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.

What I don't understand is: what is all this about if the doctor doesn't even have FDA approval? What if they shipped Charlie over there and the FDA said no?

im going to supermarket so will not post tweets for a while!

its not life so he believs thres no life?

My word, the Armstrong lot are brilliant, aren't they? They take what is a pretty hopeless case pro bono, and manage to keep all at bay right into July, despite nothing on their side at all, except their clients' wishes. Breathtaking performance.

Very sad for Charlie himself, not what you would call best interests of the child, not at all, but that's not what they were engaged for.

i'll do it lapin

@cjt110 Well that's the question. I would argue not and I don't believe that Charlie should be treated. My question was merely whether PPs believed that it was always wrong for a child to receive experimental treatment. It seemed that that was the case and I wanted clarification.

NEW THREAD READY HERE ONCE THIS ONE IS FULL

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2978732-Charlie-Gard-7

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?

Isn't that the whole point? No-one has produced anything showing that it would give meaningful life. The best they can say, it appears, is that he might come off the ventilator, he might not.

Expert: we’d need ethical support, FDA approval etc. We’d hope for enhanced muscle strength. Expect small but significant brain improvement.

unweaved am I right in thinking 60% of experimental treatments for rare diseases under companionate use/early access in the U.K. and Europe are in children?

Witness is asked if he treated Charlie what his expectation of improved cognitive function would be. Not much but some he says.

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

It is a massive issue when there has been no animal testing.

Thanks Gabs

@unweavedrainbow My mistake.

Very hard to quantify he says. Small but significant. A number above zero. #CharlieGard

Ceto, agree ceto

cjt110 threads are limited to 1000 messages. Currently as I write this we're at 963.

Judge: what’s “small but significant”? Expert: depends how much brain damage is structural and I can’t assess that. Didnt he say there was no structural damage?

MoreProsecco, experts very frequently are paid to act as witnesses - which is fair enough, they need to earn a living. But, to be fair, I suspect this doctor probably isn't being paid.

"Life without brain function is not a human life, in my opinion, he says."

I don't think the US expert is a bad doctor, and I think he is trying to put things as he sees them.

But it's a very American viewpoint, any aggressive intervention is worth it, if it adds to the sum of human knowledge or extends life/function, even if that life is spent on a ventilator, or unable to interact with the outside world.

Thanks Cave Never been so involved in a thread to even know...!

Very hard to quantify he says. Small but significant. A number above zero. #CharlieGard

Judge: would you be prepared to come to London and examine Charlie if I adjourned the case? Answer: Yes. You can see whats coming now,....

Judge: would you be prepared to come to London and examine Charlie if I adjourned the case? Answer: Yes.

oh