Charlie Gard 14

[GabsAlot]

This is a thread following the legal and ethical questions raised by the recent court case involving Charlie Gard.

Please could we refrain from insulting or otherwise "bashing" his parents. It isn't in the spirit of Mumsnet and will get the threads removed.

Please could we also remember that at the heart of this case is a terminally ill baby and his heartbroken parents. There are those participating in and watching this thread for whom these issues are painful. Please let's try and be mindful of them when we post. This isn't a place for name calling or trivialising the very real pain they feel. Many parents of severely disabled children are on here.

Lastly, here are some hopefully useful reference points of facts surrounding the case.

13 July GOSH position statement on latest hearing (includes update on Charlie's condition):
www.gosh.nhs.uk/file/23611/download?token=aTPZchww

7 July GOSH statement on Charlie:
www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/latest-statement-charlie-gard

June 2017 Supreme Court decision:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rPmvGlNhA&app=desktop

May 2017 Court of Appeal Decision:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/410.html

April 2017 High Court Decision:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/972.html

GOSH FAQ page on Charlie:
www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

Here's a good article on the Ashya King case written in 2014: www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ashya-king-this-story-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-9716486.html

Also delurking. I posted on some of the first threads but have only been dipping in and out since.

I have found the threads very useful in keeping up to date with what is going on. My thougnts are always with Charlie x

If there is a facebook group through, do let me know.

I find all the 'what's the harm' and 'just give him a chance' posts really depressing.
No one seems to have an answer when asked, a chance of what? They say no one knows what will happen. Well, ALL the doctors, including Dr 'Hero', have agreed that Charlie is at the terminal point of his illness. So we all know that it's not going to make him 'better'.
So why give him a chance, if that 'chance' is not going to help him. He has a terminal illness, this isn't a cancer that could go into remission.
Suggesting it would be a good thing for a Pm to approve something like this 'on the sly' is horrendous IMHO.

glad shes on the mend miaow

miaow and dd

I'm not trying to swamp or shut down Argeles. I am genuinely interested in other viewpoints. They come from a variety of people, and a variety of experiences and they are all valuable.

Argeles I too initially felt the parents should be allowed to take Charlie to America for treatment. That was because I did not know the full facts of the case or fully appreciate the law surrounding children's rights. After I had read the original High Court Judgement (and the link is at the top of this page) I understood why the decision was made to withdraw life support.

In a nutshell, the rights of the child (which have been enshrined in British law for nearly 30 years) are paramount. Charlie has rights of his own which trump those of his parents. It is not enough that his parents want him to be experimented on. It is irrelevant that "we need hope". It has to be what is in Charlie's best interests.

Earlier this year, GOSH (and experts from several other hospitals both in the UK and abroad) all agreed after reviewing all the medical evidence that the treatment would be futile and not in Charlie's best interests. The judge listened to both sides and made the decision that was in Charlie's best interests. He will do the same on Tuesday. Nobody else's interests come into it. However difficult it is for parents to accept, the child's interests come first always, not theirs.

Oh yes we must have a variety if opinions or it would be boring and too one sided.

I know saucery, and agree - I'd like argeles to come back and answer as I'm interested in hearing a sensible argument for that "side"

I'm just on edge about how the thread is viewed atm - that people will view a load of people questioning one poster as an "attack"

Agree with Ellie. It is really surprising g the amount of people that are unaware of the legal position regarding children. Almost all posters going on about giving Charlie treatment on other threads ( not this one mainly) seem to think parents have rights over their children. It is the cade in America but no here. It used to be here too and maybe it hasn't been published enough changes in law concerning children. I don't get where any parent would think their child is their property though.

I also hope argeles doesn't feel attacked. I may not agree with her stance but I can completely understand why she and a lot of other people have those views.

Nobody on either side of this argument want Charlie to die, we just have differing views on what is best for him, and that's allowed.

I think on the whole people give informed opinions on here. But agree if you make a point it would be nice to have some evidence as to why you think that.

The nearer to Tuesday we get the more my heart bleeds for all concerned but especially for Charlie.

I hope that we aren't seen to be 'attacking', just explaining the situation.

I asked this question ages ago. What happens if yet more 'new evidence' is presented on Monday. I.e. a new child being treated who has same condition as Charlie? Does the judge then have to go through yet another delay in reaching a decision,?

I wonder if the decision to withdraw life support is upheld how quickly it will be done?

When my friend turned off the life support of her little boy (he'd sustained severe head injuries in a car crash) he survived for about 6 hours afterwards so at least she got that time with him. She was allowed to go to a pricate room with him and spend that precious time with him and he died in her arms, cuddled up on a bed together.

But in Charlie's case I'm assuming the minute the ventilator is switched off he will pass away very quickly as he is unable to breathe unaided? Has anyone said if he can make any respiratory effort at all and therefore may not pass away straight away?

I can't imagine what C&C will be going through if that's the decision that is made but I would like to think that if his L.S is turned off they may be able to just have a short time with him alone where he's still alive and for him to peacefully pass away with only C&C there.

Hopefully they would examine the facts around the new child's situations and it will be irrelevant. Despite what the CA mob say, GOSH are not wilfully withholding a perfectly good treatment from Charlie for the fun of it.

Another one here who originally thought it might be a funding issue, then had mind changed by timeline of court evidence.
There's also the amazing medical advancements that make it almost impossible that a child could be in this position, so we think.

www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/statement-chairman-great-ormond-street-hospital-22-july-2017

That was to Sostenueto. I can't type fast enough on theses threads, that's why I haven't been posting.

Sorry it this has been already posted

It's
Come to this

OK thanks Charliesierra