Charlie Gard 20

[CremeFresh]

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

Well that was a first in 15 years on here, not sure that my comment was much different to many that have been posted in 20,000 comments regarding this topic on the 20 threads. Anyway I apologise greatly if it was deemed offensive I have actually been pretty supportive of both parties all along.

I read your comment before it was deleted, I admit I can't actually remember what it said but I didn't find it offensive.. it didn't leap out at me iykwim I guess a lot of feelings are running high, and there's a lot of reporting going on.

I really really didn't mean for it to be offensive. I have been so upset by this case as many others have and name changed loads as my own particular circumstances could be a bit identifying but have been on all 20 threads. Sometimes things just get interpreted incorrectly and I might look like a new poster due to the name changes.

Anyhow, thank you Bun I would hate to upset anyone.

Same for me. I read it (but can't for the life of me remember the detail of what you wrote. Sorry ) but it can't have been that bad or I would have noticed.

It's the rubbish reporting of this story in the media that's appalled me really.

The "timelines" on the BBC, Sky, etc have all started in March when the first court case came up.

Hardly any have included the December/January details that GOSH were already looking at nucleoside therapy but then the poor child started having seizures so it was deemed inappropriate.

This has been consistently ignored apart from the excellent Reaction and Melanie Phillips articles.

Lots of reporting going on, these threads seem to attract hoverers above the report button.

I suppose this will be the last thread on the subject. Let's hope that the Gards can get some healing and rest now.

Agree Maryz. One thing that has struck me hugely during this whole thing is the number of people who lack basic comprehension skills.

One thing that has struck me hugely during this whole thing is the number of people who lack basic comprehension skills.

They are probably the same people who feel entitled to have their own facts.

It is interesting how we got to this point. How did a combination of post-truth era, the ability to spread your cause globally, Trump highjacking the cause to fight Obarmacare, and I think the cancer charities drum beat of if you just fight hard enough you can win, no idea what the Pope had to do with it, how did it come to this? It was the blind following of so many, £350million for the NHS, what next?

Saw a small baby today, while out shopping, and for some reason he reminded me of poor baby Charlie in the photos of him where he appeared quite well. It went through me for that moment, imagining his parents when he was newborn and apparently perfect.
RIP beautiful baby, and I hope that his parents some day, somehow gain some peace.

Even a week before the end, there was a photo of her in the Mail, holding a toy in front of the baby's open eyes, 'proving' that he could see.

No it wasn't. It was because the doctors reported he never opens his eyes, so she took a photo of his eyes open, to show that it is not a true statement. I can understand that. She wasn't trying to say he doesn't have a problem with eyesight, just that his eyes opened. So please don't misquote her intentions like that.

It seems from a couple of tabloid articles that attention is shifting to Alfie Evans in Alder Hey. So many posters here said that Charlie's Army would forget him and move on to the next cause. It appears to be true.

I hope this other poor baby isn't going to be used by the media and politicians in the way Charlie was.

I saw a photograph today in which he looked only a few weeks old, and there is a bottle of what looks like Calpol and a syringe just out of shot so I'd imagine is became evident from early on that something wasn't right. I think I read that he was admitted to GOSH at 8 weeks with breathing difficulties, after his mother noticed at 4 weeks his lethargy and feeding difficulties. So, not much time to enjoy her newborn at all. So sad.

Flake I wonder how much of the shifting to Baby Alfie is actually being driven by the media. They start suggesting people are shifting attention, and they will begin doing so.

My thoughts are that C&C will use their anger and grief to get back at GOSH (powered by CA I'm sure). Sue the hospital and attempt to get the law changed to claim back 'parent's rights'. Parents don't have rights, they have a responsibility.

The Children's Act is there to protect children. Our safeguarding procedures have changed due to the awful cases that have emerged. Whilst C&C may think they should have more 'rights' over decisions regarding their child it would also mean that the children we are trying to protect would be failed. CA are attacking GOSH due to the baby P case, but yet Charlie's law would have protected his mother, and what about JW children who need blood transfusions. Children need someone to be their advocate other than their parents.

I've followed all of these threads and there is something I don't fully understand. On the one hand GOSH we're considering the treatment for Charlie in January, but on the other there were doubts it would cross the blood brain barrier and it hadn't even been tested on mice with Charlie's condition, making it unethical. Could GOSH have sent him for the treatment if it were that unethical?

They were in the process of applying for ethical approval.

I thought they started looking into getting approval for the treatment in December, before he started having seizures. One of the main points is that the treatment would have happened in GOSH, thus avoiding all the dangers and stresses of the journey. I guess the process of getting ethical approval would have triggered a process of weighing risks against benefits and they may or may not have proceeded.

AcrossthePond55 I don't think it was the media, I was watching the page and one young man in particular has been suggesting it for some time, he has even set up his own open opinion page on it to suggest that they move on to Alfie.

This was a couple of weeks ago. He is still freely calling GOSH murderers on his page and doing his Facebook live sessions on it.

Awful.

With regards to the eye opening, in the interests of accuracy dodgy, it was whether he could consistently open his eyes.

Connie Yates posted the picture on Facebook with the hashtag #unfair, after a judge said that Charlie was 'not able to consistently open his eyes'

On Facebook, she wrote: "A picture speaks a thousand words!!"

She then quoted the judgement on Charlie's condition, claiming her picture is proof against it

Peace and long, prosperous lives to all on this thread