Charlie Gard 6

[CaveMum]

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.

From the court updates I'm can't see that the evidence is compelling though.

Lots of speculation rather than facts.

It does go a long way to explain the parents position if they've been talking to this witness though.

To those defending the parents' actions on the basis of their grief: I'm sorry, but no. Plenty of parents are grieving - many of whom have posted on this thread - and yet somehow manage to not whip up media frenzies, act like rock stars waving to crowds, incite violence against hospital staff, ask for money to be paid direct into their bank accounts or shout at judges. To keep that poor boy alive suffering dreadfully in this condition purely to delay their own grief is just barbaric and indefensible and I lost a large majority of my sympathy for them a long time ago as a result.

Absolutely PortiaFinis if the evidence points to an acceptable probability of recovering to an extent that he has a meaningful quality of life, including being in minimal pain, as a result of the suggested treatment then that would be the outcome that everyone wants.

I wonder if we will look back on this case for many years to come as a landmark case whichever way it goes.

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

Not sure if it's the witness who's confused with the double negative or the reporter tweeting. That wasn't tweeted by Rozenberg.

exactly cj a compltle contradiction

GOSH has given this treatment to other patients, such as those this doctor is talking about, with milder and different forms of the disease and had applied for approval to treat Charlie.
However multiple seizures, which are still happening, caused catastrophic brain damage
and thus GOSH made the decision that the treatment could not improve Charlie's quality of life.
It seems to me to all hang on whether Charlie is brain damaged, which the US doctor says he can see no evidence of in the reports he has seen, and then if there is any possibility that the treatment could help Charlie's brain damage.
The treatment helps muscle function which is why some patients could have less ventilation.
I am not a medic but this is how I understand it.

I think I agree Darth also lots of'but these other patients had a different strain/type to Charlie's

It is still 100% (that's in normal maths, not the maths certain people have used in this case) speculation. All of it.

This would still be an experiment. On a non-functioning baby.

Medical doctors TREAT patients, not EXPERIMENT on them - UNLESS that patient is a fully aware adult who has chosen it themselves.

Judge asks whether there would be any meaningful brain function after treatment. Expert says he can’t tell.

"proposed treatment won’t cause Charlie harm as he does not appear to be in any pain."
That again is a key statement, and to me means in effect someone who might argue that experimenting on babies 'beyond experience' is okay because they can't feel or experience it................

Although I would argue that in this case, the prospect of improving his ability to breath unaided, but not improving his ability to experience anything, would be harmful to his dignity as a human being rather than an experimental animal......................

I think this is possibly the US/UK difference as regards these issues that has been commented on elsewhere. I frankly, as a research academic and university academic who (as other researchers do) has to think about ethical issues when it comes to animal and human experimentation, finds this direction that the NY witness seems to be suggesting as extremely worrying. I would not want to support such a stance, even if totally intellectually, I can understand it. Even if it doesn't harm Charlie because he canot feel pain or is beyond experience, it in effect harms the rest of us based on what we think it is okay to do to humans............

Expert crossed examined by GOSH: How confident are you that he doesn’t experience pain. Answer: I have no evidence he does. Nor that he doesnt?

Expert crossed examined by GOSH: How confident are you that he doesn’t experience pain. Answer: I have no evidence he does.

Cross Exam starting...

good quesiton judge

thanks smilingmind, a very succinct summary.

Judge asks whether there would be any meaningful brain function after treatment. Expert says he can’t tell

In other words he has no evidence at all that this would help

GabsAlot thats GOSH asking that not the judge

he cant tll so u cant go ahead and risk it surely

Expert says he has not had access to GOSH clinical records before last week. But had reports of imaging and emails.

So it seems the expert is basing his opinion purely on speculation and guess work.

Has he ever actually spent time with Charlie in order to make any guesses as to whether he feels pain?

sorry cj was rplying to this

Judge asks whether there would be any meaningful brain function after treatment. Expert says he can’t tell.

Expert says he has not read Mr Justice Francis’s decision delivered three months ago.

Judge asks whether there would be any meaningful brain function after treatment. Expert says he can’t tell.

And that's the key point, isn't it?

he doesn't seem very well prepared for an expert witness...