Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Charle Gard 21

403 replies

11122aa · 01/08/2017 12:03

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

OP posts:
TheNightmanCometh · 04/08/2017 17:53

But the number of people involved, the length of time and the expense is eye-watering. Not to mention the emotional tally on everyone involved, family more-so (obviously) but medical staff as well.

It is, and I think we can all agree on that. The article in the Guardian is important reading for anyone who didn't already know.

However, it's one thing to identify that this is a problem, and another to come up with a better way. I'm interested in the possibility of a tribunal, but I don't know how it could be made immune from judicial review or ECHR applications, nor am I convinced it should be. And if those are possible, so are delays.

Nanasueathome · 04/08/2017 17:54

Done it now

Tupperwarelid · 04/08/2017 19:45

Both are really interesting articles. Thanks for linking

GherkinSnatch · 04/08/2017 22:54

Very interesting articles, though I feel a bit uncomfortable at them being published on his birthday :/

JaneEyre70 · 04/08/2017 22:59

The parents have done a Featureworld story in the DM that's appeared online this evening. Including photos. Not sure I feel that it was very fair on Charlie, but I don't think these two are going to go away quietly. They were very fair about the GOSH nursing staff in it, though. I know we all deal with bereavement differently, but I don't know if this leaves a very pleasant after taste. This whole story has made me think very differently about children's rights to privacy........

leghoul · 04/08/2017 23:00

I am surprised that GOSH have approved an anon article in the guardian. I know how much this has affected the hospital and staff there, even comms. I do not disagree with the content. But I was certainly surprised to see that and I'm not sure it was necessary really.

PacificDogwod · 04/08/2017 23:01

I think that article has important things to say, but wish it had not been published today Sad

Maryz · 04/08/2017 23:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

derxa · 04/08/2017 23:25

Sorry Guardian articles are revolting

FlakeBook · 04/08/2017 23:33

I don't think they are revolting. They don't attack the parents or even judge their actions, only the actions of CA and the fact that this family's situation has been exploited.

Ellie56 · 04/08/2017 23:33

Alison Smith-Squire has written the article for the DM. Predictably she talks about parents' "rights". Angry

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4762390/Charlie-Gard-s-parents-hours-son.html

leghoul · 04/08/2017 23:37

If it was written by someone there I doubt it's someone senior & I don't think it will have gone through GOSH comms channels/approvals as everything would normally do. Admittedly, Pope+Trump+global media furore etc not a normal case but I think GOSH made a clear point in their position statements without adding personal views to it. Sigh sigh.

Original poster
11122aa · 04/08/2017 23:40

The SUN have it on their front page that Charlie lived for 12 mins after life support was switched off.

OP posts:
Maryz · 04/08/2017 23:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

opinionatedfreak · 04/08/2017 23:48

And they are using the fact he lived for twelve minutes as evidence the doctors were wrong.

Sigh.

leghoul · 04/08/2017 23:49

Argh. I wonder how much Alison Smith Squire has made from those death bed articles. I don't see any problem with parents sharing that information and it sounds as though they had a much more paced, considerate experience than many who have to turn off ventilator etc, but the thought of someone profiting from their pain even now is gross.

Maryz · 04/08/2017 23:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BananaSandwichesEveryDay · 05/08/2017 00:09

Somebody asked for the link to the position statements .
I've read all the articles mentioned today. I suspect the only reason the Guardian stories were published today is because they knew about the dm article. I am disappointed that the dm article is saying that GOSH didn't invite DrH to visit Charlie. They still won't have it that GOSH really did act in what they believed were Charlie's best interests and that not everyone else did.

TheWeeWitch · 05/08/2017 00:10

The Smith-Squire article makes me feel very uneasy. I just don't think it's right, any of it. I hate the fucking DM Sad

TheWeeWitch · 05/08/2017 00:12

To counter the A S-S article -

Here's a proper science-y blog post that Katie Gollop (lawyer) has retweeted.

blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2017/08/03/charlie-gard-post-mortem-could-he-have-been-saved/

Maryz · 05/08/2017 00:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GetOutOfMYGarden · 05/08/2017 00:51

The Daily Mail article shows there's still an element of denial there. I imagine that GOSH staff would have felt there was animosity... hence the email calling them the spanner in the works. And Hirano's actions speak louder than words, I really don't think he had anyone's interests at heart bar his own.

I'm very glad that Charlie's passing was peaceful and beautifully handled by hospice staff. I'm glad that they were able to take Charlie home and spend some time with him without all of the tubes attached (although it's awful that the family didn't move the cards for them when they knew Charlie would be either dead or about to pass away when he was brought home). And hopefully with time C+C will heal too.

NatashaGurdin · 05/08/2017 01:11

The DM article has his birthdate wrong, which is a careless error.

Maryz · 05/08/2017 01:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.