Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Baby Charlotte, hope this isn't entirely true

31 replies

fartmeistergeneral · 15/10/2006 14:43

Read in the ST just now that baby Charlotte (who's parents fought for 2 years to have a 'dnr' order lifted) is now 3, which is amazing, however, her parents have split and apparently neither can look after her on their own so she's in hospital and they are looking for a foster family for her.

How awfully awfully sad...

OP posts:
sanchpanch · 15/10/2006 14:45

what a sad sad story, poor charlotte

Whoowhoobewhooooooh · 15/10/2006 14:46

How terribly sad. Will look for the article.

misdee · 15/10/2006 14:51

here

surely they must be entitled to some caring hours? peter needs 24 hour care, and iget on average 6hours a day.

Original poster
fartmeistergeneral · 15/10/2006 14:54

It does seem strange that they couldn't come up with any arrangement between mother, father, extended family and respite. Sad that they have resorted to 'giving up'.

OP posts:
VeniVidiVickiQV · 15/10/2006 14:58

I found myself agreeing with Anne Widdecombe's comment.....

How terribly sad for all involved

Original poster
fartmeistergeneral · 15/10/2006 14:59

What did AW say?

OP posts:
SPACEdoutzombieCADET · 15/10/2006 15:01

how very sad.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 15/10/2006 15:04

this...

Ann Widdecombe, the Tory MP, criticises doctors for putting additional strain on the couple. ?Doctors spent the first two years of that child?s life trying to end it,? she said. ?The amazing thing is that the family kept going for as long as they did.?

edam · 15/10/2006 15:09

That is a tragedy. I seem to recall that the family were complaining about social workers trying to stop Charlotte coming home and refusing to provide any support some time ago - preferring a foster family. I'm sure they would argue they are working in the best interests of the child, blah blah blah, as would the docs. But it's a funny best interest if she can't live at home with her parents.

SenoraPostrophe · 15/10/2006 15:16

the doctors weren't "trying" to end her life though. to those who agree with Anne Widdecomb - are you saying that doctors should always resusitate no matter what the implications for the patient (or for other patients for that matter)? or that parents should be able to dictate the medical care their children receive? (I'm thinking of those religious sects that ban blood rpoducts here, for example).

I think there must be more to the foster family story though. why would social services prefer a foster family when the foster family would need support anyway?

VeniVidiVickiQV · 15/10/2006 15:47

for "those" you mean me?

No, Im not commenting on the "right to life" issue - its a very complicated subject, and one I'm not that fully versed on. I simply said, that unusually, i agreed with Anne Widdecombe (on this case). Which is, a very unique case, as are many "right to life" cases.

Frizombie · 15/10/2006 15:52

for all the family concerned.

SenoraPostrophe · 15/10/2006 15:53

oh yes - didn't notice you said it twice! I thought it was a trend.

I was just mildly hacked off by AW's implication that the doctors were trying to kill her, really.

edam · 15/10/2006 15:53

Not sure the docs weren't trying to end her life - they were determined not to resuscitate her and kept arguing the same point despite every milestone she passed. I have friends who are docs who were very uncomfortable about the whole thing and wanted the family to accept this little girl wasn't going to live. Not because the docs are evil or anything, but because they knew the chances were very slim and this poor girl wouldn't have much of a life even if she did survive. They were clearly wrong in some respects at least.

It's no so long ago that decent, caring doctors thought they were acting for the best when they 'allowed' newborn disabled children to die, or took them away and told the parents it was better if they didn't see their own child.

SenoraPostrophe · 15/10/2006 15:59

a dnr order is not the same as killing though. I don't know enough about this particular case to have an opinion really, but like I say, I was rather annpoyed by AW. As if doctors should always do what the parents say no matter what.

edam · 15/10/2006 16:08

I don't think that's what AW was saying, tbh. And I don't think there's any easy, one size fits all, answer to what happens when parents and doctors disagree. The courts are supposed to be independent arbiters but if you analyse cases where doctors apply for orders over medical treatment there is a tendency to accept medical evidence without too much questioning and in some circumstances to hand out orders without one party being represented. There's certainly an inbuilt bias in favour of those who have resources and power on their side against those who haven't. Have recommended Sheena Meredith's book Policing Pregnancy on here before for an analysis of this.

