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.

tinsel thats shocking

So they have community hospitals and private ones, is that right?

The community hospital I ended up in was also fee paying, but I think they accept medicaid patients and didn't turn people away. They treated everyone no matter what level of aid/insurance they had and then claimed it back later. As opposed to turning people away IYKWIM.

It wasn't "free". But they took people that the "nicer" hospitals wouldn't.

(they also threatened to sell my bill/debt to a UK debt collection agency because my insurance company took a little longer than they liked to pay out)

I work with a lot of staff in the US and travel there a lot.

It's very telling that when recruiting it's inevitable that the healthcare package being offered is a major part of any dialogue - just as much as salary.

I've heard some stories from both ends of the spectrum. Examples of fantastic care and in reverse people unable to access (what we would consider in the UK) relatively basic treatments/medication.

The common denominator in all cases is money.

I'm absolutely certain that the US can provide some of the very best healthcare in the world. If you afford it....

I always think of the US being a country very much of 2 halves. There is much to be said of "the American dream" and "land of opportunity" but there is a huge proportion of the population for whom this never materialises - they can't even get on the ladder in the first place, never mind climb it.

If we're talking about comparing to cancer treatment, I simply must make reference to the late great Kate Granger, originator of the "Hello my name is" campaign. I recommend her books to all our trainees, as they give a doctor's eye view of being a patient with a condition where time could be bought, but not a cure, and the balance of risks and benefits. I had the privilege of meeting her, and count it as one of the greater honours of my life.

drkategranger.wordpress.com/
hellomynameis.org.uk/

LovelyBath

My understanding is that it is the lawyer for the guardian who has the affiliation with an organisation supporting the rights of capacitous adults to end their own lives, rather than the guardian themselves?

I could always Photoshop some buildings in different colours for them.

Yes @nocoolnamesleft

The actual guardian has not been named afaik, just the lawyer.

LovelyBath, we don't know who the guardian is, let alone his or her affiliations. If you intend to refer to the guardian's counsel, no, I don't. I think the fuss about her is simply an attempt by the likes of Catherine Glenn Foster to shit-stir, aided by a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the advocate's role. The suggestion that, because an advocate has acted on behalf of a particular person or cause, she is for ever tainted by that is manifestly ridiculous: many barristers of course regularly act for murderers, rapists, drug dealers etc, and no-one thinks that automatically means they are in favour if the crimes in question or incapable of acting for the prosecution in similar cases.

Likewise, VBC's involvement with Dignity in Dying does not in any way disqualify her. That organisation campaigns for greater choice, control and access to medical and palliative services at the end-of-life, including providing terminally ill adults with the option of a painless, assisted death, within strict legal safeguards, It does not deal with children, and it does not advocate even in the slightest that someone who wants to live and who has a chance of survival with quality of life should ever be prevented from having that chance. There is no conflict whatsoever.

In the very poor African countries I lived in free health care is available. Not always wonderful but certainly better than you describe Tinsel.
One of my daughters was born in a mission hospital. I didn't get any different treatment to anyone else and it was fine. I did pay as I could afford to but most others didn't.

In the very poor African countries I lived in free health care is available. Not always wonderful but certainly better than you describe Tinsel

I've also been to hospital in a poorer carribean country (I sound really accident prone now - this time it wasn't me was my travel companion) and it was far better than the "poor" hospital in the US (in a major "civilised" city). They had very little stock, nothing was disposable everything was washed and re-used and old, but treatment was available, not just for life and death but for minor injuries/ailments too. Everyone could get treatment, tourists paid more than locals (fair enough, happy to).

I gave birth in the States with full medical coverage thanks to work (not even an excess).
Had an emergency C section erc. Friend of mine with standard US coverage of 80% of all bills had budgeted her pregnancy and delivery.
She also ended up with a C section and has to pay an extra 15 000 dollars on too of her existing bills. It wiped out her saving.

Having a baby wiped out her savings. I'm sorry but wow.

This could be interesting - www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/16/terminally-ill-man-challenges-uks-ban-on-assisted-dying-at-high-court.

