Charlie Gard 10

[user1498911470]

Hi guys new thread.

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"

Starting now as 9 will fill up quickly.

Dear god Goes to show they aren't all money hungry surgeons doing needless surgeries, they have huge hearts, and a true passion for what they do and how they can help.

I know, I should not have looked again.

It's a direct reply to her post, she has left it standing.

Yes, because in the NHS they are

I wonder what will happen on Ca if it does not go their way?? which there is a huge chance it wont

barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-gard-house-speaker-paul-ryan/
An excellent letter.

muckypup73 going by others posts it'll be because it was left to long and all GOSHs fault or the doctor was bribed..hopefully the sister in law won't be stirring anything up though!

Thanks 11122aa an exceptional link.

Sorry for jumping in late. Someone asked about the ethics of the drug use here in the UK.

Could be possible if GOSH apply to the relevant NHS Research Ethics Committee. The Committee would look at all the evidence, the criteria for use (in this case Charlie's medical records) and the risks involved. They could in theory allow use of the drug on a one case basis (apparently rare bit has happened when HIV research was in it's infancy and some pharmaceutical research was in early stages).

One area of interest is that the Research Committee will consist of a percentage of lay persons (I believe 33% is the preferred ratio of lay person to medical committee members although I have known this ratio to vary a tad). They could have an emergency meeting and give their opinion within a week although a month is a normal timeline.

Given the complexities of this case apparently the Ethics Committee would under great scrutiny and could actually refer to a second Ethics Committee for verification of their recommendation.

Hope this helps a bit as I questioned my friends who actually sit on an Ethics Committee (one in a medical capacity and one as a lay person)

and however he might die would be tragic for him.

No, however he dies will be tragic for his parents
how he dies, for him , could either be peaceful and comfortable or traumatic/terrifying/painful.

I have just read the piece that 11122 has linked to. It is excellent. Compassionate and truthful. CA really need to be reading articles like this.

Oh God. I've just read Laura Gard's latest post and the responses to it.

I have no reason to think that, as individuals, ca are anything but kind and well meaning, by as a collective, just deluded.

Lizzzar I think it's the perfect time to be discussing these things.

What is Laura Gard saying.

Essentially it is 'hurrah for Dr h. He is flying to England to save Charlie'

Agreed bluesky it is excellent, but I have only read it because someone provided a link. CA don't have anyone to guide them to articles offering any points of view which might contradict their own.

And another thunderclap.

Essentially it is 'hurrah for Dr h. He is flying to England to save Charlie'

That remains to be seen.

Here

Ffs, maths education should be made compulsory.

Oh, wait...

Both the US and UK systems would do everything in their power to stop Charlie Gard's death being painful or traumatic. Even if he did go on an airplane, he could be accompanied by a nurse, doctor, life support system and painkillers. No US hospital would want Charlie to suffer for no reason. Charlie can't speak for himself, and I would say that this situation is tragic both for himself and his parents. No one knows what Charlie is feeling, but when doctors disagree, I think there is a strong argument that the parents should have the final say on further treatment.

I feel sorry for that Dr. The weight of that expectation that can just turn on a sixpence to hatred.

im sure charlie is looking forward to meeting you?

is that sick or what

I wonder if Dr Hirano realises just how much is being expected of him by so many?

Lizzarr - But currently the doctors do all agree. The dispute is between the parents and the doctors. And a child is a person in their own right in this country. Their rights are protected in law. The parents do not have rights.

Lizzzar

I'm sorry but I think you've got this upside down and backwards

There is no disagreement between doctors who have studied CHARLIE'S condition and been involved in his care and poured over the details of his individual condition.

Nobody is saying that the US don't do just as good a job at palliative care, but if charlie went there for TREATMENT, he would not be recieving palliative care

And you are deluded if you think that gold standard care can be carried out by anyone mid transport. They'ld do their best, but it still wouldn't be gold standard.