Meanwhile, in the UK...

http://www.lifenews.com/2017/06/08/...ts-and-yank-their-disabled-sons-life-support/

So, I'm curious what our UK (and other European nations) forum members think of this ^. (It happened/is happening in the UK).

 

Quality source as always.

 

there is bias in both this article and the article it links to. Furthermore I disagree with their assesment that "the parents are the true experts"
if anything the parents will be biased for obvious reasons.

we are talking about a baby with failing mitochondria (the powerhouse of the cell) in his brains and muscles that is already on life support had it been a different or milder case he might have lives to the ripe old age of 20, most die well before then.
Taking a mentally ret@rded vegetable baby on plane rides to force a treatment down his throath is not going to fix it, he will still be pretty much a vegetable.

 

Things like this are always complicated.

See, there are at least three sides to consider.

1. The well-being of Charlie.
2. The well-being of the parents.
3. Preventing companies to exploit Charlie and the parents.

One and three are discussed everywhere; so let's focus on 3. I have only read very few articles on this topic, so I'm not an expert and don't know if this is the case for the current ruling.
But the sad truth is that there are many companies and even private clinics that exploit the hopes of those who are about to die (or their loved ones). This is usually something you hear about in cancer therapy, where private clinics offer experimental therapies and even offer sentiments of successful cancer therapies. There has been one case recently (but I'm too lazy to look it up, sorry), where there were testimonials of healed patients who had actually died years ago. The clinic had to remove those and called them honest errors.

Again: I do not know if this is such a case. But there are people ruthless enough to exploit the parents hopes by offering a small, but nonzero chance to heal their baby.
Sure, if deciding between certain death and any non-infenitesimal* chance to save your baby, you would always choose the small chance. I believe any parent would; I certainly would choose the small chance for any of my loved ones. This is why it is so easy to offer a straw of hope, even there is none. They would pay any amount of money for the false hope that's offered.

That's why it's actually a good thing to have a doctors and a court protecting little Charlie -- and his parents -- from being exploited this way.
Even if it's the cruellest thing to do; which actually makes this even more heroic**.

Long story short: The evil people in this story are not the doctors or the court ... but the clinics and companies that exploit love and hope by offering "experimental treatment" that's no treatment at all.







* - non-standard analysis is my friend, that's why the superfluous addendum
** - obviously I am assuming right now that this is such an exploitive case; if there is reason to believe that it's not, please let me know; I would definiately be in favor of giving the therapy a try if it's legitimate

 

Thanks for the responses, ipox giving the best imo.

It was one of the first articles that popped up in a search related to it, not detailed enough to give a full view but giving names and such to continue actual research.

The "who are the experts" debate is still raging on. There are plenty of strong cases for each side of the debate, some showing the parents making better decisions than trained professionals, and some showing that there are really stupid parents.
I am always of the opinion that if there is any chance of saving a life, it should be taken.
Quality of life shouldn't even be a factor imo, "being alive" vs. "being dead", I'll take option one please. And yes, I have experienced the desire for option two (suicidal depression will do that to you).

This almost covers it, it should read "Preventing organizations from exploiting Charlie and the parents."
The reason being that, it isn't always the companies, and can often be government. Though, typically the government does such things at the behest of companies.

Though, I don't know the nationality of ipox. If I remember, Geressen is actually from Europe (German? UK? I don't remember...). Sokolov clear is Asian American.
But yeah, I was really looking more for UK forum member responses. Interesting opinions and things to say from everyone, but I'm more interested in the awareness and opinions on a UK issue from UK citizens.

 

we are talking about a vegetable. a similar milder case would have an expected lifespan of 20 years AT BEST.

I am Dutch btw,

 

the most frequent posting brits in OT are badger and comi, i think. i'm forgetting a couple others i'm sure, but those are them, mostly

 

what are your thoughts on this?

 

State killing babies. That's definitely a new one. When I was done, those decision makers would be able to tell Charlie themselves why they did it in whatever afterlife they believe in.

 

state preventing millions of dollars going to someone selling hope and treatent that wouldn't make charlie any less of a doomed vegetable*

get it right you dummy.

 

astamir is in the UK I think.

 

he's a cana-dan

 

sigh. we need more wall.

 

Why do you hate wildlife so much?

walls don't stop humans, you hate moose?

 

My typical thought on people claiming to be divinely inspired to murder someone (almost always over something political too...) is that they're either nuts, or lying.
My understanding of the Bible is that we're supposed to NOT murder.
But that's really just an aside.

Not too many UKers replying. Oh well.

I think he's speaking more generally. And "experimental" treatment isn't as bad as seem to indicate it is. There are plenty of horror stories about it, sure, but I've found that the benefits have far outweighed the risks. That's how we develop new medicine and medical procedures. It also has the purpose of saving lives, rather than ending them, which is good.
In regards to Charlie being a vegetable, while it is extremely rare, there are cases of people being brought back from that. They're almost always older than Charlie, but it's something. Especially if the parents themselves want the treatment, if the kid is a vegetable, any guilt of prolonging his vegetable-ness will be on them, so what's the harm?

 

okay human case study testing, I'm convinced.

source on this?

 

great lies, great loses

that picture was doped

 

Um... The whole point of developing new medicine and medical procedures is to help people that couldn't previously be helped? I suppose "saving lives" is a bit strong, though that is often the case.

I don't recognize these people, and there's no other major identifiers for me to look it up.

 

pretty sure the guy with the straw for hair is one of the brexiteers, but i didn't follow that closely