Charlie Gard 20

[CremeFresh]

Don't know if anyone else has started a new thread .

Thinking about medics and the law and medical ethics and what seems to be a mass movement as regards an emotional mass response makes me think again about the whole euthanasia debate. Okay, two different situations, one where the patient can say what they want, one where they cannot and someone has to speak for them, in effect. Also, a contrast between removal of support/treatment, versus actively facilitating someones death. If the public at large cannot grasp the essential difference in Charlies case (removing ventilation isn't killing or murder), then perhaps we just aren't ready yet to have the wider euthanasia debate, even if the medical profession were willing to consider euthanasia as fitting within their ethical position, and first principle being 'do no harm'. I think that our ethics and public understanding of the issues has lagged way behind what we are technologically capable of, and given the accelerating pace of technology, this will possibly only get worse. After all, if medics hadn't been so good at their job of care in the first place, Charlie would never have survived for so long on ventilation. And the increasing technology and practice as regards premature babies impacts on the abortion 'debate'................
Oh, how much simpler to just have the religious right view (life at all costs and let GOD decide), or the FM soundbite.............

This case had not been about Charlie for a very long time. Delete or report if you so wish.

Very true Sostenueto, not possessions any of us.

We as human beings should NEVER be trusted with the euthenasia issue.

I keep wondering if there was any way the court hearings could have been speeded up.

We as human beings should NEVER be trusted with the euthenasia issue

I can't help feeling you're right, Sos; in theory it should be possible, but there are just too many dangers around motivation, funding pressures and all the rest

Personally I believe the best we'll be able to do is strengthen the laws around advance directives, living wills and so on ... which wouldn't have affected Charlie's case of course, since he's not able to give consent

I think if the medics had stated stronger their belief that he was in pain then the judge would of pushed for the sadly inevitable resolution sooner. Even if he had to sit down with the parents alone and explain his belief (as he finally did 2 days ago). Perhaps that would of made the parents realise the pain they are and continue to cause. I do think they would loathe to cause him unnecessary pain.

Also perhaps the Guardian should of been a louder voice.

Only my opinion - we don't know all the facts so hard to judge absolutely.

We as human beings should NEVER be trusted with the euthenasia issue

The fact that 1 brit travels to Dignitas every fortnight makes the arguement about whether it should or shouldn't happen moot, IMO, because it is happening, it's just happening in a way that adds distress and puts relatives at legal risk

It's the same as the pro-life arguement in Ireland! it's missed the point! abortion being illegal isn't preventing it, it's just punishing those that seek it outside of the law or abroad.

People in Britain are ending their lives because of chronic and terminal illnesses, IMO the only thing in question is how this should happen, not whether it should happen or not because it already is, and the one a fortnight travelling to dignitas is only the tip of the iceburg as people are doing it in less measurable (and more risky) ways here too!

I know from the earlier posts on CA, that there were regular references to social services being in cahoots with medics. Evil professionals with a desire to swoop in and 'steal' babies from their parents. A number of posters on there referenced their own battles with SS and doctors. I wonder if there was a closer analysis of the CA demographic, would it illustrate that some of the hostility towards GOSH medics etc is just an extension of their own family involvement with statutory agencies. Outrage at their perceived 'rights' over their own children being challenged and transferred into this battle over Charlie.

With the result that poor Charlie probably suffered pain for 6-7 months longer than necessary

Imagine being in pain for several months with no means to tell anyone.

Personally I think the answer to euthanasia is allowing advance directives - so we can make decisions while fit, a bit like making wills

Yes, but I think a better comparison is making power of attorney decisions

• that could be open to abuse too but we have safeguards, like having to be made in advance while people have capacity

You cannot but a POA in place once someone no-longer has capacity if they didn't have one done in advance

So we already have that frame-work

@oakleafy @AccrualIntentions
I reported the same image on twitter to the metropolitan police. There is a form to report things on their website. It got a very quick response and it was removed quickly.

Maryz I actually think that the opposite is more common with regards elderly people being ventilated and resuscitated. Over 25 years in healthcare and I really do believe that medics are becoming 'better' at clinical decision making with regards futile interventions. A close friend/colleague has been instrumental in ensuring that there is more focus on death and dying as 'normal' processes during medical and GP training. I think that there is much more open and honest discussion around DNAR orders and despite the shitstorm that the daily fail created around the Liverpool Care Pathway, my experience is that medics find it easier to have frank discussions with patients and/or families about futile interventions.

yy Tinsel. I don't understand why we can put in place financial arrangements but not medical ones

You can
There are 2 types of PAO, one is financial and the other covers care/health choices, but those choices don't include euthenasia as that is not available as a choice IYKWIM

I keep wondering if there was any way the court hearings could have been speeded up.

Well. Yes and no.

This whole process has actually been done very quickly. Things like the Supreme Court and the ECHR hearings, they were obviously prioritised. You can wait a year for a date in non-urgent scenarios. There are other things going on which are important and it isn't necessarily possible to clear the judicial decks for one case.

That's not to say none of this could have been dealt with quicker. GOSH obviously could've acted on the decision on 30 June immediately. Since then, Francis J has, until this week anyway, dealt with things pretty skilfully in terms of balance but could have shaved a bit more time off it.

I think it's fair to say there have also been elements of trying to future proof the decisions a bit. However with the parents having chosen the path they have, I don't think it could have realistically been concluded more than a few weeks ago. Obviously that's a very significant time period for a child in pain.

maryz certainly in Scotland we do a lot of care planning and patients or their power of attorney can state no hospital admission/ no antibiotics /DNACPR etc. It's very helpful to have all that documented in notes too so if there is a sudden change the patient's wishes can be followed

Trampire I think I know (vaguely) your best friend too, I can't imagine such a horrific thing has happened to too many people. My DH was at the children's funerals and said it was heart-wrenching.

There's a charity called Dignity in Dying who are campaigning for the right to assisted suicide in the UK. it seems crazy that people are having to travel to dignitas, but I do believe the law will change at some point.

think if the medics had stated stronger their belief that he was in pain then the judge would of pushed for the sadly inevitable resolution sooner. Even if he had to sit down with the parents alone and explain his belief (as he finally did 2 days ago).

I'm sure the medics spelt it out to the parents as clearly as they possibly could, probably several times over: the court application would have been an absolute last resort. Likewise, the judge set it out quite clearly in the April judgment, and there will have been a lot of discussion in court of the evidence leading to that conclusion. It is, quite simply, the case that the parents refused to believe them - even though that was totally inconsistent with their statements that Charlie responded to being tickled.

In relation to the point about parental rights always coming first, I've tried asking a few of the rabid online types whether that should have been the case with Tracy Connelly, Baby P's mother. Strangely, none of them have managed to answer.

The law must not change! Vulnerable people will be abused. Loopholes will be found. Changing euthanasia laws will open the gates to exploitation and corruption.

I totally agree sost
Thin edge of the wedge