Charlie Gard

[welshbairn]

10 hours ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

So, I mostly ignored this story beyond clicking on two different stories. Obviously it was all over the news here. I read your article. It was nonsense.

First this:

Uh, so what would happen if the parents hired people to come into the hospital and remove their child? The police would come and enforce the hospital (the state in the UK) decision that was backed up by the courts. That's the state.

I then went and read some of the American articles she referenced. They seem to be objecting to the basic relationship between the British state and British citizens that exists under the NHS. It was baffling over here how a hospital could order parents not to seek alternative treatment that was available. My personal opinion after reading all these articles is that the parents were horribly in the wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to argue that in the absence of a legal will it's best to put the next of kin in charge of medical decisions rather than the state.

What if the parent is in a religion that says medical intervention should be withheld in any circumstances? Or if a parent reads on the internet that a cheese grater can cure terminal cancer?

[Tony Ferrino]

5 hours ago, welshbairn said:

What if the parent is in a religion that says medical intervention should be withheld in any circumstances? Or if a parent reads on the internet that a cheese grater can cure terminal cancer?

A cheese grater?

[sjc]

5 hours ago, Hillonearth said:

The parents did come across like a couple of bampots sometimes, but I reckon it was mostly down to their profound denial of the reality of the situation, which wasn't helped by "expert" opinion that seemed to have little idea of what was the real state of affairs coupled with right-to-life cheerleading from the other side of the Atlantic.

The courts and especially the hospital came out of it with great dignity considering some of the shite they've clearly had to deal with under incredibly trying circumstances.

As usual, the ones that came out of it looking worst were the hard-of-thinking "Charlie's Army" types on social media - that c**t Zuckerberg's got a lot to answer for.

In situations like theirs you do need to live in a state of denial as a coping mechanism otherwise you wouldn't sleep at night. So understandable to an extent. 

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Tony Ferrino said:

A cheese grater?

Never doubt the power of a cheese grater. 

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

8 hours ago, welshbairn said:

What if the parent is in a religion that says medical intervention should be withheld in any circumstances? Or if a parent reads on the internet that a cheese grater can cure terminal cancer?

Right, every proper country has a mechanism to remove a child from the custody of the parents. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but the way I understand the law is that there are different standards for different types of cases. I'd assume terminating parental rights requires that highest standards and the benefit of doubt is with the parents. So, it's not the job of the government to differentiate between two legitimate medical options. In this case it seems like the state was arguing for termination of life based on some combination of the likelihood of success with the treatment in America and the likelihood that the child was in pain. It's not really comparable to the situations you mentioned. Whether the treatment was likely to be successful shouldn't matter one way or the other. The pain issue seems like it was up in the air, and then there's huge moral questions about whether we should inflict pain in order to extend life. Again, should it be the states or the next of kins responsibility to set that standard in individual cases.

 

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

I attempted to look up US law regarding these end of life decisions. Best I can tell as long as there is brain function it's illegal to pull the plug without the consent of the next of kin or some designated legal guardian. I'd assume that 99.9% of people would just trust the doctors in these decisions and not want to take up valuable health resources in hopeless cases.

[sjc]

10 minutes ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

Right, every proper country has a mechanism to remove a child from the custody of the parents. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but the way I understand the law is that there are different standards for different types of cases. I'd assume terminating parental rights requires that highest standards and the benefit of doubt is with the parents. So, it's not the job of the government to differentiate between two legitimate medical options. In this case it seems like the state was arguing for termination of life based on some combination of the likelihood of success with the treatment in America and the likelihood that the child was in pain. It's not really comparable to the situations you mentioned. Whether the treatment was likely to be successful shouldn't matter one way or the other. The pain issue seems like it was up in the air, and then there's huge moral questions about whether we should inflict pain in order to extend life. Again, should it be the states or the next of kins responsibility to set that standard in individual cases.

 

There has been numerous cases where adults have refused treatment for cancer in preference to herbal/natural remedies or Chinese traditional "medicines" without the State getting involved.

The reason in cases like Charlie Gard that the State gets involved is because the subject in question is a child. Remember the uproar when Social Services didn't remove Baby P into care from abusive parents? It would be the same if the individual was of unsound mind (think sectioning under the mental health act). 

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

Of course individuals can do as they please. The question here is who makes the choices for individuals who can't make a decision. Taking a kid to a hospital in the US on their own dime for experimental treatment after all avenues in the UK have been explored is not equivalent to child abuse. It's the state making a decision that many would argue should be made by the people most in a position to look out for the best interests of the disabled individual.

[sjc]

1 hour ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

Of course individuals can do as they please. The question here is who makes the choices for individuals who can't make a decision. Taking a kid to a hospital in the US on their own dime for experimental treatment after all avenues in the UK have been explored is not equivalent to child abuse. It's the state making a decision that many would argue should be made by the people most in a position to look out for the best interests of the disabled individual.

I agree but I ment the principal of child welfare.  

Surely the BMA should be consulted regarding the proposed treatment the individual would be leaving the Country for? Point in case: the treatment in this case has never been trialed on any human to date.

Also, the law can't be written in specific terms so needs to be heard and discussed whether the proposed treatment is state of the art in the USA or its a witch doctor in Africa.

[The DA]

On 7/30/2017 at 20:54, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

It's the fact that they Google it right in front of you that boils my piss.

