Charlie Gard

[fbg40]

Heard on the news that this poor little soul will have his life support turned off today - the "powers that be" have also said that the parents will not be allowed to take him home to die. How insensitive is this. Who will it harm ?? Can't imagine how the parents feel. If it were the child of one of the high court judges, would the outcome be the same ? I wonder ? Expect this will bring responses from both sides - I wait with baited breath.
FBG40

[kvalidir]

I think Great Ormond Street have handled the whole thing poorly, it has systematically dismantled parental rights from a perfectly intelligent and non abusive set of parents. People have the right, and should have the right for their children, to get a second opinion. they did so and got one which conflicted with GOS. The result of that was that the hospital swung into full on attack mode and now these poor people find themselves with no parental rights whatsoever, entirely at the mercy of the hospital authorities. It's been an absolute PR disaster for them as before all the litigation and disagreement about poor little Charlie's treatment they were given three choices for him die in hospital, be taken to a hospice or to die at home. Even their final wish for that has now been denied, they have no say in anything to do with their own baby, yet have never done anything except act in his best interests. do we remember the debarcle with the family who removed their child and took him abroad for treatment, how they were harassed and arrested at the behest of GOS. No wonder social media is lit up in fury and many people are saying they will never donate to them again. I think the way they have behaved towards this family is punitive because they dared to disagree with the Drs and would not be silenced, and that is utterly shameful.

[anneasquith]

Kav, I don't entirely agree with you, but I do know everyone involved ,only had Charlie's best interest at heart.

[bednobs]

I dont really know how you can know all of that Kvalidir a there has only been one side of the story presented. Also, the case you are referring to was southampton hospital, not gos I think if you mean the proton beam therapy

[ladybirder]

Kval I don't think the parents are acting in Charlie's best interests by trying to move him away from all he knows in his last few hours. If he were mine I would sit with him, stroke and kiss his little face and hold his hand until the end came. I understand why they want to take him home but that is for them, not for Charlie. I hope they will then thank the staff for all the wonderful care they gave given him throughout his all too short life.

[bednobs]

also, i absolutely disagree that they are acting in his best interests, and so do the courts, court of appeal, supreme court and european court of human rights

[anneasquith]

I believe the parents think they have/are acting in their child's best interest,

[Peter Pedant]

// Surely a parent's wishes should be paramount?//

dunno why this has got best answer - it is contrary to the Law of England. Children's Act says the interests of the child are paramount.

near perhaps but not identical but different

[Lie-in King]

Absolutely heartbreaking case. I believe the correct decisions have been made for little Charlie.

My heartfelt best wishes go to him, his family & to the medical personnel that have to make such hellish decisions every day.

[vulcan42]

I feel sorry for the parents but priority has to be given to this poor lad. He has to die in peace without suffering, far better that he remains in hospital where they can monitor him and ensure he dies pain free. Taking him home might be what the parents want but it wont help their son if by doing so he dies in pain.

[naomi24]

I agree with Ladybirder at 16:00.

[Smowball]

GOSH have just delayed turning the life support off today, to give the parents some more time with him.

[naomi24]

Isn't it sad. :o(

[ladybirder]

Thank you Naomi.

I too am shocked at the BA (and that's not because you changed it FBG;-)) If that were to be the case the doctors would find their hands tied and unable to do their job properly. The doctors have to take the emotion out of it and keep a cool head. Not easy for some parents to do in difficult circumstances.

[Smowball]

I don't know how I would even begin to cope...

[Jackdaw33]

PP - suggest you read s1 of the Children's Act 1988. The interests of the child should be paramount in a decision by a court of law. It does not apply otherwise.

[Mamyalynne]

I have spent much f the day split between wondering how to reply and thanking all Heaven that I have never been in a situation like this.

My heart goes out to the family and may Charlie have a peaceful journey when the time comes.x

[naomi24]

Ladybirder, you're welcome - and I agree with you at 17:45 too.

[Peter Pedant]

// People have the right, ..... for their children, to get a second opinion. they did so and got one which conflicted with GOS.//

so they were accorded their rights....
but that is not quite right ( pun intended )

Mt diseases is a bit like ot have a heart or a brain - there really isnt much future. There was irreversible brain damage and on cross examination the second expert agreed that it would not be reversed.

that is almost game over
then the expert agreed that it might not benefit the child oo-er
and then agreed it hadnt been tried before

There is previous case law on this
where a judge granted an adjournment and then said "look, you have had four weeks for this and I am only told there is someone mid west who might have positive results....." - permission to stop treatment granted

[ladybirder]

Wow I think I'll have a glass of Prosecco to celebrate:-)
Cheers.

[naomi24]

Clink! :o)