Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Charlie Gard Case 4

970 replies

LovelyBath77 · 11/07/2017 08:15

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
HoneyIshrunktheBiscuit · 24/07/2017 15:21

They've ended their legal fight.

I hope they find a way to feel some peace.

Crunchymum · 24/07/2017 16:09

God the dad's speech was really difficult to watch.

It's still a blame game though? Apparently Charlie would be a "normal, healthy" little boy if he'd had this treatment in January.

Floellabumbags · 24/07/2017 16:24

I feel terribly for his mother, she looks utterly broken.

Crunchymum · 24/07/2017 16:27

I bet they are both feeling pretty broken. It's unimaginable.

Such a sad case though, there was never going to be any "winners"

Aeroflotgirl · 24/07/2017 16:30

If doctors had not delayed his treatment, he might have had a chance, them digging their heels in, meant that it passed. Doctors don't always get it right, if Aysha kings parents had not smuggled him out of Britain for proton beam therapy, which doctors in the UK did not allow, he would have been dead. Yes made a full recovery and is back at school now.

Crunchymum · 24/07/2017 16:38

He may have had a chance yes, but he wouldn't have ever been this 'normal, healthy' child that the parents seem to think?

The parents are misleading the public with such emotive claims? More fodder for Charlie's army I guess Blush

Aeroflotgirl · 24/07/2017 16:42

You never know, UK Doctors said that Aysha king was on his death bed and now he's truly alive and doing well. Same with a little boy born with just a tiny brain, who Doctors said will die after birth. Yes doing well, due to his parents input he is thriving, his brain has got much bigger now.

Aeroflotgirl · 24/07/2017 16:44

He deserved that chance, and now its passed. May he rest in peace now

TheNightmanCometh · 24/07/2017 16:58

The doctors applied for permission from the ethics committee in a timely fashion, then he started having seizures. There's not a doctor on the planet thinks this treatment had a realistic chance of working when that happened. That includes the parents own expert.

This is entirely different to the Ashya King case, where there were two potential treatments with a realistic chance of working and the disagreement was which to go for. Something which has been pointed out about a million times so far in these threads.

jacks11 · 24/07/2017 16:58

It's very sad for the parents, it must be truly awful to have such an unwell baby and I can't imagine the pain of losing a child.

That said, I think they are now being unreasonable. Well, I think their demands were unreasonable some time ago but this is a step too far. They are now blaming GOSH for delaying treatment which would have made him well again. The treatment was never going to make their little boy "healthy". It never promised to cure him, it was suggested it might provide a tiny chance of a slight improvement. It was essentially an experiment as had not been used on humans (or animals) with the same illness as Charlie. It had only be used on those with a related illness.

I can understand the parents grasping at anything and everything, but at some point reality has to kick in AND the child's best interests have to be put first. Let's be clear, my understanding is that this little boy cannot hear, see, move, swallow, communicate. He cannot breath without a ventilator. Medical experts believe he is able to suffer and feel pain, and moreover that he is suffering now (although parents disagree with this- based on "we would know"). Even a tiny improvement was not going to make him "healthy" and so is not, in my view, in his best interests.

I think the parents are projecting their anger and hurt onto GOSH and the staff there. But lets remember that it wasn't just one Dr or even one medical team who decided this. Opinions were sought from other experts, including other specialists in the UK and teams in Spain. There may well have been others. Then it was taken all the way through the courts- with unanimous agreement from all courts right the way through to the ECHR.

I think they have been badly advised, used and egged on by various individuals and groups who had their own agendas (Trump, the vatican to name but a few) and a whipped up media frenzy.

I hope Charlie's parents eventually find some peace.

TheNightmanCometh · 24/07/2017 16:59

Also the pope didn't really jump on the bandwagon. Trump did, but the pope took pretty much the same view as the court. If anything he was implying the parents shouldn't pursue it.

Wrongkeydonkey · 24/07/2017 17:09

This is 360 degrees difference to the AK case.

I hope Charlie now passes away peacefully and the parents start to try to put their lives back together.

Aeroflotgirl · 24/07/2017 18:13

Yes AK and CG have different conditions, but AK was prevented by UK doctors from have Proton beam therapy abroad, he would have died had he not received the treatment. His parents had no choice but to smuggle him out of the country for treatment. If the doctors had agreed permission for CG to go for treatment in January within that time frame, it could have been positive, he had nothing to loose.

IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday · 24/07/2017 18:17

The parents didn't actually say that Charle "would have been normal" They said they will never know, as he wasn't given the chance. I don't agree with the way they have fought this for so long, but please don't put words in their mouths.

IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday · 24/07/2017 18:19

But Aero it has been agreed that in January he already had catostrophic brain damage.

Aeroflotgirl · 24/07/2017 18:22

IfYOU that's is one opinion, they should have been allowed to have a second opinion. I am sure that he would have been scanned in the US, and the Drs there would have told them. It was not going to cost the NHS anything, the Guards had the funds to pay for it.

TheNightmanCometh · 24/07/2017 18:28

They have had a second opinion, and more, aerofletgirl? The expert the parents found and chose themselves doesn't think there was any realistic chance of the treatment working. As does every single expert that has examined Charlie.

Professor Hirano, the US expert the parents located, has still offered to treat him, but you might usefully reflect on whether this has anything to do with his own financial interest in the treatment...

Here is the GOSH position statement. Would be worth your while having a look at it:

www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/gosh-position-statement-issued-high-court-24-july-2017

Maryz · 24/07/2017 18:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lalalalyra · 24/07/2017 18:36

Surely we'll never actually know who was right and wrong in the Ashya King case? It wasn't a disagreement over treat or don't treat. It was a disagreement over the type of treatment. Very different to this case.

I feel very sorry for Charlie's parents. I think they've made the right decision, although I hope at some point the anger subsides as it can destroy a person, and I hope their son has a peaceful and painfree passing.

Bugsylugs · 24/07/2017 20:52

But A King had at least a 70% chance of being cured

New posts on this thread. Refresh page