What's your view on Charlie Gard ?

The parents should do what they want, they have to live with the aftermath.
they'll have to live with the what ifs. Let them try and fail or win?
to all of us it'll be yesterdays story. It's a slippery slope to say it's not
worth doing. the parameters are always shifting.

My main view is that the media has got ridiculous and maudlin.
Terrible things happen all the time, but they occasionally get work from it.

If social media wasn't around, this awful thing would have been over by now.

It seems like the poor parents are clutching at straws and its understandable, many of us would do the same.
Some others, with differing interests, might, however, be getting on the bandwagon to make themselves look good or just for a bit of publicity.

Overall though, Charlie is a very very sick child, with no real prospect of any form of normal life even if the 'treatments' did work.
There has to be a time to let go.

Compassion is required, the child isn't 'owned' and kept alive on the whims of others.
It's surely a question of quality of life.

I believe the parents are irrational, look at the fact they take pictures of the baby with toys around it.
That image is simply for parents.

i hope the parents get their chance, and i really hope they are not the victims of
the latest snake oil salesmen.

I agree with SF.

Give a good life to another child.

I would not want to be kept alive if I was going to have the kind of life he has been projected to have.

agree with SF and dusty

it is long overdue that they accept the likelihood of him having any quality of life is slim regardless of where they go, what treatments are tried and how much is spent.

Let him slip away, get out of the limelight and grieve rather than continue fuelling the flames of this media circus.

Too much hand wringing in the MSM for my liking and not just over hopeless medical cases.

From what I've read, he appears to be blind, deaf and brain damaged.  Regarding the treatment in the USA that the parents are after:

But his parents and supporters have been fighting for him to be given an experimental treatment in the US.

The treatment is not a cure - there isn't one - but it has been suggested it could reduce the effects of the disease.

Although doctors in the US have since said the benefits they have seen have not been in cases as advanced as Charlie's.


If one of my dogs was in that situation I'd have her euthanised to save her from any more suffering.  Those who want to prolong the boy's life are doing it for their own benefit rather than his.

If he is Blind Deaf and Brain Damaged ,I cannot see why anyone would want to keep the Lad Alive

The mother is talking about him Riding Bikes ??

We have become so cocooned over recent decades that we have lost the sense of the tragic side of life. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet. That goes for society as a whole as well as for individuals.

Foin
You got lucky by getting your life in at the time you did, the baby boomers got the best of it.

Now and the future we will inevitably see more and more difficult decisions made from a financial perspective and ultimately the NHS will likely collapse and with it a heartless generation will emerge.

This is what happens when neo classical economics result in over inflated economies pandering to the greed of individuals leaving 97% of world finance as debt.

The decision here to let the baby die is a just one IMO, but there have been several that I personally know of where doctors have either given poor advice or have acted due to an agenda that isn't necessarily in the patients interest.

This sad case is an example of on the one hand, but on the other hand. On the one hand the parents have raised the money and there are offers from Trumpton and the Vatican to help. So nothing will be at the tax payers expense, The parents are entitled to spend the money. Also, it is possible that any treatment the poor child receives may help future development of more successful treatment for the good of mankind. On the other hand there is no quality of life and it is extremely likely that there never will be. So what is the answer? I don't know and I am very thankful I am not, and no one I know is, in this situation.

If they treat him in America, the difference would be that his parents, for the rest of their lives, would feel they had done everything they could. The treatment MAY not work, but just don't know for sure. And treatment might at least settle their minds. But the baby could be suffering and he cannot communicate his pain. Certainly a difficult one, lots of issues with this.

If he has the treatment, what sort of life can be saved for ? But bottom line, the parents MUST have the final say, for good or bad.

Dusty, life is a lottery, some are lucky and some are dealt a poor hand.
A baby born with those afflictions at the time I was born would not have survived to suffer.
Medical advances which can help in some cases can also hinder in others. The medical professionals should be allowed to make the decisions even though they are human and able to make mistakes on occasion. Who is to say whether the generous benefactors in this case are making a good or bad decision? The prospects for happiness or otherwise of the child should come first and the prospects do not look good in this case.
To echo an earlier post, my last dog was put to sleep even though I had the money to keep him alive for much longer. I made the decision which was heartbreaking for me because I didn't want him to suffer. Are the parents in this case thinking of the child's best interest or their own emotions?

They handed a 350,000 signature petition in today.
350,000 signatories who almost certainly signed out of "emotion" if not a perceived duty.
They certainly wouldn't all be aware of the details.

