Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 24 Jul 2017, 7:04 am

Ah. The parents have ended their legal action so it seems the court will not rule. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ?CMP=fb_gu
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20738
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Jul 2017, 10:25 am

danivon wrote:Well, it is back in the courts again today to look at new evidence. I think that is right - if there is new medical evidence, and the doctor from the States can show a better chance of some improvement, then the decision should be reconsidered.


Apparently, Charlie's parents are giving up. I understand.

What I am dubious of is the State dragging it out to the point where the decision is made for them.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6647
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Jul 2017, 10:37 am

Better late than never... (Well, not in this case)

Apparently not in this case. It is sad that the government has usurped the parental authority without the parents being declared unfit. It is understandable if the parents were declared unfit, but this is just the government making a choice against the parental authority.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Jul 2017, 2:26 pm

One thing that astounded me. All this time, and the expert doctor didn't actually examine Charlie, or look through his case fully until a couple of weeks ago

So how could anyone have come up with the "10%" chance his parents and others were talking about?

The courts tried to act in the interests of the child. Not the "state", or the parents, or any of the doctors. It is a very hard case, with a lot of emotion, and more than a little misinformation.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20738
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Jul 2017, 3:23 pm

danivon wrote:One thing that astounded me. All this time, and the expert doctor didn't actually examine Charlie, or look through his case fully until a couple of weeks ago

So how could anyone have come up with the "10%" chance his parents and others were talking about?

The courts tried to act in the interests of the child. Not the "state", or the parents, or any of the doctors. It is a very hard case, with a lot of emotion, and more than a little misinformation.


The courts acted independently, or because someone asked them to?

I fundamentally disagree, of course. What happened is the parents were prevented for months from taking action. By the time they were able to do something, it was too late. We will never know if anything would have helped Charlie, but the courts/NHS/State or whomever usurped parental authority.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Jul 2017, 11:23 am

fate
The courts acted independently, or because someone asked them to?


The child's primary physicians asked the courts to intercede.
They were the people who understood from all of the evidence that the baby's condition was irreversible and they also knew when his brain was inactive.
The American doctors that became involved were more than willing to provide an opinion from across the seas, based upon a handful of medical files, without personally examining the patient. Perhaps because the profit motive was strong.Perhaps because having a human subject to exercise tests of experimental treatments was a welcome opportunity.
Even then , they didn't offer a prognosis that brain activity could be regenerated... or that genuine recovery was realistic.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6647
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Jul 2017, 12:34 pm

What right did ANYONE (DR., Government, Priest, Neighbor, Hospital Administrator, etc.) to supersede the parents' wishes regarding the healthcare of THEIR child without a court declaring them unfit as parents?

I must say that I don't give a rip about a Dr's opinion on a patient. If the decision-making authority says they do not agree that a course of action be taken medically, then it should be that authority's decision that is followed. Perhaps the law is different in the UK with the healthcare system as it is there, but the Dr should not have had decision-making authority.

Where were the parent's fitness as decision-making authority revoked that would allow such decision by the court? There is no judgement declaring the parents unfit. Therefore, Dr. and courts overstepped their bounds.

RickyP, show me where they were declared unfit as parents. Please show me. It is not there.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2858
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jul 2017, 12:55 pm

We have beaten this horse dead...about 20 times.

But Ricky you just say things that you just can't know. You don't know what the primary doctors were thinking...you don't know what the understood or not. You're taking your opinion, putting it into the doctors' mouths, and then shielding it from attack by saying their knowledge was infallible because they were treating the patient. Yes, they have the advantage because they are treating the patient. Point conceded. But it's not everything. Your ascribing petty motives to the American doctor is at best speculative.

I am not sure what the timeline is on when the doctor knew what...but experts giving opinions in civil litigation on the prognosis of patients based solely on medical records is done (though experts do prefer an exsmination). I think an expert can tell a lot from scans of the brain and medical records indicating the patient's condition. He would have to rely on the records for opinions...but opinions could be given on the patient's condition as indicated on medical records and any scans of the brain. If he does do an exam he could give an independent assessment of the patient's conditon, but the lack of an exam does not foreclose opinions that are based on reliance solely on the records.

My main interest in this case is how we delineate the dividing line between the authority that the parents have over a child's medical care vis-a-vis the State. I don't think that initial question was reached in this case. The question is not, what does the State decide is best for the child. The question should be where is the line at which a parent loses control over a child's medical care decisions and was that line reached in this particular case. It's utilitarianism run amok when the State weighs this decision in a utilitarian way. Rights are a lot more deontological than utilitarian--you maintain those rights even when a reasonable person would disagree on how you express those rights. I have a problem with the way in which the decision was reached, because the case was looked at in too much of a utilitarian way.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 28 Jul 2017, 4:41 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:One thing that astounded me. All this time, and the expert doctor didn't actually examine Charlie, or look through his case fully until a couple of weeks ago

So how could anyone have come up with the "10%" chance his parents and others were talking about?

The courts tried to act in the interests of the child. Not the "state", or the parents, or any of the doctors. It is a very hard case, with a lot of emotion, and more than a little misinformation.


