Charlie Gard Case 4

[LovelyBath77]

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

Someone previously said that the reason for the treatment UK doctors wanted to give Aysha King is that it would have better long term effects.
Unfortunately comparing the NHS with countries where medical treatment is paid for is problematic.
I am sure most of the doctors in those countries act in an ethical way but where money is involved there is always the possibility of unnecessary, or even inappropriate, treatment being given.

I agree Maryz, I feel terribly sad for them, but the media, by not at least picking up on some of the more dubious things they have said, I think are adding fuel to the fire of publicity that's driving CA, some of whom sound actually dangerous (suggesting bazooka-ing the hospital or shooting the judge for example).

I am unsure if the CA started from the parents or for them, but it feels as though it is making it worse. They are sort of fuelling the distrust. However unsure of the people running these groups and whether they are family members or not. I saw the family are not entitled to legal aid, and the lawyers are doing it for free, is that right? otherwise would be very costly.

Today 10:18 MoreProseccoNow

I wonder how many critically-ill children who required ICU care were turned away from GOSH during the last 6-9 months, because there were no ICU beds.....

Was that really necessary?

0.01 I meant .

It is confusing as to where she has got this from. Maybe it will be clarified in Thursday's hearing. Presumably they need to prove their claims. I did read the tweet where the judge questioned it. Not sure why it was refuted by their lawyer as she has been on tv saying it so pretty conclusive evidence!

I'm just confused as to why the media have repeated it then continued with 10% instead of saying 'hang on, 1 in 10000 is not 10%'. I get no one wants to question grieving parents but to repeatedly print this when it's not even correct makes them look stupid.

meddle Lovely I think you're right that Connie genuinely believes Charlie is watching the videos because she wants it so much to be true. Incredibly sad situation.

lovely the family is definitely involved with CA. Unfortunately. I do think they are fuelling the whole thing.

On the 10%, it is astonishing how many people aren't great at maths, or certainly aren't confident that they are, so that even if they thought 'hang on..?' about a figure, they'd then think 'the report must be right, I'm probably wrong'.

Callme I'm so sorry for the loss of your daughter.

It's very unusual for there not to eventually be some understanding and agreement between the medical team and the parents. Normally someone can find the right way to communicate (it may not be the lead consultant, but someone usually can find a way) and resolution can be reached. Going to court is the absolute last resort. The staff most be heartbroken for Charlie and also for the breakdown in the partnership with the parents (if there was ever a partnership there, it is possible communication was difficult from the start).

If children are being turned away from ICU beds, then we need more beds, not questioning why a seriously ill child is in one for too long. Agree with nina2b.

I do feel for the parents especially the mother, Connie. I feel they have been swept away in emotion and feeling of needing to do something, which is totally understandable. But now it has swept them along, and I feel angry about things like the stuff with the Pope, the Pastor and Donald trump getting involved. It is all too much. I agree with the judge wanting it over this week, (I think the family wanted it heard July 23-25 something like that) It's too long.

Well of course there are @smilingmind the point being made though is it legal, safe and ethical to transport terminally ill Charlie for an untested experimental treatment that most likely offers no hope of improving his quality of life. And would UK or US medics facilitate that? I doubt it.

Part of the problem seems to be it is the extended family (on both sides from what I can tell?) who are pushing all the CA stuff, given presumably they are also going to be pushing away support from the hospital I do worry that the parents aren't getting any proper, rational, support which is what they desperately need now rather than people egging them on.

Yes, it makes it all the harder for them to see reason or let go, as would be seen my supporters as 'giving up' and makes it more difficult. they need proper support and counselling, really.

The official FB page ("Charlie Gard #charliesfight") that I have presumed is run by Laura Gard or another family member (because Connie has posted there herself) repeated the 10% claim just 10 hours ago - AFTER the court hearing.

I think she/they really believe this claim despite what was said in court yesterday. Their lawyers must be in a difficult position.

A lot of posts are blaming CA for egging the parents on, giving false hope and strengthening their denial. But are they really to blame for this?

The family are not allowing any other voices or opinion to be heard on that group. Anyone who expresses any doubt about the child's well being or speak anything favourable about GOSH are hounded and removed from the group. If they allowed views from both sides to be heard I'm pretty sure that more balanced and rational views would have far outnumbered the one sided drivel that is on the group now.

It's almost like the family don't want to listen to reason or reach any agreement. So they have to make GOSH the villain responsible for their child not getting the treatment that would make him a normal healthy child again. And they only choose to listen to people who support their view.

Yes the CA's views are terrible and atrocious. But this could have been easily avoided by the family. So I'm not sure CA should take the blame for the situation that the parents and the family find themselves in.

Have just skim read the posts as every time I go away for more than an hour I struggle to catch up!
Sorry to take the thread back so to speak but surely the head measurement will be based on scans? Not your common or garden health visitor tape measure jobs? That will give an accurate measure of the growth of the skull which is the important part not the swelling which Charlie seems to be suffering from.

Yes, is Laura Gard Connie's sister then?

it is very easy to delete a group and leave, that is right. No need to be in them or have them if you don't want to.

You would think so RMC.

tea I posted it because some people were talking about having to hire a plane, buy the necessary equipment and then find medical staff to go on the flight.
I don't think any UK medics would be prepared to facilitate this.Those from other countries I am not so sure about.
My medivac company came from South Africa and I have no idea where others are based.
I think probably one could be found if enough money was paid but in that situation I don't think even £2 million would go very far.
Then there's the problem of flying in U.K. airspace, landing at a U.K. airport but won't go into that as feel maybe I am wandering into the realms of conspiracy theories.

I've just bitten the bullet and tweeted the Met about the gun-violence threats against GOSH, plus a screenshot. I just couldn't let it go by.

It is absolutely in Trump's interests to get involved, as it is seen as an example of why "socialised medicine" (i.e. healthcare for everyone regardless of wealth) is wrong. This is essential input to Trump's aim to get rid of "Obamacare" in the US.

Charlie's Army are now going on about Charlie getting American citizenship. Is it really possible to grant citizenship to someone who is the subject of a court order in the UK?

I think Laura Gard is Chris' sister.

head circumference would show that charlies brain was failing to develop. The skull grows due to pressure exerted by the developing brain, thats why babies skulls are not fused at birth. If the brain is damaged and failing to develop then the skull wont either. You would see the measurements falling off the centile chart.