Sad indictment of the facebook society which definitely spreads more pain than it ever eases.

I don't see a right or wrong answer to this. As a parent whose child has undergone a dozen surgeries including open heart ones I understand why they want to try everything possible - and what parent wouldn't want to do that? As far as quality of life goes, again that is subjective. I agree about the petition and social media study.

Hank, you've been through some pain and waiting, those of us who haven't cannot understand it.
That's probably the point.

It's a deeply personal situation.
There wouldn't be many who don't want this family to be happy and complete.
It's just possible though that they can't see clearly. Are all the courts and doctors so wrong?

Really this should be taken away from public gaze.
The pigs and vultures of the press are involved, so that won't be happening.

so many issues surrounding this case ,logic needed but that ship has sailed.

It reminds me of the story of Solomon and the mothers.
I just cant see how a mother can wish for extending the life of a child in this state.

But the baby in the Solomon story was healthy as all us Bible scholars know. It was just a matter of the mother.

The point being that the mother foresakes her want for the best of the child.

Im only saying I see comparisons to it, its a hellish senario for the family.

Surely there comes a time when the opinions of the finest medical minds  - those at GOSH - have to take precedent over the parents wishes. No parent would ever want their child to die, so will use every means possible to keep them alive, but this poor kid will never have any quality of life and should be allowed to die.

The people who signed the petitions are doing it to support the parents, 99.9% of them will have no idea of the long term suffering and condition of the child - and interference from the Vatican and Trump is pathetic and muddying the waters further.

I am afraid the time has to come when the decision is taken out of the parents hands - and I believe in a few years time they would come to accept that, no matter how hard it is now.

All very sad.

did Trump offer not come in after the pope interfered  ?

either way they are both undermining our due process and medical expertise ,i doubt anyone will uphold the courts ruling now,emotions are understandable but clouding judgements.

Medical resources are limited.  That fact is the terrible dilemma that western society has to resolve.  This lifeless child should be allowed to pass away peacefully.  Wasting vast resources that could be spent significantly improving the lifes of many other children is not right.

Not sure who commented first. I quite like this Pope, despite being no fan of the Catholic Church at all - but to turn around and offer treatment at the Vatican childrens hospital is totally out of order.

It almost suggests that GOSH have given up and they could do a better job, despite there being no evidence to support it.

If there was a glimmer of hope, GOSH would do everything possible.

As for Trump, nothing the man does is without an agenda so he should just keep his mouth shut - permanently preferably.

Everything about this is wrong. Incredibly selfish 'crusade' from the parents. There are thousands of children, able bodied around the world starving to death, or caught up in pointless civil wars or passing away from treatable diseases. This is the poison that social media in the west has created. It's obviously devastating for any parent to lose a child, but they have lost all perspective and should have let Charlie go a long time ago. Poor little Charlie is paralysed, going to be blind, deaf and brain damaged for his remaining life, his head has not grown for 3 months. A quarter of a million idiots signing a petition, ignorant to the fact that they are attempting to sign up a child to a lifetime of misery in a vegetative state. Where's the wider family in this, they are the ones that should be able to cop the parents on.

"If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so," Trump posted.

hardly a hidden  agenda ,but it was the pope that interfered after the last court available gave its verdict ,so cant agree with you,perhaps the pope should be invited to perform a miracle ,trump was just tweeting ,summit he does a lot

Healthy unborn kids have no rights. I would save them from the suction pump or injection to the brain...

Doctors have said that Charlies condition is beyond help and that he will have no quality of life.
Sad as it is I think he should be allowed to die.
The treatment being offered is experimental and at best will ease his symptoms but he will still be blind, deaf and brain damaged.
That's no life.

At the time of his tweet, the UK hospital treating him had said he should be allowed to die, as had the courts, the High Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

"If we can help, as per our friends in the UK and the Pope..."

The money that had been raised was for treatment in the US, so his comment was basically disregarding the view of UK and EU law/doctors and inviting him to the US for treatment which, by their own admission, has only a 10% chance of improving, not curing, the childs situation and has only had limited success in cases far less severe and developed than Charlies.

Fail to see how this is helpful - however still agree that the Popes intervention is far more of a problem as it gets the weight of all Catholics behind it.

If the child survives, fast forward 18 years. He has incurable brain damage so cannot communicate. He is blind - also incurable. He is deaf, cannot move and currently only breathes with the help of life support - this is the one area where the treatment may possibly provide some improvement.

