Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Charlie Gard 6

999 replies

CaveMum · 13/07/2017 10:10

New thread so that we can await this morning's hearing.

Let's try to keep this one as sensible and measured as the past 5 threads have been.

Fingers crossed that this can all be resolved today and that Charlie and his parents can find peace.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
unweavedrainbow · 13/07/2017 15:11

There are two issues here. Firstly, treatment that hasn't been fully tested can be "fast tracked" for compassionate use ethically if there is enough evidence to prove that the level of benefit sustained from the treatment would be significant enough that not giving the treatment would be in of itself unethical. Sometimes the potential benefit that someone can gain from a treatment is so high that anything else is secondary. When applying this to a child the benefit would have to very great indeed, as they can't consent and so could potentially, from the child's point of view, end up suffering for no good reason.
Secondly, the other issue is around whether or not a life is worth living. The problem is that there is no evidence that, in the very "best" case scenario this treatment will do anything else other than keep Charlie in his current state indefinitely. Whether or not this is a good thing is the question-but that is an ethical minefield.

ChocChipBitch · 13/07/2017 15:11

NY expert 'nobody can tell whether brain damage is irreversible'. That may be the key statement. If no one can categorically state there is a chance of reversing the brain damage then we are no further along than in previous hearings.

sodablackcurrant · 13/07/2017 15:13

To those of you with medical expertise, is it unusual that the child has not contracted any infections? He has been immobile for months. Don't get me wrong I am delighted he hasn't but I know from family experience that chest infections are common with intubation.

Perhaps he is also being given antibiotics on a preventative basis along with morphine.

GinSoakedTwitchyPony · 13/07/2017 15:13

I feel very uneasy that they are hoping to make Charlie a guinea pig for this,

Me too.

flatbreads · 13/07/2017 15:13

Logical I am with you totally on that, a close family member was on life support and we had to make the decision to remove this - took us about 30 nano-seconds to agree with the consultants as his quality of life was absolutely nil and with no hope of improvement.

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:13

i ont know why judge is letting this itness carry on its not new evidence

i just hop its so can say hs heard everthing and thats it now

BoreOfWhabylon · 13/07/2017 15:15

I can see now why the Gard's have taken the position they have. No one appears to have sat with them and explained what all this 'new evidence' actually means and how it might OR MIGHT NOT apply to Charlie.

They have taken these %ages at face value. 'No structural damage' from scans taken months ago doesn't mean that there is not profound brain damage at a cellular level, which as I understand it is what Gosh maintain.

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:15

Connie Yates looking much better as she watches NY expert give e vidence. Chris Gard clutching Charlie’s toy monkey to his face.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 13/07/2017 15:16

This evidence is incredibly contradictory isn't it? He's not brain damaged but brain damage is hard to assess

Tell me about it ... the witness is backtracking all over the place Hmm

And why is he so keen on anonymity? Wouldn't a leading "expert" be willing to be known, if he believed in the real value of his evidence? Call me a cynic, but if this somehow leads to an increase in research funding for his project, I imagine he'll be only too glad to be named and claim the credit ...

ShatnersWig · 13/07/2017 15:16

The courtroom gasped with new evidence being produced and the judge has just said this new evidence has highted his optimism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well the hell have the Barmy got that from??

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:16

NY expert: proposed treatment won’t cause Charlie harm as he does not appear to be in any pain.

SomeDyke · 13/07/2017 15:17

"in the very "best" case scenario this treatment will do anything else other than keep Charlie in his current state indefinitely."
That's my fear, in his current state as regards 'beyond experience', and meaning that you couldn't release him from that by removing ventilation support. Which I find more horrifying than his current situation.

But I think the judge seems to be pretty focused as regards the key issues. But I'm dismayed by this prospect..............

Ceto · 13/07/2017 15:17

No doubt - and Armstrong has already said it's now 50% rather than the originally claimed 10%

No, it's a 50% chance of crossing the blood-brain barrier, not a 50% chance of success.

cjt110 · 13/07/2017 15:17

NY expert: proposed treatment won’t cause Charlie harm as he does not appear to be in any pain. He cant outwardly express it - so of course wouldnt appear to be in pain.... This is sounding far too much like lining him up to be a guinea pig

PortiaFinis · 13/07/2017 15:18

Presumably it's good news if the judge agrees Charlie should be given the treatment and not something for people to worry about?

Everyone on this thread so far has agreed he's a good judge who is unswayed by wildly raging populist sentiment, I don't think anyone on this thread has enough specific knowledge of this case to categorically say the judge is wrong - so if he sees something that may have an effect (although I still can't get my head around reversing brain damage). And if also Charlie is being kept pain free by morphine, although I do understand this has its own problems. But then surely that's a good thing?

cjt110 · 13/07/2017 15:18

The witness says that he doesn't think keeping Charlie on ventilation won't cause him long term harm. Oh dear god....

Sirzy · 13/07/2017 15:18

Surely the key word there is "appear" (and the fact GOsH believe he is) that also implies if he could feel pain it could cause harm?

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:19

1s

However he adds that if it is true that Charlie's skull has stopped growing, that would cause him concern. #CharlieGard

DarthMaiden · 13/07/2017 15:20

I agree @PortiaFinis

If the expert can demonstrate that treatment is the right thing for Charlie it should happen.

To date that evidence has not been forthcoming.

sodablackcurrant · 13/07/2017 15:20

I think this "new" evidence is speculation rather than fact.

But whatever the judge decides is fine by me and it seems he is very learned and also compassionate. I would not like to be in his shoes though.

BoreOfWhabylon · 13/07/2017 15:21

Connie has said that there's a chance he could be "a normal boy". That's what she has taken from all this and she's had those surrounding her encouraging that belief.

No one has explained - or perhaps been allowed to explain - that it doesn't mean that at all.

cjt110 · 13/07/2017 15:21

if it is true that Charlie's skull has stopped growing, that would cause him concern. #CharlieGard Isn't that an indication of brain damage? Therefore throwing into doubt what he has said?

unweavedrainbow · 13/07/2017 15:22

It's only a good thing if you think that keeping someone in Charlie's current state is a "good" thing-ie blind, deaf and unable to respond. The reason why this case is so important is because, amongst many other questions, it addresses whether death is the worst thing that can happen to someone. That's a question I find hard to answer...

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:22

wont caus harm thn concrnd about his skull growth

just a load of tosh

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:22

NY expert: there is a rational basis for expecting an improvement in Charlie’s brain cells from the treatment.