It's Sunday I was waiting and waiting for someone to post this... Charlie Gaurd died last Friday

Why didn't anyone post this?

 

Because it's too sad

 

I don't mean to be cold, but there are hundreds of thousands of kids that sadly die so young every year.

The political thing going on with the courts was definitely an interesting topic, but otherwise there is not much else to be said than RIP

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-charlie-gard.510399/page-15#post-1067804314

 

a tragic situation that demonstrated the arrogance and power of a socialized government

 

Charlie died because he had a fatal genetic disorder disease. It kills nearly everyone who has it in infancy. One known case lived into his teens, I believe it was - with serious complications. There have only been 16 known cases. & Charlie had a variant that even the experimental (not yet to animal trials, TMK) treatment in the US wasn't targeted at.

 

I know what killed him,just pointing out how the family was treated and the decision was made by bureaucrats instead of parents..that's arrogant

 

From what I've read, Charlie was treated far above & beyond the call of duty. GOSH the hospital has an excellent reputation. Moreover, GOSH doesn't - TMK - resort to the courts without good reason. It was the courts that ruled against the parents' varying desires to bring Charlie to the US for experimental treatment, or to take him home to die.

All the doctors consulted (including the doctor that the Gards talked to), except possibly the last US doctor - who offered the experimental protocol - agreed with GOSH that Charlie's case was hopeless, barring a miracle. Even the US doctor backpedaled - he hadn't examined Charlie despite having the opportunity to do so, consult with the attending doctors, nor review the case file.

TMK, it was several courts that ruled against the parents. I assume that if the UK courts are where this kind of litigation ends up, that the judges are experienced in sorting through conflicting medical opinions, patient files & case records. But again, the medical opinion seemed unanimous - there was nothing to be gained by shipping Charlie, medical personnel & life-support equipment across the Atlantic - the prospects of a cure or even a substantial improvement in Charlie's condition were vanishingly small.

 

again, the decision to discontinue treatment should be confined to the parents

 

In most of Europe and the UK, the best interest of the child takes priority.

 

The issue at hand is where exactly "the call of duty" lies.

IMO that should be the decision of the parents, many people including myself are discouraged that "the system" decided this on their own.

You personally may disagree with this, but what happened to "its my body" as an argument? This should be the families decision, government single payers systems take this choice away

 

Although beyond sad, after hearing how ill he was, I figured the best thing for him was to just go. The world is no longer a place for even healthy kids. Even if they survive all the many wars that are without a doubt coming, they'll be forced to struggle beyond imagination. Their lives will be hell enough and therefore what chance would those who are afflicted have? These days I tell people if you truly love kids, you won't have them. God rest this little boy's soul who may have actually been spared a far worse existence.

 

You do not see a contradiction there!

And one more time, it has NOTHING to do with single payer, if it had been a private doctor it would of been exactly the same! It has EVERYTHING to do with UK law. So stop trying to make a political point out of a CHILDS DEATH.

 

I know how some senior doctors and specialists can be control freaks, or like to chuck their weight around, but in this instance I totally agree with your excellent post.

 

based on experience and observation , when 'best interest of the child ' is piously intoned, it justifies the state taking over their lives and presuming the state etc knows what is best..and often that means what is best for the state.

 

Well we have specifics here, so perhaps you can explain how it was in the best interest of the state for Charlie Gard not to be sent to america?