Do you honestly think that is a situation that anyone can take any pleasure or pride in? As breadnbutter says, he needs a miracle and as they don't happen, he should be allowed to die and rest in peace.

It's about his condition, his current quality of life, the chances of the proposed treatment having any success at all, how much success, and what his subsequent quality of life would be.

given that the doctors at GOSH were considering the very early trials of the nucleoside treatment earlier, but ruled it out later based on the brain damage the child developed (and continues to develop), it is clear that this has been a consideration for them.

so we are left with the question: who has made the better diagnosis of charlie's condition and reached the better judgement on which course of action is in charlie's best interest. it is very hard to take the parent's side who, quite naturally, faced with the prospect of their son dying, are irrationally hopeful about both his current condition and the benefits of treatment, all rather sadly to the detriment of their own son's welfare.

The mother was on the BBC this morning.
She said that this treatment wasnt invasive and was something they added to the childs milk.

Is she for real?
Some powder or something going to improve the list of serious disability?

Jul 10, 2017 -- 1:22PM, DStyle wrote:

It's about his condition, his current quality of life, the chances of the proposed treatment having any success at all, how much success, and what his subsequent quality of life would be.given that the doctors at GOSH were considering the very early trials of the nucleoside treatment earlier, but ruled it out later based on the brain damage the child developed (and continues to develop), it is clear that this has been a consideration for them.so we are left with the question: who has made the better diagnosis of charlie's condition and reached the better judgement on which course of action is in charlie's best interest. it is very hard to take the parent's side who, quite naturally, faced with the prospect of their son dying, are irrationally hopeful about both his current condition and the benefits of treatment, all rather sadly to the detriment of their own son's welfare.

its just blind irrational emotion but totally natural  ,and created a horrible siege mentality
grade 1 media fodder ,sad really ,mother is in total denial and dad just doing his job.

Not certain on this, but didn't GOSH have the option of turning off the life support after the last appeal failed - but gave the parents a chance to say their final goodbye?

I wouldn't be too harsh on the parents but this is clearly why the decision shouldn't be in their hands. They are never going to make a rational decision and will cling to the slightest hope.

If they let this poor little soul pass away the reality is he won't know any different. I feel so sorry for the parents but have they looked at the long term, being a carer for someone severely disabled or with a terminal illness is one of the hardest most draining things to do or though with the latter it will come to a conclusion. This poor child will never live a normal life and there'll be no grandkids for the parents. Let him go peacefully

it is worth remembering shrewd_dude, that there are many parents, certainly in double figures, maybe triple, who every year have to make exactly this sort of horrible decision, a situation that you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, and they reach the same conclusion as the doctors.

Well said dan..

Hope the little chap finds some peace.

Yep so sad

I agree with Shrewd_dude and ufcdan, looking at this terribly distressing situation from a neutral point of view I would let the poor child slip away in peace personally. Even if he were my own though, I would come to the same conclusion.

While i agree things change and the parents will do anything possible
to save him
What happens in 5 years time if a parent has an accident or they spilt
up due to pressure of care,who then takes the responsibility The grandparents or the state
and does he have a quality of life.

terribly sad for the child and for his parents

interference from other parties promoting their own agendas (the Pope, US quacks) leaves a nasty taste in the mouth

leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.............not the first time from someone in the Catholic Church

it is worth remembering shrewd_dude, that there are many parents, certainly in double figures, maybe triple, who every year have to make exactly this sort of horrible decision, a situation that you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, and they reach the same conclusion as the doctors.

I agree and I'd like to think I would agree with the Doctors if I was ever in this terrible situation. But I think the parents are clearly of a mindset and have been since the start of the cases that if they don't do everything they can to keep him alive they have in some way failed him. I don't think they will ever accept and agree that he should be allowed to die and given they have been through such a traumatic experience I don't think I could blame them for that.

I think Slicer summed the whole thing up ,If they have the Money and The care to get the Lad there and they believe there
is a Chance of a Miracle cure ,Take him to States ..

I wonder what would happen if they wanted to Take the Lad to Lourdes

If it was my child(I am fortunate to have two grown up ones!!!)  I would fight tooth and nail for their right to survive.
If they were in a great deal of pain then maybe I may consider other options - but while there is life and all that!!!

I like you moisok am lucky to have two fine grown up sons. If I was ever faced with that dreadful decision after an accident. I would take the medical advice and have them switched off harvesting any useful organs. The same as I would want for myself. Of course I hope it's a decision I never have to make

I don't think any of my organs are much use these days