Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

The awful situation of Charlie Gard

The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby shootist » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:59 pm

A most awful situation for sure whichever way you look at it. But pondering the legal side of things tis strikes me as being very similar to the cases where a child has a probably fatal condition that can be cured with a simple blood transfusion but the parents object on religious grounds. I suspect that such cases have long been decided but I'm not certain. Has anyone any knowledge of such cases?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3499
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:36 pm

Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby Russell » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:14 pm

It awful from the prospective that people are taking and emotional stance instead of a medical one, which means that are failing to put the child's welfare first. Mitochondrial disease is way beyond any current treatment. I have a friend who's son died from it. Keeping him alive has been cruel.
If you can't talk about the problem, how are you ever going to even start talking about the solution?
Russell
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:47 pm

Re: The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby Voldemort » Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:13 pm

Russell wrote:It awful from the prospective that people are taking and emotional stance instead of a medical one, which means that are failing to put the child's welfare first. Mitochondrial disease is way beyond any current treatment. I have a friend who's son died from it. Keeping him alive has been cruel.

Of course – that’s the logical and impassionate conclusion and I generally agree, but is it true that the parents don’t believe that they’re putting the welfare of their child first?

From a parent’s perspective, these decisions are often driven by a hugely powerful protective instinct; many would seek out any glimmer of hope no matter how remote.

Sometimes the “state” takes a hard-line non-negotiable position which further fuels the feeling of injustice and cost driven decisions. A fairly recent example is Ashya King whose parents ended up “kidnaping” their own child for treatment in Prague – and were subsequently arrested. Reports indicate the young boy is in remission following treatment not available in the UK at the time.

I’m not sure where the balance lies in these cases – I agree that the welfare of the patient must come first but I feel the state is sometimes guilty of overstepping its authority and becomes belligerent in its use of that power.
Voldemort
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:28 am

Re: The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby dls » Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:00 pm

It is not 'the state' as such - read the case - the judge discusses this.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12136
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:24 am

“Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”

In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.

But here’s the really wicked thing about all this. The parents were reinforced in their refusal to accept this tragic situation, and the whole court process pointlessly prolonged, because of the pressure largely emanating from activists and media on the American political right (along with right-to-life campaigners) screaming that a baby was about to be killed by a socialised health care “death panel” enforced by the British government. This campaign led the parents to believe that such pressure could change the court’s mind. And so the parents were reinforced in their refusal to face reality.


http://www.melaniephillips.com/cruel-ignorant-campaign/
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9925
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby Russell » Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:29 am

Great article I considered adding it here as well.
If you can't talk about the problem, how are you ever going to even start talking about the solution?
Russell
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:47 pm

Re: The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby Russell » Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:31 am

Voldemort wrote:
Russell wrote:It awful from the prospective that people are taking and emotional stance instead of a medical one, which means that are failing to put the child's welfare first. Mitochondrial disease is way beyond any current treatment. I have a friend who's son died from it. Keeping him alive has been cruel.

Of course – that’s the logical and impassionate conclusion and I generally agree, but is it true that the parents don’t believe that they’re putting the welfare of their child first?

From a parent’s perspective, these decisions are often driven by a hugely powerful protective instinct; many would seek out any glimmer of hope no matter how remote.

Sometimes the “state” takes a hard-line non-negotiable position which further fuels the feeling of injustice and cost driven decisions. A fairly recent example is Ashya King whose parents ended up “kidnaping” their own child for treatment in Prague – and were subsequently arrested. Reports indicate the young boy is in remission following treatment not available in the UK at the time.

I’m not sure where the balance lies in these cases – I agree that the welfare of the patient must come first but I feel the state is sometimes guilty of overstepping its authority and becomes belligerent in its use of that power.


Indeed its very important to consider (that like everything) these things can go wrong.
If you can't talk about the problem, how are you ever going to even start talking about the solution?
Russell
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:47 pm

Re: The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby diy » Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:43 am

I have mixed views about this. On the one hand, I don't believe the state should intervene where the parants have the funds and desire to try alternative therapies, even if they aren't likely to be of benefit. Medical science is far from black and white, there are plenty of examples of pioneering work being far worse for the early patients.

On the other, I wonder how many other children could have been helped with the money spent on the case.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: The awful situation of Charlie Gard

Postby atticus » Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:41 am

At the centre of this is the question of what us in the best interests of the child.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19542
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Next

Return to Other Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest