What should happen to baby Charlie Gard?

[ChickenGuy]

There is an ongoing saga over here that's been rumbling on for weeks now, I'm assuming that most JUBbers are aware of it as I've seen it reported on U.S. news websites.

Charlie Gard is a critically ill baby with a rare degenerative condition that has now rendered him with minimal to zero brain function, he cannot either see or hear and he needs life support to breathe etc.

The doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital see no hope for him and are wanting to end his life. His parents say there is a chance for him and want to send him to the United States for experimental treatment.

The case centres around precisely what chance there is for any improvement to his quality of life, and also who ultimately should have the right to make the final decision.

Legal action was taken by the parents, and the decision of the High Court and then the Court of Appeal and the U.K. Supreme Court was to uphold the hospital's rights rather than the baby's parents rights, which was then confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights.

There is now a final High Court appeal in process to see if new medical evidence is admissible to influence or change the verdict that was given.

So what should happen? And who should decide?

In my own personal opinion I am highly disturbed by the moral and ethical consequences of allowing the state to mandate the death of a human being, both against the wishes of the parents, and where there is some degree of doubt over precisely how permanent and terminal this condition is. I simply cannot understand why this hospital is so determined to seek Charlie's death, and what harm it could do to allow his parents to take him out of the country.

Send him to the United States and give him and his parents a possibility and a chance, however remote it may seem to be. Where there is life there is hope.

 

[Cormac135]

The doctors who have been treating him are some of the top children's doctors in the world, i'd put my faith in them rather than what looks like some crackpot yank.

It's a tragic situation and the poor parents will do everything they can for the kid but in this case the best thing they can do is put him out of his misery, you wouldn't treat a dog like him.

 

[jjonn3]

He has had excellent medical care - they have done all they could for him - way more than would have been done here in the US under most medical insurance plans.

I will never fault the parents for not giving up hope - that is what parents should do. But in reality the "Best Case Scenario" of the experimental treatment here is only a very limited improvement. I think for his own quality of life he should be allowed to go to sleep.

 

[Benvolio]

Since the British government and taxpayers will have to pay the bill, and the parents apparently cannot the government will necessarily have the final voice. The parents cannot be allowed to insist that other people work and pay taxes just to be wasted on a hopeless case. The fact that there might be a remote chance of improving his condition still would not justify the expenditure.

 

[nycguydowntown]

He has had excellent medical care - they have done all they could for him - way more than would have been done here in the US under most medical insurance plans.

I will never fault the parents for not giving up hope - that is what parents should do. But in reality the "Best Case Scenario" of the experimental treatment here is only a very limited improvement. I think for his own quality of life he should be allowed to go to sleep.

Agree---in this country insurance would have cut him off a long time ago---he's a beautiful white middle class baby and if private money or doctor's want to try to keep him alive for free and the parents want it---it's their baby. Won't be the first time people see life in any form better than death. Hopefully they will eventually do whats best for the baby.

(I put white baby in there on purpose---brown and other color babies in poor areas usually don't get this kind of attention)

 

[rareboy]

How selfish the parents are for maintaining him on life support.

I've been in the position to have to make the decision to withdraw life support and I've had to block my mother being resuscitated when she died.

Brain function doesn't just magically come back and without it, a human body on life support is simply part of a machine.

 

[sixthson]

The parents holding on to the slimmest of hopes is perfectly natural because they love their son. They don't want to see him suffer but they do want him given every chance even when the chance is remote. I highly doubt this is an easy decision for the parents, but I believe the decision should be theirs.

 

[gsdx]

Since the British government and taxpayers will have to pay the bill, and the parents apparently cannot the government will necessarily have the final voice. The parents cannot be allowed to insist that other people work and pay taxes just to be wasted on a hopeless case. The fact that there might be a remote chance of improving his condition still would not justify the expenditure.

Will you just mind your own business and stop bringing your crap into this forum, too?

 

[Willie Boy]

This is the first I've heard of this case. But to me it would seem the vital information in deciding who is right is this: 1) If this "experimental treatment" is successful, what could this poor child look forward to in life? 2) What chance does this treatment have for success? 3) Is baby Charlie currently suffering and how long will said suffering continue before any appreciable improvements will alleviate it? 4) How much will all of this cost and who will be paying for it?

Of course the first and foremost consideration is the outcome of the treatment as all the other questions become moot if the outcome is negative. But supposing there actually is hope, how much is there, and what exactly does it mean for the child? Will it actually alleviate any suffering or just make what life he'll have unbearable, extending his suffering?

The second thought ties in quite closely as it hinges on the chances for said success. Again this all brings it back to is the attempt worth it for the child? Is it going to bring him peace or just increase any pain/suffering he may be forced to endure? That he's basically brain dead would suggest he's beyond suffering any more...... But that would also suggest he's beyond help. Even if they could save his body the brain is dead, he's gone.

Question three is pretty self explanatory, yet seems quite moot as he's tantamount to brain dead, just how far gone is unclear.

