Charle Gard 21

[11122aa]

While discussion is almost over I have set up this thread incase anyone wants to post any comments to posts in the previous thread.

Hello all

Joshua Rozenberg posted this link earlier, which may be of interest to those following the thread:
www.transparencyproject.org.uk/update-on-charlie-gard-case-the-last-stage-of-the-litigation-facts-and-sources/

Katie Gollop QC also posted all the position statements here:
www.serjeantsinn.com/news/charlie-gard-position-statements/

I don't know how to link it, but in the replies to Katie Gollop's tweet, is a screenshot from Charlie's Fight page where Connie says he was given no pain relief in the hospice....

Just a suggestion, can we keep these threads going but change the title to populism: current issues & campaigns
Or something like that?

I simply do not believe that the baby was given no pain relief in a hospice, after the judge's directions.

What I meant Maryz is CG is part of a bigger trend, now including Alfie etc. And a general thread without actual children's names in the title might be less likely to be seen as personal criticisms by families involved who are probably on MN if they're looking everywhere online for answers?

I think keeping it as Charlie Gard is the best thing as most of the nutters have lost interest and hopefully they will stay as measured as most of the previous 20 were. On the other hand I can see the flip side..

Maybe just CG 21 then?

Fair point
Was just thinking that the underlying issues won't end when the CG saga does, and it's been such an insightful group of posters I really appreciated hearing everyones varying viewpoints and insights into the wider influences IYKWIM

Blimey the difference in the statements from the parents to Gosh and others is a bit unnerving to be honest.

I mean I thought parents refused all scans, in their statement it says gosh didn't do any because they felt it unnecessary?

CG21 or whatever would make it identifiable without being too narrowly about poor Charlie.

Populism has so much to answer for.
As the saying goes "Shit tastes delicious; 7 gazillion flies cannot be wrong"

Just because lots of people hold the same opinion does not make said opinion correct, valid, constructive or whatever.
The plural of anecdote does not data make but that concept seems to be hard to grasp to many.

The raison d'être of hospices is to make end of life comfortable and dignified, with or without pain relief. I have no idea whether Charlie required pain relief or not or whether he got any or not. I suspect if he no longer received regular suction treatment/blood tests/whatever other invasive procedures he needed, he may have been more comfortable and less stressed even without additional pain relief.
Who knows?
Poor Connie

re pain relief, some people genuinely only consider tablets and injections as "medicine"

They don't count patches, skin pumps etc
(friend genuinely believes that things like ibuprofen gel are a healthy risk free "medication free" option)

CGs oral/nasal tube pain medicatin may have been stopped, as in no syringe filled with medicine being plunged in. He may still have had pain relief patches or skin pumps.

Thanks for the thread. I haven't been active on the threads lately but I've been keeping up with all of your excellent posts x

Agree that the parents statement is completely at odds with the others. It is revealing of the great chasm of understanding and belief that stood/stands between them and the hospital.

Hi all,
This is just a reminder to everyone to keep things measured again, not to goad anyone who doesn't agree with them and not to stray into the realms of speculation.
Thanks.

Can I ask a question.....

I have read lots of the threads with interest and followed an earlier link to the moment article which was really good explaining the case

There is one section though

"under the Human Rights Act (part of UK law since 1998) everyone has a right to life (Article 2), there’s also a competing right: Article 3, which states “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” That’s the crux here. Lengthening Charlie Gard’s life without palliative care, without a treatment, is an infringement of his Article 3 rights"

I know this is slightly off topic... But if keeping Charlie alive was against his article 3 rights because there isn't any treatment

How does this pan out with euthanasia ,/ right to die...

If you have say motor neurone disease and no treatment available, surely article 3 works apply...,

How does this pan out with euthanasia ,/ right to die…

Because I think there's a difference between not actively prolonguing suffering, and actively ending it IYKWIM

Someone with MND can decline all further treatment. Nobody is doing anything to actively prolong their suffering, so nobody is "torturing" them.

Euthenasia isn't letting someone die, it's actively ending their life

So I think that's why?

I don't like it when people call it 'assisted suicide' it is 'assisted dying'.

I don't like it when people call it 'assisted suicide' it is 'assisted dying'

I think assisted suicide is more accurate though

Palliative care could be considered assisted dying but not assisted suicide
Assisted dying is a bit broad

Euthenasia is also not a nice word

There isn't really "good" language around it at all is there?