I'm sure the outcome would have been the same for say, Theresa May's grandchild...
Yeah.

He is not wrong. They stopped treating him so they could let him die. These doctors took the decision upon themselves and refused to let the parents follow another doctor's suggestion, and the government took the parents out of the loop as soon as they disagreed.

Would not an appeal to the Queen to allow Charlie out of the hospital and at least try this experimental treatment in the U.S. a possibility?  After all this isn't about the Queen interfering in politics, it is about her protecting the well-being of all UK citizens. 

These people, if they believe in freedom, need to come to America and join the fight. They jave experienced socialism. If they did not find it to their liking, then they meed to come to America and speak out about how great their experience was with gov healthcare.


How is thia any different then the nazi euthanization of the  disabled  in germany? Gov doesn't want to a pay for a severely disabled persons care so they let them die?

It would be a very, very bad thing for socialized medicine for little Charlie to come here and get better.  The kind of bad that disrupts governments and such.

You're lying; that's exactly what happened.

An anonymous guardian was, in fact, appointed to assume what should have been parental prerogative over the child's welfare.

Someday they'll pull the plug on you too most likely.

No loss.

Guess we'll never know.

But most of us would shoot for the "best case" instead of letting the government say, "nah, fuck it."

Charlie's government appointed lawyer for "his interests" is a euthanasia advocate. We can assume that person's idea of "best interest" might be different than others.

The parents wanted to try a different treatment. There were doctors willing to try it. There was private money available to pay for it. Our own president offered the transportation.

There was one, and only one, roadblock to the treatment, your healthcare system appealing to your legal system so they could take the decision for the childs healthcare away from the parents.

Period, dot, end of story. Post any meme, any insult you want, the truth is the truth.

Absolutely; "the nail that sticks up must be hammered down" to protect The System.

A network of transparent apologists helps protect it  as well.

Theresa May, much like many important European leaders, doesn't have any kids.

We cant treat everybody, everywhere. This is just a publicized example of that very simple fact.

Yup, indeed one 110% fucking percent. This god damn GOP we have now are a bunch of fucking cowards...but at the end of the day it is OUR fault. We never hold these fucking prick mother fuckers accountable and we let stay in office for years and years on end while they bask in their own private health care system, sweet retirement deals, etc.

It is truly our fault.

Yep. Ill add, why should anyone care what the interest of the government was? Its not the government's child, and therefore not their business or their decision to make.

Log out and back in, good sir.

Fantastic and accurate post.

Again you fail.


Someone far cleverer than you said:

'The duty with which I am now charged is to decide, according to well laid down legal principles, what is in Charlie's best interests. Some people may ask why the court has any function in this process, why can the parents not just make the decision for themselves? The answer is that, although the parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is by law vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child's best interests. The Great Ormond Street Hospital has made an application and it is my duty to rule on it, given that the parents and the hospital cannot agree on the best way forward.
The relevant legal principles which guide the exercise of my discretion are well settled. It is important that I stress that I am not applying a subjective test. I am not saying what I would do in a given situation, but I am applying the law.
In Wyatt v. Portsmouth NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal set out what is referred to as the "intellectual milestones" for Judges making a decision of the kind which faces me today. The Court of Appeal said as follows:
"In our judgment, the intellectual milestones for the judge in a case such as the present are, therefore, simple, although the ultimate decision will frequently be extremely difficult. The judge must decide what is in the child's best interests. In making that decision, the welfare of the child is paramount, and the judge must look at the question from the assumed point of view of the child. There is a strong presumption in favour of a course of action which will prolong life, but that presumption is not irrebuttable. The term 'best interests' encompasses medical, emotional, and all other welfare issues."
Charlie's parents have sadly, but bravely, acknowledged and accepted that the quality of life that Charlie has at present is not worth sustaining. He can only breathe through a ventilator and, although they believe that he has a sleep/wake cycle and can recognise them and react to them when they are close, they realise that he cannot go on as he is, lying in bed, unable to move, fed through a tube, breathing through a machine. In my full judgment, I shall set out the full details of his medical condition.
All of Charlie's treating doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital are agreed that Charlie has reached the stage where artificial ventilation should be withdrawn, that he should be given palliative care only and that he should be allowed to die peacefully and with dignity. Charlie has been served by the most experienced and sophisticated team that our excellent hospitals can offer. His case has also been considered by an expert team in Barcelona, which has reached the same conclusion. Charlie's condition is exceptionally rare and I am confident that I have had reports from around the world from those who know it as well as anyone can.
It seemed at the outset of this hearing that there might have been a lone voice in the USA that was offering what had 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, Great Ormond Street Hospital got as far as deciding to apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy here - 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[1] 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 Great Ormond Street Hospital to speak with him which he 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. The doctor in the USA said as follows:
"Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encephalopathy 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."
However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the United States, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not an issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy. Therefore, he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.
Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy with some recorded benefit. In mouse models, the benefit to TK2 patients was put at about 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might cross that barrier.
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.'.

So, what would have happened to the parents if they decided to remove their child from the hospital "Against Medical Advice" and have him flown to the States for a Hail Mary shot at life?  Would the State have stepped in by force to deprive them of a legitimate last ditch effort to save their son?  That's got some fairly serious implications of where society is headed.  

Every opportunity?

Not the one that was paid for through people's charity.

By and large they love their system of government and rally around to support its socialist actions and decisions regarding healthcare as well as other matters.

Bring enough of them over here and you'll lose your right to bear arms because they're "iffy" on that as well.

Bradders however, is welcome to come here.

