Yeah, this way to the Gulag, The Terror, the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge....
Should the State have a final say of the best interest in the child if the parents have not been found to be unfit?
Now, with all due respect, I could hope to wring more compassion out of an insurance company executive than this sentence demonstrates. This is the cold, utilitarian thinking leftists accuse corporations of employing.
Yeah, this way to the Gulag, The Terror, the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge....
rickyp wrote:FateNow, with all due respect, I could hope to wring more compassion out of an insurance company executive than this sentence demonstrates. This is the cold, utilitarian thinking leftists accuse corporations of employing.
There doesn't seem to be much compassion for the child demonstrated in this conversation.
For most posters all seems to be about the grief of the parents only.
The courts and the medical authorities in UK only considered the child's welfare in their decision, well recognizing the parents grief.
I brought in the ethical challenge of end of life decisions and medical costs because it hadn't been raised. And it should be a valid concern. When profit is a motivation in medical treatment .... medical authorities don't always have the best interests of the patient in mind. And they have a particularly vulnerable target with loving parents.
Why not just offer to shoot the kid?
I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.
'"It seemed, at the outset of this hearing, that there might have been a lone voice in the USA that was offering what has been described in some reports as "pioneering treatment". Understandably, Charlie's parents have grasped that possibility, they have done all that they could possibly have done, they have very publicly raised funds. What parents would not do the same? But I have to say, having heard the evidence, that this case has never been about affordability, but about whether there is anything to be done for Charlie. At one stage GOSH got as far as deciding to apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy, a treatment that has never been used on patients with this form of MDDS. But by the time that decision had been made, Charlie's condition had greatly worsened and the view of all here was that his epileptic encephalopathy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible, that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him.
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:
'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely....
There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it.
Now, you want to trod over the parents' rights because it will be better for society.
freeman3 wrote:Sorry, taking the child to the US to get medical treatment is not something that is significantly harmful to the child so as to justify state intervention. Period. The child is getting treatment now. A plane ride is worth the State overriding parental rights? Ridiculous. "Sorry, Mr and Mrs Smith you cannot take your terminally ill child to die at home with her family because she will die quicker and suffer less pain in the hospital." Where does your type of analysis end, Ricky? Answer: it doesn't.
.Sorry, taking the child to the US to get medical treatment is not something that is significantly harmful to the child so as to justify state intervention. Period. The child is getting treatment now. A plane ride is worth the State overriding parental rights? Ridiculous. "Sorry, Mr and Mrs Smith you cannot take your terminally ill child to die at home with her family because she will die quicker and suffer less pain in the hospital." Where does your type of analysis end, Ricky? Answer: it doesn't
."It seemed, at the outset of this hearing, that there might have been a lone voice in the USA that was offering what has been described in some reports as "pioneering treatment". Understandably, Charlie's parents have grasped that possibility, they have done all that they could possibly have done, they have very publicly raised funds. What parents would not do the same? But I have to say, having heard the evidence, that this case has never been about affordability, but about whether there is anything to be done for Charlie. At one stage GOSH got as far as deciding to apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy, a treatment that has never been used on patients with this form of MDDS. But by the time that decision had been made, Charlie's condition had greatly worsened and the view of all here was that his epileptic encephalopathy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible, that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him.I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him
freeman3 wrote:Ricky...it's not necessarily that the judge got it wrong...it's that it is not his decision to make.
freeman3 wrote:Ricky...it's not necessarily that the judge got it wrong...it's that it is not his decision to make.