Jump to content
Tartan Army Message Board

Recommended Posts

Aghast that in the U.K. in 2017 there's a courtroom battle where one party want to kill a wee baby.

Granted it's not as straightforward as that, but the money is there and there are willing doctors, surgeons etc. in USA and The Vatican, so I don't see what's to be gained by not giving it a go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, scot scotland scottish said:

Aghast that in the U.K. in 2017 there's a courtroom battle where one party want to kill a wee baby.

Granted it's not as straightforward as that, but the money is there and there are willing doctors, surgeons etc. in USA and The Vatican, so I don't see what's to be gained by not giving it a go.

 

The facts that it's extremely unlikely to be beneficial and that's it's likely to increase his suffering. 

Parents seem to be completely in denial to me - which is understandable - but probably isn't helping anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that there are people who want to keep a dying child alive so he can be sent halfway around the world to be experimented on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, biffer said:

I can't believe that there are people who want to keep a dying child alive so he can be sent halfway around the world to be experimented on. 

I can understand the parents being willing to try anything to save their child.

Its interesting that 3 posts in and 3 different perspectives!

Without all the details it's hard to tell who is right; or least wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel for the parents in this, horrendous that self interest groups have joined the melee though.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My head says that they should listen to the doctors and take the boy off life support, any treatment would be life extending rather than saving and may cause more suffering.  The dad in me hopes I never have to face a similar decision as I'm not sure what I'd do. Such a shame that the fate of a very ill wee boy has turned into a media scrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, biffer said:

I can't believe that there are people who want to keep a dying child alive so he can be sent halfway around the world to be experimented on. 

I can when the only other option for said child is death.

It's a quandary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently staff at Great Ormond Street have been getting online abuse and death threats which sadly seems to be the norm these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, aaid said:

Apparently staff at Great Ormond Street have been getting online abuse and death threats which sadly seems to be the norm these days.

I wonder when's the last time someone received a death threat that wasn't limited to 128 characters? Bring back the days of cutting wee letters out of newspapers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, phart said:

I can when the only other option for said child is death.

It's a quandary.

 

You see the point I'm making though. Emotive language is being used on one side of the argument, but if you asked most people, in a context where they weren't thinking of this child, if it was acceptable to send a sick child halfway round the world to be experimented on, a lot of the same people who are screaming about parents rights would be disgusted by the very idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, biffer said:

You see the point I'm making though. Emotive language is being used on one side of the argument, but if you asked most people, in a context where they weren't thinking of this child, if it was acceptable to send a sick child halfway round the world to be experimented on, a lot of the same people who are screaming about parents rights would be disgusted by the very idea.

Have a look at his wee face for a minute or so, as he is clutching his Thomas the Tank toy - could you really just walk up to the socket and switch it off?

Where there's life there's got to be hope (Ian Brown, The Stone Roses) and if there's a chance (upwards of 10% according to the NY doctor) of improvement surely it's worthwhile taking it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scot scotland scottish said:

Have a look at his wee face for a minute or so, as he is clutching his Thomas the Tank toy - could you really just walk up to the socket and switch it off?

Where there's life there's got to be hope (Ian Brown, The Stone Roses) and if there's a chance (upwards of 10% according to the NY doctor) of improvement surely it's worthwhile taking it?

Have a look at his wee face - should a scientist be allowed to experiment on him? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, biffer said:

You see the point I'm making though. Emotive language is being used on one side of the argument, but if you asked most people, in a context where they weren't thinking of this child, if it was acceptable to send a sick child halfway round the world to be experimented on, a lot of the same people who are screaming about parents rights would be disgusted by the very idea.

Yeah i agree, I can see both points of view. As i said an quandary , a real King Solomon situation.

Not helped by language as you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scot scotland scottish said:

Have a look at his wee face for a minute or so, as he is clutching his Thomas the Tank toy - could you really just walk up to the socket and switch it off?

Where there's life there's got to be hope (Ian Brown, The Stone Roses) and if there's a chance (upwards of 10% according to the NY doctor) of improvement surely it's worthwhile taking it?

