the money where it might do some good, not throw it away.

So CA are now proposing to fund raise to cover the patents expenses. This will be over and above all the donations already pouring direct into their bank account because they don't like gofundme

There's also suggestions of buying Charlie new clothes since he's 'such a chunky monkey' and buying things or giving gift cards to the parents.

This is Getting more ridiculous by the minute

I think even if the 10% was publicly corrected to 0.01%, the mass hysteria surrounding this would still result in the mob baying for Charlie to be given that chance. Same reason why people buy a £2 lottery ticket - there is a chance, albeit a very, very small one, that they'll win the jackpot.

I just hope that the lack of evidence will finally be proved this week, and poor Charlie can end his life with dignity.

ExConstance I will respect anyone's views.
However CA have, in IMO, not presented any valid or credible view or argument.
While they spout lies, abuse and BS a baby is suffering and they seem to be unable to accept this.
I really think some people (excluding everyone on here) would be shouting loud enough about his suffering if he was a dog.
Yes human life is sacrosanct but where there is no possibility of any meaningful life, no possibility of being to live without life support, then a responsible person has to make the decision to end it.

I'm probably not looking in the right place, I'm not saying it isn't there. there are several pages, the one I found was just about wearing something blue in the most recent posts. I take on board the points you have made, hopefully the court will make the right decision, whatever that may be. I fear for how this might end - would they forcibly remove him from his parents arms to end his life support?

In the Connie's interview she mentioned how a couple of times recently they have nearly lost him.

Shatnerswig, just saw your post, a friend of mine had a form of cancer that is usually a death sentence diagnosed 2 years ago. He was offered extensive surgery and chemo on the basis that it was unlikely to work. his chance of survival was less than 25%. 2 years on he is very well, no one can say it won't come back but things couldn't be any better at this stage. The hospital had many patients facing this illness and they chose to have the treatment.

@Lonelymummyof1 I have tried to 'like' your comments as I see you have been attacked on there but it won't let me.

Have they booted you out already?

exconstance - I think you have to read the replies to the posts (on the CA FB group) to see the extreme comments and opinions.

And how is your dd today?

The American pastor is officially invited by Chris and Connie.