Question 4 is an afterthought, are the parents willing to foot the bill of transferring him across the ocean and pay for the treatments here in the US? Do they expect the government of GB to pay, or us over here in the US?

I understand their reluctance to just let him go, he is their son after all. It is totally unnatural for parents to outlive a child. It feels completely wrong. Parents have kids, bring them up and teach them how to live. Kids grow up and take care of the parents in their old age, and become parents to new children..... The cycle of life. When a child dies that cycle is broken. It can be hard to accept, especially for parents. I do not envy the parents this situation they find themselves in, nor the British government, forced to make a very hard ruling. But given the facts offered I do believe it is in everybody's interest (especially little Charlie's) that the child be allowed to pass peacefully into "sleep".

 

[swerve]

I'm shocked that there is even debate regarding this life.

It is a no brainer.

OF COURSE the parents should be allowed to decide their child's care.

Also, those of you who mentioned money, make me want to puke.

 

[Cormac135]

They've made over a million from crowd funding or whatever, God knows how long that'll last in America.

 

[Willie Boy]

Specialists and "experimental" medicines/treatments are quite expensive. One million pounds (or euros or whatever) might barely cover the start. I'm guessing they'll need far more as this wont be a one-shot type of thing.

 

[eastofeden]

I hate the thought of any child...even worse a baby..suffering in any way and I can't even comprehend the heartbreak any parent would have to face with a decision like this....

I know it would break me if I was in their position...so I have no other words....

 

[LeicsDom]

Since the British government and taxpayers will have to pay the bill, and the parents apparently cannot

Actually the parents have raised £1.3m for his ongoing care and treatment

However, the parents are deluded in seeking other treatment when all the medical opinion concurs that he is brain dead and unable to breathe for himself.
Even if the treatment does allow him to breathe he will be a permanent vegatable
i completely understand the parents not wanting to let him die but they are just postponing the inevitable and Drs agree that there is no way of knowing if he is in pain

 

[Kahaih]

I'm shocked that there is even debate regarding this life.

It is a no brainer.

OF COURSE the parents should be allowed to decide their child's care.

Also, those of you who mentioned money, make me want to puke.

Go ahead and puke.

Then, consider this; this isn't the only child in need in the world.

Time, energy, money, etc. that is available should be used where it will actually do some good, or the most good. There are other parents, other children, waiting for help.

 

[zoltanspawn]

... this isn't the only child in need in the world.

Time, energy, money, etc. that is available should be used where it will actually do some good, or the most good. There are other parents, other children, waiting for help.

I think this runs counter to our intuitions, but there is a great deal of truth here.

Resources should be used in a way which will produce a maximum of health and happiness.

If all those resources are used poorly, there will be less health and happiness in total.

It's unfortunate that there isn't an infinite supply of time, energy and money, but because there isn't efficiency is actually a component of what is good.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I'm shocked that there is even debate regarding this life.

It is a no brainer.

OF COURSE the parents should be allowed to decide their child's care.

Also, those of you who mentioned money, make me want to puke.

I'm sure this was not intended but damn.

 

[Georgiadude]

I'll admit to being lazy and I haven't read others posts in this thread yet. I do intend to read them. It's 0645 and I'm kinda tired.

I think his parents should be permitted to bring him to the US and let the doctors do their best to use the experimental treatment. We know he's going to die if they do nothing. Why not give the poor little guy a chance. Yes, I'm sure it's expensive but with as much money as the government wastes there has to be some funds they can find and I'm sure if a GoFundMe page were to be set up most if not all of the expenses would be covered. I don't blame the parents for fighting for the life of their child. The doctors and lawyers for the hospital / government have been cruel and talk about the baby as if he were anything but human. This is a child we're talking about and he should be given a chance for life. why are they pushing so hard to remove him from life support? Oh yeh, money. it all comes down to the almighty dollar. Thats the frustrating part for me. Governments blow through money like nothing but this little boy is just too expensive so he should be allowed to die. He deserves a chance and I think many people would donate to help give him that chance.

Steven.

 

[dpnice]

Since the British government and taxpayers will have to pay the bill, and the parents apparently cannot the government will necessarily have the final voice. The parents cannot be allowed to insist that other people work and pay taxes just to be wasted on a hopeless case. The fact that there might be a remote chance of improving his condition still would not justify the expenditure.

Will you just mind your own business and stop bringing your crap into this forum, too?

I disagree that this isn't a more than significant factor in this unfortunate story. Asking who is going to finance treatment is not a proof of absence of compassion but an awareness that all medical aid is costly and surely there is a point at which one must make the decision of stopping treatment based on the balance between costs and results.

 

[rareboy]

I don't think it is about the money. It is about the reality of the situation.

The baby is for all intents and purposes non-functional. It is just that his parents haven't accepted it yet and have turned him into a media circus...allowing everyone from the Pope to Trump to virtue signal...to use him as some kind of proxy for their own PR purposes.

Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of infants' deaths around the world from preventable illnesses will go unremarked.

I think that the parents and the rest of the world need to look inside themselves and ask what is missing in themselves that they feel the need to put this infant through this ordeal.