Yeah, i've just finished reading 'Current practice in surgical techniques for non fatal brain trauma' by Ian Brown (The Stone roses), had a lot of interesting views, not exactly his field but I'm sure given the chance he'd have lots more to contribute to the Charlie Gard situation. What about that guy that sang 'The drugs don't work', anyone know his views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very big advances in medical practice have come on the back of experimental treatments on people who were thought to be untreatable by any other methods. Some of those experiments, carried out decades ago, would by today's standards be thought of as "cruel" or "inhumane". A lot of those experiments just wouldn't be allowed to happen today. But they have undoubtedly helped in the treatment of future generations of people. This new technique might not help this particular child (or maybe it will?) but what they learn might help in the treatment of others in the future.

On the other hand, one thing the planet is not short of, is babies. About one third of a million of new ones are born every day. About 7 million children die every year from illnesses which should be regarded as "preventable". Of course we don't see the wee faces of those 7 million children plastered across the front pages of our newspapers every day. To me, the main point of this case is why does our main stream media focus so much on this one individual child when they could be doing so much more to help millions of others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eisegerwind said:

Yeah, i've just finished reading 'Current practice in surgical techniques for non fatal brain trauma' by Ian Brown (The Stone roses), had a lot of interesting views, not exactly his field but I'm sure given the chance he'd have lots more to contribute to the Charlie Gard situation. What about that guy that sang 'The drugs don't work', anyone know his views.

Point completely missed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Some very big advances in medical practice have come on the back of experimental treatments on people who were thought to be untreatable by any other methods. Some of those experiments, carried out decades ago, would by today's standards be thought of as "cruel" or "inhumane". A lot of those experiments just wouldn't be allowed to happen today. But they have undoubtedly helped in the treatment of future generations of people. This new technique might not help this particular child (or maybe it will?) but what they learn might help in the treatment of others in the future.

On the other hand, one thing the planet is not short of, is babies. About one third of a million of new ones are born every day. About 7 million children die every year from illnesses which should be regarded as "preventable". Of course we don't see the wee faces of those 7 million children plastered across the front pages of our newspapers every day. To me, the main point of this case is why does our main stream media focus so much on this one individual child when they could be doing so much more to help millions of others?

Unlike Eisgerwind an excellent post and good contribution to the debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Some very big advances in medical practice have come on the back of experimental treatments on people who were thought to be untreatable by any other methods. Some of those experiments, carried out decades ago, would by today's standards be thought of as "cruel" or "inhumane". A lot of those experiments just wouldn't be allowed to happen today. But they have undoubtedly helped in the treatment of future generations of people. This new technique might not help this particular child (or maybe it will?) but what they learn might help in the treatment of others in the future.

On the other hand, one thing the planet is not short of, is babies. About one third of a million of new ones are born every day. About 7 million children die every year from illnesses which should be regarded as "preventable". Of course we don't see the wee faces of those 7 million children plastered across the front pages of our newspapers every day. To me, the main point of this case is why does our main stream media focus so much on this one individual child when they could be doing so much more to help millions of others?

Regarding the last sentence - I think his parents are obviously quite 'social media savvy' and twitter has undoubtedly helped raise the profile of their plight. Given the circumstances who can blame them, and I'd readily do the same were it my son.

Edited by scot scotland scottish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scot scotland scottish said:

Regarding the last sentence - I think his parents are obviously quite 'social media savvy' and twitter has undoubtedly helped raise the profile of their plight. Given the circumstances who can blame them, and I'd readily do the same were it my son.

As I said previously no one can really know until they are in that position.  As a mother who had a 'failure to thrive' report on my child at 18 months I'd imagine if I was in their position I wouldn't give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/07/2017 at 9:55 PM, scot scotland scottish said:

Aghast that in the U.K. in 2017 there's a courtroom battle where one party want to kill a wee baby.

Granted it's not as straightforward as that, but the money is there and there are willing doctors, surgeons etc. in USA and The Vatican, so I don't see what's to be gained by not giving it a go.

 

Are you some sort of god botherer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, scot scotland scottish said:

Aye. Aye I am......

FFS...

Not sure why, FFS. Maybe your time would be better spent praying for Charlie, rather than placing emotive, inaccurate posts about a very sad situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's brutal a child to be ill or to lose their life.  This child is badly brain damaged and cannot feed or breathe on their own.  He is also paralysed so it is difficult to gauge the level of pain he is in.  There is no hope of getting better and there is miniscule hope of any improvement.  His suffering is being allowed to continue incorrectly in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×