The courts acted independently, or because someone asked them to?

I fundamentally disagree, of course. What happened is the parents were prevented for months from taking action. By the time they were able to do something, it was too late. We will never know if anything would have helped Charlie, but the courts/NHS/State or whomever usurped parental authority.
well, first of all, the Doctor pioneering this treatment was invited over (by GOSH and the parents) back in January. And he didn't come. Only this month when he saw the brain scans and other details did he say there was no chance.

That is not the fault of GOSH or the courts. Or indeed his parent. If he had come over 6 months ago, he could have provided evidence and some clarity.

But the major seizures that the baby suffered and after which his brain was severely damaged were back in December. The advice of medical experts was that that was the point of no return, and it came before the court action.

And a court is independent. We don't have politically elected judges here. Just like any other court case, it will be brought by one side or the other, who brings the action does not mean much. Just as in any other court system. Are your criminal courts lacking independence because all of their cases are based on the prosecuting DA asking them to convict a suspect? Of course not.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 28 Jul 2017, 4:51 pm

Freeman. I have no problem with it being looked at as it was - what was the best interest of the child, to be kept alive longer, in pain with severe disabilities and an inevitable death, or not? And the treatment being offered was not some magic bullet.

A lot of this was the parents not wanting to let go. I imagine there is also a lot of guilt, given his condition was hereditary, which clouds things. The parents were claiming things that just were not true, about his condition and his health. Not malicious at all, but wishful thinking.

But I also think they have been used. Used by a doctor who was offering a treatment (that he has a financial interest in) which is unproven even in non human subjects with Charlie Gard's specific condition. And he did not look at all of the case, let alone examine the child, until July. So how on earth could he have made any claims - or anyone else have made them - on a prognosis?

And used by people with an agenda here, and in the US. There has been some nasty stuff going on, and seems one of the main "spokesmen" for the family in the media had no authority to speak for them. Then came the Trump and Congress nonsense, and trying to blame it on "single payer", which was clearly more about the US healthcare debate than about trying to save a boy's life.

The whole episode is depressing. Not least because the lad has now passed away, as was always going to be the case, but all the heat and anger will tarnish his memory.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Jul 2017, 2:00 pm

Freeman3
But Ricky you just say things that you just can't know. You don't know what the primary doctors were thinking...you don't know what the understood or not

In their submissions to court they clearly stated their position.

freeman3
You're taking your opinion, putting it into the doctors' mouths, and then shielding it from attack by saying their knowledge was infallible because they were treating the patient. Yes, they have the advantage because they are treating the patient. Point conceded. But it's not everything. Your ascribing petty motives to the American doctor is at best speculative.

First, its not my opinion. Its the statements made in the legal submission by his primary care physicians. My opinion is that they are best qualified to adjudged their patients condition and are sworn to act in their patients best interests. Even when their parents weren't.
Second, , the Doctor pioneering this treatment was invited over (by GOSH and the parents) back in January. And he didn't come. Why not?
He wasn't offering his services for free..... And he wasn't willing to come over in January to make an evaluation in person at his expense.
So its pretty obvious the profit motive was in play.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20738
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jul 2017, 5:31 pm

rickyp wrote:Freeman3
But Ricky you just say things that you just can't know. You don't know what the primary doctors were thinking...you don't know what the understood or not

In their submissions to court they clearly stated their position.

freeman3
You're taking your opinion, putting it into the doctors' mouths, and then shielding it from attack by saying their knowledge was infallible because they were treating the patient. Yes, they have the advantage because they are treating the patient. Point conceded. But it's not everything. Your ascribing petty motives to the American doctor is at best speculative.

First, its not my opinion. Its the statements made in the legal submission by his primary care physicians. My opinion is that they are best qualified to adjudged their patients condition and are sworn to act in their patients best interests. Even when their parents weren't.
Second, , the Doctor pioneering this treatment was invited over (by GOSH and the parents) back in January. And he didn't come. Why not?
He wasn't offering his services for free..... And he wasn't willing to come over in January to make an evaluation in person at his expense.
So its pretty obvious the profit motive was in play.


So what? They had the money.

If your life is on the line, do you want the best, or the government-supplied adequate doctor?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 31 Jul 2017, 11:50 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
If your life is on the line, do you want the best, or the government-supplied adequate doctor?

GOSH has a worldwide reputation. they are far from being just "adequate". If the US doctor is the "best", why could he not be bothered to study the case or examine his potential patient?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6647
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 31 Jul 2017, 12:36 pm

Who cares what doctor is the best or just adequate? With the parents not being declared unfit, what gave the doctors the right to supersede the parental authority in the court's eyes?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20738
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Jul 2017, 2:01 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
If your life is on the line, do you want the best, or the government-supplied adequate doctor?

GOSH has a worldwide reputation. they are far from being just "adequate". If the US doctor is the "best", why could he not be bothered to study the case or examine his potential patient?


Why is the government (court, NHS, GOSH, whomever) taking the side that death is the best course? As the parents had raised the money, the only thing the government should have done was expedite the process. Period.

"Best interests" and "death" cannot be a government-sponsored decision unless the death penalty is the issue.