I am a father who would do anything to preserve the life of my son, so I'm fully on board with the Parent's perspective.

That doesn't mean that I'm exclusively qualified to make medical decisions about his wellbeing.  Nor does it give me an unfettered right to subject my son, who is also a human being in his own right, to the errors of my own judgement, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

Sometimes there is a disagreement between what the medical teams think is best and what the parents think is best.  Under those circumstances it is the courts who have the difficult task of objectively considering each and every element of both arguments and viewing it form the perspective of the patient and what is best for them.

The exact same thing happens in the USA.

In the USA Charlie would have gotten the treatment.  Period.  Money wasn't an object.

And what about the child?  

Who fights the child's corner if they were wrong?

Because what you are describing is Manslaughter, and that makes it a criminal matter where a death has been caused, albeit unintentionally, through the actions of others.

You are wrong and so is he.

The parents were never excluded from the process at any stage, and the treatment was never stopped.  It has still not been stopped and the parents have still had the final say.

Every single medical professional from all sides agreed that the treatment would not work.  Even after addition evidence was brought to light recently it was still deemed to be ineffective.

The parents were allowed to follow another doctor's suggestion and were able to present the evidence accordingly for full consideration.  At no point was the available evidence ignored.

Sickening how people can support governments treating kids like wards of the state and that parents don't have the freedom to make their own medical decisions.

What's the UK's position on abortion?  Can parents still murder their kids over there as long as they are still in the womb?  But they can't make medical decisions for them when they're out of the womb and on life support?  Do I have the logic right?

Maybe they should have used some of their £1.3 million to get a better lawyer then, eh?

I highlighted the portion of the judge's statement in red which proves our point, not yours. It was HIS decision, not the parents. He had, and I qoute "overriding control."

The bottom line is, the parents had a willing doctor to perform a longshot treatment, and your system prevented it when the hospital fought the parents in court and a judge took on the rightful role of the parent.

Right there are the most twisted, bizarre, foolish, and downright Orwellian,  government slop gobbling assertions I've ever read anywhere regarding any topic.

The Queen has oversaw the demise of the UK.  You act like she gives a fuck about the subjects.

Yes it was. It was explored far deeper than anyone in this thread has explored it.

The conclusion, even from the doctor who first suggested it, was that it wouldn't have made a difference, and if anything, subjecting him to the treatment may have been detrimental.

It wasn't an object here either.

Please don't tell me you are that dense.

The UK doctors thought it was best to pull the plug on the kid a long time ago.  Now you're trying to pin Manslaughter on the parents for actually TRYING a treatment?

Holy shitballs.

The doctor in the states had never treated this condition with this treatment, and when pressed acknowledged it had little chance of helping at all. The child would have lived on a ventilator and feeding tube forever. This was not a reversible condition. End of life issues are tough. I've been part of that decision twice with grandparents. Hard to let go.

Sad story all around.

UK govt killed that kid.  Fuck them and fuck socialist medicine.

Exactly what treatments are going to be detrimental to someone  the doctors say has no hope of survival?

You must have misread my post.

You see this comment you made earlier?
Well, the UK government decided that since the parents, as you said, don't have unfettered right to subject their son to their judgement, the GOVERNMENT appointed a lawyer for Charlie to represent him since he can't speak for himself (normally a role, here in the US, that the parents have but no there I guess).

There was a lawyer for the government/NHS, a lawyer for the parents, and a lawyer (again, appointed by the government) to represent what the Government felt Charlie's interests were.

That lawyer, the lawyer representing Charlie independent of the parents, who was a euthanasia advocate. Charlie's parents had no say in the hiring of that lawyer.

Yea, except working with the dr from the US in a timely manner.  When there is a chance, you take it.  So much for that never give up British attitude.  Hopefully you never have to deal with your govt trying to kill a family member of yours like that. 

Did you mean to out yourself as a leftist shill?

obviously not as they decided him dying without trying was the way to go.

I have as well, and no doubt will face the same again.  It is an incredibly tough decision to make and you do want to be sure you have explored every possible opportunity before taking responsibility for that difficult decision.  

Dealing with the palliative care of an elderly relative is however to be somewhat expected.   It become a wholly different and far more emotive subject the dealing with a terminally ill child.  The strength and resilience of those parents is something I deeply respect and hope never to have to experience myself.

Feelings are naturally running very high about this.  It is to be expected.  

I agree, it is a terribly sad situation.

It was the parents wishes that were ignored.

The brits don't have that attitude. Not even when it comes to dry clothes.

https://qz.com/1034914/it-doesnt-matter-where-brits-keep-their-dryers-the-point-is-they-dont-work/

The article shows the difference between the UK and American mindset you also see here.

Brits: "Oh well, nothing we can do, life just sucks. Resign yourself to your fate."
Americans: "Fuck it, fight on."

They did work with the Doctor in a timely manner.

Wrong.  Their wishes were never ignored.

Thank you sir, that really wasnt necessary but I appreciate it.

You're not very bright, but I'll explain anyhow.

What happens when the parents are making the wrong choice? Their decision would have enabled further suffering with no positive end result. The kid would have been a tater, and wouldn't have lived very long in even the best case scenario.

We have considered your wishes and rejected them.

Seriously?

They were fighting for their child.

They wanted to pursue further treatment and were told no by people that should have had no choice in the matter at all.

I think it was a case of your healthcare officials taking measures to keep themselves from looking bad. They said Charlie wouldn't improve, yet if Charlie had gone to the US and improved, even a little, your people would have had egg on their faces....and we can't have that, can we?