Charlie Gard 8

[cjt110]

New thread so that we can await this afternoon's hearing at 1400 (UK time)

Let's try to keep this one as sensible and measured as the past 7 threads have been.

Please note the MNHQ comment on thread number 7.

"Hi everyone,

..... We had to remove several parent-blaming posts, so we'd like to ask folk not to do this. We think we can all agree that this is a truly awful time for all involved and we just wouldn't wish it on anyone. If there's anything we could do with more of, it's support. We'll continue to remove reported posts that break TGs (if we've missed something, do feel free to let us know).

If we have to make too many deletions, we will need to look at removing the thread; which is the last thing we wish to do.

Thanks all"

so no more tests will be done nothing to go on except the older review that he ha brain damage

whats the u.s professor meant to say to that

Hopefully on25th/26th the judge is going to make a final decision.

Thanks. I hope the NY expert asks for up to date brain information.

Shows how bad things are that C and C want to be able to contradict any facts made by you know highly trained doctors that they don't agree with. Despite not being you know highly trained doctors.

thats th point ellie he wont get it coz they refuse to have tests

I'd like to take advantage of the lull to say I don't really post, partly because I like to write and think slowly, so I can't keep up, but I've been completely glued to these threads this week and it's very heartening to see the rationality maintained over such a long and distressing case. I've learnt a lot from a number of posters: medical, ethical, legal. In common with almost everyone here, I'd like to see poor little Charlie allowed to slip away with dignity and as much care in place as he needs and not subjected to unnecessary and unhelpful treatment. I feel for his parents, but I think they've been so very ill-advised. I hope this case brings about some actual changes in law or procedure, although I'm not sure what those changes should be. But - in the words of Kahil Gibran - Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

I'd like to see this more widely understood and defended. It's very good to see it here. Thank you all. I feel very tearful.

I hope she is removed if she interrupts the proceedings Absolutely, even if she starts sighing, huffing and tutting.

And at the end of the 25th we will get a verdict according the Judge. But who knows what will happen between then and now.

Thats a very poignant quote onalongsabbatical

sorry phonix

when you said they should have more say i dont agree

OK a little bit more confident there because I was beginning to think the judge had lost control but he put Armstrong in his place. Still dont agree Connie should be present in person and thought Skype idea brilliant. Perhaps court doesn't approve that. Bloody time wasting. I think now the parents and their legal team are like trying to deal with a petulant immature child who wants their way no matter what. I think the judge is either playing a crafty game or he needs to be a lot firmer. Can't decide which yet, can't quite see the end game.......

so no more tests will be done nothing to go on except the older review that he ha brain damage

whats the u.s professor meant to say to that

By his own admission he has not seen more than a few of Charlie's records and tests. From the sounds of it he felt somebody with expertise he does not possess should investigate and report on any brian damage. Which may have already been done, just needs to be shown to him. So more testing may be redundant once he has had the opportunity to take a good look at how GOSH arrived at the conclusions that they did.

Ellie56 I can't see how it will take two days for further submissions. I think the judge simply means that he's cleared his diary just in case and he says the decision will definitely be made on the 25th, assuming the parties don't come back on the 24th with agreement. This is now time limited but I'm very puzzled that the parents can veto a scan and be allowed to succeed in treating Charlie in its absence. Would the medics on the thread think a scan necessary at this stage, given the arguments on both sides?

Thanks cjt110

Connie Yates has almost as much understanding of these technical issues as anyone in the UK.

In a sense this is a plausible assertion to make. The vast proportion of the population of the UK will know less than her. The problem is, the assertion is meaningless. The question is does she have the knowledge and experience, coupled with detachment, to be on a par with the experts who really have enough of a grasp of the issues. Almost certainly not.

It's like the 10%, and it's like measuring the head with a tape measure, much of the assertions and "evidence" being kicked around don't actually mean anything significant. They're misunderstandings, sleights of hand, and rhetorical ploys.

onalongsabbatical Good post.

grat quote sabbatical compltly sums it up

Hope my posts of the tweets were ok for all.

Very articulately expressed Phoenix and they are very difficult issues. My two thoughts are that you're arguing essentially - as GOSH have put in their statement shared today as the Gards' stance - that parents have the sole ultimate right to make decisions for their child, and no one should have the right to speak for their child separately or overrule their decision.

The thing is the child is a person in their own right, with their own legal rights and protections. They don't just exist in the terms to which they are precious to their parents, and it cannot just be about parental desperacy to try everything, to never let go and to be outraged and devastated that their desire to not let go can be forced from them. It has to ultimately be about the child's right not to be subjected to unjustified, purposeless suffering to meet the needs of their parents.

phoenixtherabbit sorry, I don't agree either. It has brought some light hearted at times while still being respectful of Charlie.

And I probably will carry on if it's really funny.

I wonder if the judge thinks that if Connie hears the medical facts at the meeting it might chip away at some of the denial. However this won't work if she comes out and has no one to help her through that rather than reinforcing the idea that the doctors are lying.

I don't think she should be at the meeting, they can be so very disruptive when they don't hear what they want to hear, or if they believe they are not being listened to

If that is believed to be the norm, rather than just an occasional high stress response, from the parents, would it be so terrible for the American prof. to see it for himself before he commits himself to a working relationship with them ? Especially since he will be working with them in a very high stakes context.

Thanks to the poster posting the tweets today (op)

i see your point online

i just feel with connie in th room they will be reluctant to say certain things seeing as shes already disagreed with most of what thyve said so far

MumIsRunningAMarathon No trouble. I hope I was able to keep you all updated