Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
lifebook · 05/08/2017 18:47
Sad
whereismyparachute · 05/08/2017 19:08

I have just read the article and can't post what I think as no doubt will be deleted.

Interesting that they themselves raised the issue of having another child and how they would go about it. I felt really sorry for the posters on one of the later threads who got some awful abuse from the reporting crowd for enquiringly about the possibility of this.

oakleaffy · 05/08/2017 19:19

Checked PistonHeads thismorning, the Charlie Gard thread, and they linked to the ghastly Mail article.
Interestingly, PH have had to ban newly signed up members commenting / emailing existing members because of ''sustained abuse''...CA were obviously being vengeful.
The genetics article posted by the wee witch was interesting..yesterday I did wonder if the CRISPR gene editing might help embryos with Charlie's condition.
The Mail article was so exploitative of poor Charlie [I too expect deletion] Has the poor boy not been exploited enough? ..the minutes before he ran out of oxygen, linked to ''him fighting''...that was not 'fighting''- it was probably because his blood was well saturated with oxygen[?]
The cards and festering coffeecups sounded strange- Family and friends would surely be popping in to check the post, check all was well with the flat- coffeecups left from last year? heck, that is pushing things.
Cards, again, surely family of friends would have the wit to tidy them away while the parents are in the first stages of grief.

The fundraising is still going well-money in chunks of £10, 20 is pouring in every day.
Maybe this will be paying living expenses?
GOSH provided a central flat gratis[?] but the flat in Bedfont would probably have a mortgage/rental to pay on it- plus bills .

oakleaffy · 05/08/2017 19:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

zeezeek · 05/08/2017 19:25

No doubt, but given the colossal sum they appear to have raised already, was it really worth trading such intimate details of his death for a bit more? Admittedly I'm an old gimmer, but I recall a time when the word "decorum" was more widely used

Have been thinking the same Puzzled, ever since my dsd sent the link to the DM story. I'd really hoped that the family would grieve in private.

lifebook · 05/08/2017 19:29

I do not believe for one minute that no-one had visited the flat in 9 months Hmm

BeyondQueenOfLists · 05/08/2017 19:33

I noticed the same oak - that's a picture from a zoom lens in the bushes... :(

Maryz · 05/08/2017 19:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lifebook · 05/08/2017 19:43

No I don't think anyone approached them Maryz

Thymeout · 05/08/2017 19:47

Bubbles - I imagine the publicist contacted C&C early on. If you look at her website, she says 'no fees to clients'. At least, initially. She probably trawls Just Giving for stories. There was an interview with her in which she got very shirty, reacting to the suggestion she was making money out of a sick child and said she wasn't being paid by the parents and had to earn a living through the sale of photos and interviews to the press. I think she must also have handled press releases etc.

I can see why C&G employed her. They needed publicity to get money for New York and her contacts with the Mail raised a lot of money for the appeal from readers. I doubt if either of them are in any state to make good decisions at the moment and Connie, at least, is still in 'fighting' mode. I think, too, they see it as a way of Charlie's name living on.

People react very differently to death, as was obvious in the aftermath of the Manchester bombing. Some parents obviously found comfort in maximum publicity and others just wanted to hide away.

Thymeout · 05/08/2017 20:04

Maryz

If a medic/nurse contacted the Guardian, it would surely be a sackable offence, but I really can't imagine the G making it up. An impostor? Someone pretending to be from GOSH? I can imagine a stressed HCP losing patience after death threats and defamation from CA.

The Mail referred to the author as 'she', which would compromise anonymity. I don't know why they think they know whether the source was m or f.

Dustbunny1900 · 05/08/2017 20:04

Did anyone ever figure out what e deal was with that "GP"? Or what made dr hirano suddenly change his mind? Or what made him not even visit charlie (although the parents are saying gosh never invited him), or why C&C didn't insist in buying him a ticket to see Charlie before having him as their expert witness and supposedly being "lead on by him"? Or who the other "7 doctors" were.
So many things that make no sense

BubblesBuddy · 05/08/2017 20:21

Hirano actually (eventually) saw the patient and attended a medical experts' conference. The Judge more or less ordered this so the "new evidence" could be evaluated. After all this, he rather withdrew his help.

Maryz · 05/08/2017 20:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dustbunny1900 · 05/08/2017 20:33

I was aware of him seein charlie after the judge requested it , but I'm still shocked he not only didn't visit him before agreeing to be the expert witness , but that the gards and the legal team didn't insist on it before hanging all their hopes on that. Just so fishy.
Oh yeah there's also the question of Chris saying he was willing treat charlie even after but I've read (like you said) he withdrew that offer.

Dustbunny1900 · 05/08/2017 20:34

X post with Maryz!

BubblesBuddy · 05/08/2017 20:35

I think one from Southampton and one from Newcastle were also giving an opinion to the court. Didn't the Doctor alphabet go from A to I? Hirano was I, wasn't he? Could be wrong.

Maryz · 05/08/2017 20:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

derxa · 05/08/2017 20:40

About my suggestion that the Guardian article might, perhaps, be a bit erm creative - does anyone really think a doctor or nurse approached the Guardian and gave them that? I'm sure it's against all professional guidelines to talk, whether anonymously or not, to a newspaper about an individual identifiable patient. I agree

BubblesBuddy · 05/08/2017 20:43

The Parents just grabbed a lifeline, so to speak. Also, do not forget, leave was given to appeal. The case met the criteria. The it went to the Supreme Court. EUCHR rather dodged the issue. Then we had "new evidence" and the protracted wrangle over place where life support would be withdrawn. Once a case gets to the Court of Appeal and upwards, by merit, the barristers will represent their clients to the best of their ability, however difficult and tenuous that is. That is justice. The parents were not throwing the towel in, were they?

BubblesBuddy · 05/08/2017 20:49

Would Gosh have given permission for the quotes? It is a possibility. From the chalk-face so to speak. It is an account by someone close to the child through their work, if you take it at face value. Gosh may have sanctioned it to get a different, caring, point of view across. They need to limit damage and show a human face as opposed to a medical opinion one.

whereismyparachute · 05/08/2017 20:52

I hope they did, I am sorry that GOSH are still being slated by the parents even now.

Sostenueto · 05/08/2017 21:11

Gosh will always be slated by c&c because they have to blame someone, they cannot accept that nature had a big hand in this situation.

derxa · 05/08/2017 21:15

The suggestion by the 'GOSH medic' that they suffered as much as the parents is disgusting.

whereismyparachute · 05/08/2017 21:17

derxa, was that in the guardian letter? Can you paste it here please, I didn't see that.