One of my friends did a rotation in intensive care (is now actually training to be an anaesthetist specialising in intensive care) and said your whole POV changes when you work with patients where it's an exciting sign of progress if they blink...

Original poster
fartmeistergeneral · 15/10/2006 16:16

can't even imagine what it must be like to have a child who is clinging to life by a thread, but still alive. Cannot imagine taking that decision to end his/her life. You must always cling to a hope that things won't be as bad as they say. So awful.

OP posts:
HauntedsandCastle · 16/10/2006 07:23

oh my god...I am shocked! Very very sad. What a life for this poor little on. Surely that parent's should have thought things thru a bit better before lifting the DNR order. They faught so hard for her, and then this. I am sure it wasn't easy for them, but I just can't help thinking this outcome could have been preventd.

Blandmum · 16/10/2006 07:32

The whole DNA situation is so hard to deal with though.

My mother has dementia, and has no real quality of life any more. She hasn't recognised me for the last 4 yaesr, over which time her only realiable pleasure in life was eating chocolate....poor thing doesn't even get pleasure from that now. She simply exsists.

I have been asked about what to do if she were to have a heartattack. I did sign a DNR, as I felt it was the best thing to do. It was the hardest thing I have ever done.

How much harder to have to think of this for a baby. How human to grasp at straws and hope for a miracle. What a dreadful situation for everyone. I have nothing but sympathy for all parts in this heart rending story.

LemonTart · 16/10/2006 07:36

mb (as ever) you expressed that beautifully. So sorry for your own situation. My gran is in a similar baot and atm supporting my mum making a similar decision. THere are absolutely no winners in any of this complicated, incredibly sad situations.

GRUMPYGHOUL · 16/10/2006 10:11

I knew someone whose job was to decide how to spend a hospital's money did she buy 3 ambulances or save 1 extremely premature baby - difficult decision do you save 1 life or potentially 100s.

Its very very sad but perhaps they would have been better off taking the original advice (lays down and waits for kicking but hey this is a democracy!!)

I thought they had another child too, not 100% sure about that but if so that child now stands to lose its home, cope with its parents separation and all this on top of 3 years disruption.

minx69 · 16/10/2006 10:52

I too may get slated for this but I totally agree with grumpy.

FreakyFloss · 16/10/2006 10:56

I think the media (as always) hams thing up. The whole right to life argument in this country is completely misundersood to many. A DNR order only means that in the event of a respiratory or cardiac arrest you will basically be left to die calmly and peacefully instead of having dozens of people crowding round shoving tubes down throats and pumping on chests. I sound a bit ott i know but i feel quite strongly about this. Drs are often too nervous to broach the subject and i go into work and find that patients who are terminally ill, with days left to live and often with pain and nausea management issues would still need to be resusitated in the event of an arrest. Most wouldn't want to be however for obvious reasons. There was an interesting case recently of a man who had a type of cancer and refused all treatment for this. Because of this his dnr status needed to be examined and the drs spoke to him, but he refused to be not for resus! He seemed to think that it meant we would leave him to die immediately. Repeat discussions of this made no headway. i personally feel that this was at least in part due to media protrayal of the topic.

I feel incredibly sad for this little girl - and i still question her quality of life. In a baby/child a dnr order is never made without the most careful consideration and i understand that lots of opinions had been sought. How sad after all the fighting to get her to stay alive the family won't be enjoying this life. to keep her alive and then not be in a position to offer her the best kind of life is (gonna get flamed) incredibly selfish - and i am not underestimating how awfully hard and impossible the situation must have been for them. Was this really all the fault of the drs, who at the end of the day, are the ones who make the dnr order, or a family fighting too hard?

GRUMPYGHOUL · 16/10/2006 11:00

I wouldnt want to be resuscitated if my quality of life was not going to be good and caring for me was going to dominate my family's life and I dont think it is right to do it to a child either. I can understand that it would be hard to let go though.

minx69 · 16/10/2006 11:05

here here...
I couldnt handle the thought of being that much of a burden (whether they wanted to do it or not, thats what it amounts to) and my partner knows that.
Anything less than compis mentis and I would want a DNR.

Swipe left for the next trending thread