Then they type 'boiling piss' into fucking Google!

If anyone's heading into the GPs next week, let us know and we'll see if we can fix wiki for you just before you go in.  Maybe suggest that treatment for depression, irritability and sleeplessness consists of a few bottles of single malt, some good drugs and a couple of hookers.  All on prescription, of course.

[The DA]

2 hours ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

I attempted to look up US law regarding these end of life decisions. Best I can tell as long as there is brain function it's illegal to pull the plug without the consent of the next of kin or some designated legal guardian. I'd assume that 99.9% of people would just trust the doctors in these decisions and not want to take up valuable health resources in hopeless cases.

I think the US health insurance companies may have had some input to that legislation.

[WILLIEA]

2 hours ago, sjc said:

 

Also, the law can't be written in specific terms so needs to be heard and discussed whether the proposed treatment is state of the art in the USA or its a witch doctor in Africa.

Or ! As in this case a money grabbing self serving witch doctor from the USA ?

[Hillonearth]

2 hours ago, sjc said:

I agree but I ment the principal of child welfare.  

Surely the BMA should be consulted regarding the proposed treatment the individual would be leaving the Country for? Point in case: the treatment in this case has never been trialed on any human to date.

Also, the law can't be written in specific terms so needs to be heard and discussed whether the proposed treatment is state of the art in the USA or its a witch doctor in Africa.

I think there was a question of degrees there - was it worth (not in financial terms, but logistically and in terms of patient welfare) sending a child who was so profoundly brain-damaged and unresponsive they weren't even sure what degree of pain he was in anymore across the Atlantic for some spurious never-been-tried-on humans treatment from some Dr Nick Riveira character that was only offering a chance of a possible 10% increase of improvement?

All that intervention meant was it held out more false hope to the parents, who only naturally seized on it..

[peasy23]

What if the parent is in a religion that says medical intervention should be withheld in any circumstances? Or if a parent reads on the internet that a cheese grater can cure terminal cancer?

Was just thinking of this case the other day, there was another case where a mother and her unborn child died as she refused to accept a blood transfusion as she was a Jehovah's witness too. It's never pretty, but sometimes legal action is the only way forward.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/08/judge-rules-jehovahs-witness-boy-blood-transfusion

[sjc]

5 hours ago, Hillonearth said:

I think there was a question of degrees there - was it worth (not in financial terms, but logistically and in terms of patient welfare) sending a child who was so profoundly brain-damaged and unresponsive they weren't even sure what degree of pain he was in anymore across the Atlantic for some spurious never-been-tried-on humans treatment from some Dr Nick Riveira character that was only offering a chance of a possible 10% increase of improvement?

All that intervention meant was it held out more false hope to the parents, who only naturally seized on it..

Given the % the parents were sealing with and that's what it comes down to with cancer, I think they're entitled to take a chance. Which kind of justifies the court case.....

[welshbairn]

7 hours ago, Hillonearth said:

I think there was a question of degrees there - was it worth (not in financial terms, but logistically and in terms of patient welfare) sending a child who was so profoundly brain-damaged and unresponsive they weren't even sure what degree of pain he was in anymore across the Atlantic for some spurious never-been-tried-on humans treatment from some Dr Nick Riveira character that was only offering a chance of a possible 10% increase of improvement?

All that intervention meant was it held out more false hope to the parents, who only naturally seized on it..

And who couldn't even be bothered to look at the case notes and MRI scans, which he had to admit to in court. I can understand that to advance medical science you need human guinea pigs, but that was fucking inexcusable.

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 02:25, The DA said:

I think the US health insurance companies may have had some input to that legislation.

I can't imagine health insurance companies would want to incur the expense of keeping a barely alive person going for months on end. I'm not sure how the payment is worked out in situations where a family member refuses to pull the plug.

[The DA]

2 minutes ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

I can't imagine health insurance companies would want to incur the expense of keeping a barely alive person going for months on end. I'm not sure how the payment is worked out in situations where a family member refuses to pull the plug.

It does allow them to set high premiums though.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

3 hours ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

I can't imagine health insurance companies would want to incur the expense of keeping a barely alive person going for months on end. I'm not sure how the payment is worked out in situations where a family member refuses to pull the plug.

It can't be that expensive, they just lie there and don't eat, hostal rates at best.

[chomp my root]

On 05/08/2017 at 18:04, welshbairn said:

And who couldn't even be bothered to look at the case notes and MRI scans, which he had to admit to in court. I can understand that to advance medical science you need human guinea pigs, but that was fucking inexcusable.

I think this is why the State (or the Law or a Quango or whatever) need to make the call. In this case the parents (being generous here) were desperate to help their kid and were willing to latch onto pretty much anything. Doctor Riviera decides to up his own profile by tossing in some 'fag packet numbers' and the parents latch on to it rather than what every other doctor (who has actually been involved with the child) say because it doesn't suit them. Its not like taking your car to a couple of different quotes to get the cheapest one, all the experts were in agreement apart from some random, the parents had lost whatever grip of reality they started with and put their own grief before the welfare of the child.

While its of a secondary concern, this whole thing has cost the NHS a fortune justifying what every doctor who was familiar with the case was telling them. I would guess whoever was giving the family legal advice probably did quite well out of it even if nobody else did, even if it was just raising their profile.