Start Here or Call 844-222-0104 to Urge Your Senator to Say No to the Graham-Cassidy Health Care Bill

Reply
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
Posts: 795
Registered: ‎12-31-2016

Re: Charlie Gard

Message 1 of 6 (155 Views)

Richva wrote:

My heart certainly goes out to the parents but the decision was made because it was considered to be in the best interests of the child.  Sometimes, death is not the worst option available. 


I agree in this case, it's likely what is best for the child.  Very very sad.   I'm just wondering about the balancing act we play among doctors, courts, and parents regarding making health care decisions for children in general.  Or for incapacitated adults.    The problem is when different people have different ideas about what actually "is" best for the patient.   

 

And even the government (beyond courts) gets involved sometimes.   I just cannot imagine the pain that Terri Schiavo's husband endured, for example, trying to make the decision he thought best for his wife, and everyone from Governor Jeb Bush to President George Bush tried to intervene.   

 

 

 

Trusted Social Butterfly
Posts: 9,159
Registered: ‎09-03-2008

Re: Charlie Gard

Message 2 of 6 (164 Views)

PC wrote-NM--This is such a sad story.  I'm confused as to why this family can't come to the US too, especially since trump tweeted that the US would be happy to help these parents. So sad, any way one looks at it. Poor little baby.  Poor mourning parents.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We have a real President. Trump has said he like to do everything he can to save this baby. Another example of the Lefties trying to put a negative spin on everything Trump does. Another failed attempt however.
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,131
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Charlie Gard

Message 3 of 6 (190 Views)

My heart certainly goes out to the parents but the decision was made because it was considered to be in the best interests of the child.  Sometimes, death is not the worst option available. 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 4,343
Registered: ‎01-24-2014

Re: Charlie Gard

Message 4 of 6 (201 Views)

NM--This is such a sad story.  I'm confused as to why this family can't come to the US too, especially since trump tweeted that the US would be happy to help these parents. So sad, any way one looks at it. Poor little baby.  Poor mourning parents.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Regular Social Butterfly
Posts: 795
Registered: ‎12-31-2016

Re: Charlie Gard

Message 5 of 6 (205 Views)

We have the other side here in the US, don't we?   Some people refuse to treat their children for things like cancer, and the courts intervene and force treatment. People who refuse blood transfusions for religious purposes, etc.   And we rule against them, despite the Constitutional protections of freedom of religion.  

 

I don't generally think medical professionals should be forced to provide treatments they feel will be harmful.  I don't understand why the family was denied travel to the US, though.   ???

 

 

 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,453
Registered: ‎08-18-2008

Charlie Gard

[ Edited ]
Message 6 of 6 (217 Views)

This is not so much a political post as it is a current event and one that is really tugging at my heart strings.  I have my opinion about life, end of life and human suffering (my own interpretation) in this regards, but also understand the desire to hang onto someone that you love even for a little while or to considered experimental treatment that might extend life for awhile.

 

For those of you who don't know about Charlie Gard -

Charlie Gard is a 11-month-old English boy with a rare genetic condition known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, which is said to only affect 16 children in the world.

 

He is at the center of an international debate about who has the right to turn off a patient’s life support system. Charlie’s care team at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London applied for permission to remove him from life support, arguing that he should not be forced to suffer any further since he is sure to die from the disease. Both the British High Court and the European Court of Human Rights supported the request, arguing it would be cruel and inhumane to force Charlie to suffer through further treatments that will not help him. Charlie’s parents want him to stay on life support so they can try an experimental treatment.

 

What do you think of the idea that a legal body can decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a patient?  This seems to be a medical ethics question - and does seem to point to differences in our American system and those in the English system.

 

This link will give you more details about those differences -

STAT - 07/13/2017 - Why Charlie Gard’s case is so disturbing to Americans

 

There is even more to this story from what I understand - just do a search with his name.

There is even a recent news report that an American doctor will be evaluating Charlie next week.  The doctor is going there because the Family Division of Britain’s High Court in London denied the parent’s request to travel to the U.S. for experimental medical treatment. 

 

So should courts have a say in this matter or should it be left up to the patient or if that is not possible their family or other available surrogates, as is the case in many states in the U.S.