bbauska wrote: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?
I have already said this several times.
The interests of the child. In pain. Not going to recover. died within hours of removing invasive support.
Well the government is not a monolith. Americans who live in a system with several levels of government should know this. GOSH is part of the NHS, but the courts are not linked at all to it.Doctor Fate wrote:Why is the government (court, NHS, GOSH, whomever) taking the side that death is the best course?
And the court decision is not that death is the "best course". More that death was inevitable and the longer it was held off, the more pain and suffering the boy would be in. That is not a comforting assertion, and I totally understand the parents not wanting to believe it. But no evidence has been presented to show that his life would have been improved, even if the underlying mitochondrial condition had been cured. His brain was damaged beyond repair.
As they had raised the money, the only thing Dr Hirano should have done was review the full notes, and come over in January to examine the child and so produce evidence on the prognosis using his treatment, which the doctors and/or the courts could have taken into account. And either he could have confirmed what he did in the last couple of weeks, that there was no hope, or he could have confirmed what the parents want to believe, that there was a chance. But he didn't.As the parents had raised the money, the only thing the government should have done was expedite the process. Period.