Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
Original poster
CaveMum · 13/07/2017 15:49

I've got a new thread on stand by to continue this discussion

OP posts:
Sluttybartfast · 13/07/2017 15:49

Well, Dr NY has just decisively torpedoed the Gards' claim that Charlie can be a normal boy.

He has said explicitly that Charlie is terminal and implicitly that he thinks Charlie has less than 90 days even with treatment.

That's it, isn't it? Their case is dead. Even the Gards' witness says that treatment is basically rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

zeezeek · 13/07/2017 15:49

This expert witness isn't coming out very strongly in favour of giving the treatment, is he? Lots of he believes this and would consider that, but little hard evidence.

This is normal speak for scientists - I do it myself in all my papers. The fact is, when you are dealing with a biological system (which is what the human body is) you can't say anything with any certainty because there are different genetics, environmental influences etc for every person and that will have an impact on how an individual reacts.

That is also why, in clinical trials, we look very carefully at sample sizes. In one of my projects I am looking to recruit over 800 patients in order to have results that are meaningful. 10 people just isn't enough and any paper with that number of recruits would not have their results taken seriously unless it was a pilot study.

In this case we also have the added complication of the different mutations which have a different effect on the body. It is like when people use cancer as a description - cancer is actually 200-odd different diseases that are characterised by damage to cells.

I hate to say this about a fellow researcher, but I fear that the NY team just want to do this for the publicity and the potential for publications and research funding.

Rinoachicken · 13/07/2017 15:50

Albadross I agree, I would have thought it more likely for him to not want to give an opinion one way or another without having seen all the medical data etc. Usually drs and scientists are so ultra careful about speculation without all the facts...not so this one it seems...

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:50

Someone always had to be first whether its penicillan or whatever as long as his parents know tbat

i despair

Writerwannabe83 · 13/07/2017 15:50

I can't believe he's not read the medical records! How can his opinion hold any grounding if he doesn't even know the exact details of Charlie's current medical state?

How embarrassing for C&C.

ChocChipBitch · 13/07/2017 15:50

EXPERIMENT?!? This is utterly revolting, I feel like we are living in a kafka novel crossed with an episode of black mirror. He's a child for Christ's sake Sad

Sirzy · 13/07/2017 15:50

What's equally embarrassing is that CA are still able to find positives in this car crash.

ListenToYourHeart · 13/07/2017 15:51

I'm also finding this very emotional.

Poor little baby Sad

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:52

thyr all saying let them try

i woldnt even let them try on my cat-its just so wrong

unweavedrainbow · 13/07/2017 15:53

The thing is, this treatment would have to pass the FDA/MHRA on compassionate grounds-the use of untested or only partially tested treatment to save someone's life. All the posters arguing that it is wrong to use a child as a "guinea pig", would you also say it would be wrong to use a child as a "guinea pig" if the treatment could give meaningful life? If so, your arguments aren't based on the rights or wrongs of experimental treatment but rather on when it should be given?

annandale · 13/07/2017 15:53

I don't think it's wrong for the witness to say he can't tell about things he can't tell about. It wasn't his job to read the judgment either.

I am with the earlier poster who felt we really can trust this process and if the court does decide the evidence is good enough to go ahead we should be delighted. Are some of us feeling uncomfortable that CA may have called it right? I think I am and that's not a nice thing to know about yourself.

I have felt less worried about the baby's situation since we knew he is having morphine I have to say. That suggested he was less well but at least less likely to be suffering.

cjt110 · 13/07/2017 15:53

Gollop: Charlie would be the first experiment? Expert: yes.

This. All levels of wrong.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 13/07/2017 15:53

So this "expert" didn't see medical records until last week, relied on summaries, hasn't read the previous rulings, didn't feel he could "interfere" at GOSH and didn't consider "data" he claimed to have when writing to the Court of Appeal in May

I take back what I said earlier ... it now seems all too clear why he wants to remain anonymous Hmm

alpacasandwich · 13/07/2017 15:54

The Singer view is disgusting IMO and I can't believe an ethicist would come to that conclusion!!

Women in the US were undergoing unnecessary vaginal examinations for students to "practice" while under anaesthesia. By Singer's argument, they were unaware, well nourished and not in pain, so was that fine? No it bloody wasn't.

DarthMaiden · 13/07/2017 15:54

To be fair I don't think Charlie being the first to have this therapy is so much of an issue.

The core issues still remain - is he in pain and is he irreversibly brain damaged.

I don't think the testimony of the NY expert who has not had access to all the data and has not examined Charlie on those crucial points is going to be compelling - especially when reviewed along side experts from GOSH.

Albadross · 13/07/2017 15:55

@anandale CA aren't right even if they decide to give the treatment. They think it'll cure him and he'll be normal...

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:55

22s

Witness asked about something he is reputed to have said; a body function without brain function is not a human life in my opinion.

cjt110 · 13/07/2017 15:55

@unweavedrainbow. If life meaningful if you are essentially vegetative? As I understand Charlie cannot swallow, suck, cry - and thats just physical things. I am unsure if he can see or not. It would be horrendous to be in pain, unable to move talk, breathe etc.... Hardly meaningful I wouldn't think.

It's almost like the idea is "Well he's not going to know so let's crack on"

jellypi3 · 13/07/2017 15:56

annaanddale i disagree. It is his job, as an expert witness offering an experimental treatment to a terminally ill child to do his research on the case prior before appearing as a witness. It's the least you would expect of anyone, to have at least familiarised themselves with the details of a case before going before a court as an expert witness.

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:56

Witness agrees that he said it. Life without brain function is not a human life, in my opinion, he says.

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:56

NY expert: our understanding of therapy has advanced over past few months. We have a better understanding of the data now.

MoreProseccoNow · 13/07/2017 15:56

Is it within the realms of possibility that this "expert" is being paid to act as a witness? Or does that not happen?

Ceto · 13/07/2017 15:56

CA perfectly happy for Charlie to be experimented - someone has to be the first experimentee, don't they? Blithely ignoring the fact that with other drugs there will always have been extensive animal testing befor you will let them anywhere near sick children.

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:56

Gollop QC: do you have a treatment plan for Charlie? Yes. Shared with colleagues in Rome and Barcelona.