Charlotte Wyatt to go into foster care

[ginmummy]

...because, according to the news, her seperated parents can't give her the care that she needs. It so sad, I want to cry. Poor, poor Charlotte, poor, poor parents.

Kitty, I think quite a few of us here don't believe that it does come down to money though. It is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to place a monetary value on a human life.
If you follow that point to its logical conclusion, how do you then decide whether or not one child should be less entitled to our free NHS care than another?
Also, how can it be argued that the Wyatt's are somehow less entitled than other parents to say they can no longer cope and ask for one of their children to be fostered?

What a beautiful and wonderful and pertinent post Giddy.
You see, it makes a BIG difference to hear from someone who has been there and knows what it is like. So all of you lot who insist you want to 'learn', why not read and learn.

Message withdrawn

The authorities did and do think that way Socci, if you remember the Wyatts had to fight the authorities in order to save their child from dnr. As I keep saying, it's the truth however unpalatable, don't shoot the messenger!

The authorites based their decision to DNR down to Charlottes quality of life which they termed to be well nil.
The parents knew differently.

Blimey Giddy, don't apologise! What a lovely, honest post.

Is it your opinion Socci, that it would have been wrong to save the starving children in Africa in preference to Charlotte? To my mind it is a horrendous and near impossible decision to make but when that decision is made it has consequences.
I say again because it is a fact however unpalatable that the moneypot is not bottomless, choces have to be made. I'm very glad it's not me that has to make them.

Message withdrawn

Giddy, don't apologise for a word of it. Thank you so much for posting about your dds

Did she really deserve to live!!! how can we stand and say she did, so all of you think you know better than the doctors....even the family may now think they should not have saved her life. AND of course its about money every thing is about money.....

Much as I loathe to admit it, I do think Kitty is right that the authorities generally do operate on a cost-driven, mechanical basis which takes no account of human factors and is often mistakenly referred to as "the real world". That's capitalism for you.

It breaks my heart to think of a child being "allowed to die" - effectively killed, if they could have kept her alive but chose not to - because of the cost of caring for her alive. I would always commend the parents for trusting their instincts and fighting for her right to live. That is "the real world" IMO.

I think the debate about who shoulders the responsibility for her subsequent care is a different topic entirely. It seems very wonky to me to say "Well if they couldn't take sole care of her they should have let her die", or "Well they kept her alive, so let them deal with her." That strikes me as a savage attitude.

Message withdrawn

"save the starving children in Africa "

What?

I'm not sure it's quite the simple equation you have described.

Fantastic post giddy.

It's all about money for some, but about people for others. As regards the money where does it end? Where do you draw the line?

Oh Mrs Smith you can't have another baby, after all you needed a section and a blood transfusion last time. You've used up your NHS cash quota.

Miss Jones you can't have another either. Your dd needs glasses and has had her tonsils out. You've used up your quota too.

And Mrs Kitty - you can't have anymore. Come on now you have 5 already, that's well above the national average. Let's not be greedy.

This is going round in circles. You are angry with me because I appear compasionless in this instance. I am not.
I am letting this thread go now as I don't feel any constructive arguments are happening.

Essentially this is what it comes down to. You cannot condemn those that have made these choices.

"Is it your opinion Socci, that it would have been wrong to save the starving children in Africa in preference to Charlotte? To my mind it is a horrendous and near impossible decision to make but when that decision is made it has consequences.
I say again because it is a fact however unpalatable that the moneypot is not bottomless, choces have to be made"

I don't think the money that goes into our hospitals is the same pot of money that goes to 'save the starving children in Africa' - economics doesn't work like that. It's not that simplistic.

Message withdrawn

So instead lets pay for everything and break the bank completely, and let standerds drop, children should not be kept alive at all costs, esp cos a parent wants them to be.

"I just don't see what starving children in Africa have to do with this issue."

Me neither. It's just a bizarre and quite frankly almost childlike argument.

It does seem to have digressed somewhat. Read today that the 11 month old is in parttime foster care too so it seems her mother has real problems coping even without Charlotte at home. She herself had spent some time fostered as a child

Did you vote for Maggie Thatcher, kitty?

(Will be truly delighted if being accused of voting for Maggie Thatcher is construed as a "personal attack")

What Kitty is saying is not wrong, you have to look at the bogger picture

In the end though Charlotte wasn't kept alive anyway. The fact that the Wyatts fought for their daughters life in court is irrelevant because they actually lost and Charlotte is alive despite the DNR and against the odds.

sorry bigger picture