A hearing is due to start tomorrow where a terminally ill man with motor neurone disease is arguing that the laws against assisted suicide are contrary to his human rights. His rationale is "“I am going to die, and I have come to terms with this fact. But what I do not accept is being denied the ability to decide the timing and manner of my death. I am not prepared to suffer right to the end, nor do I want to endure a long, drawn-out death in a haze of morphine."

But of course what CA want for Charlie is a long drawn-out death in a haze of morphine, because they believe that survival has to be fought for come what may. I suspect that they would condemn this man for not being prepared to fight for a few more years in increasing pain and helplessness. If they register it, their reaction could be very interesting.

They didn't want to waste money on a baby they planned on putting down.. same reason they never bothered keeping up checks on his brain etc

I'm lost for words, tbh. (The above is from the CA page )

Ceto i hope you dont mind but ive stolen your last post to use on the CA facebook page, you wrote far better than i could

Just to clarify it was tour post about there being no conflict of interest with VBC

*your

I don't think that either the guardian or the guardian's counsel are biased. I am sure that everyone in Court is well aware of their backgrounds and no-one actually has a problem with them. Just another ploy to try to delay things.

I knew a criminal barrister. He took the worst cases of murderers, torturers etc. Horrible stuff. He was a very nice man indeed and I'm pretty sure that he didn't have anything in common with his clients. Admittedly, I wasn't married to him, but his wife was a good friend too, and she was happy with him. Still is according to their daughter.

Wow just read on that line that one brit a fortnight travels to dignitas - I had no idea it was that many! (sorry a bit off topic)

That post is sickening Rachel. I feel even with the previous awful posts this is crossing a line.
Can you look at the profile of who posted it ?

Whilst we have been discussing NHS/private medical care - from my limited understanding if you have private medical care in the UK - it only covers certain conditions. Anything they don't want do deal with and you get sent straight back to the NHS.
#I love the NHS

Isn't Catherine wotsit a lawyer ?
Her comments don't say much for her professional integrity.
Perhaps she only takes pro life cases but surely if a laywer picks and chooses which cases to take they are acting in a biased way.

Feel free, Fancythat, I'm flattered!

I might have missed something but where has this Catherine Glenn person appeared from? I read that she was here with the pastor, then I saw a photo of her with Charlie, then I read she was in court too - was this to represent the family in any way? As I know she's a lawyer. And why was she mouthing 'I love you' to Connie?? I thought they'd just met but now thinking I've got it wrong and she's a family friend.

Sorry for silly questions.

She was here with the pastor. This is one of her FB posts. Sorry it's long.

'Update: After initial back and forth and then what they said was a final denial, the hospital did eventually allow us into Charlie's room to pray with Charlie and his parents! He is even cuter and chubbier than the photos that have been published in the media, and smells just as sweet as any other 11-month-old. What a precious little boy! Please keep praying for him and his family as they fight the hospital and courts for their right to give Charlie a chance!
Breaking news: Great Ormond Street Hospital denies clergy visit to Charlie Gard!
Charlie's parents Connie and Chris invited Rev. Patrick Mahoney, pastor of Church on the Hill and Director of the Christian Defense Coalition in Washington DC, to pray for Charlie as part of a team that came to London from America. But this afternoon, Rev. Mahoney was told by hospital officials that he was not permitted to go into Charlie's room to pray at the 11-month-old child's bedside.
Reverend Patrick Mahoney says:
"It is an outrage that Great Ormond Steet Hospital has denied a pastor from praying for Charlie Gard and offering spiritual help to his family. I was invited by Charlie's parents Connie and Chris to come from America to pray for Charlie, and it is stunning that I was denied from doing this. In forty years of pastoral ministry, I have never once been denied the right to pray over a patient in a hospital. This continues to show Great Ormond Street Hospital's disregard for the wishes of Charlie's parents. First the hospital denies care, and now they deny prayer."
Charlie's mother Connie Yates says:
"I am heartbroken that after we invited Rev. Mahoney to come to England and pray for our son Charlie, Great Ormond Street Hospital has turned him away. Once again, the hospital doesn't care about Chris and my wishes."
Attorney Catherine Glenn Foster, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, says:
"It is completely unprecedented that Great Ormond Street Hospital, hired to care for Charlie Gard, is not only trying to deny him care, but now also is denying him prayer. This is what happens when we lose track of who we are as a society, and institute laws that promote death rather than life." '