Death Notices

[gallsman]

They started a "save Charlie campaign" when the medical opinion was that he could not be saved.

They refused to condemn some of the more dubious support they were receiving, only speaking up when GOSH staff were subjected to death threats.

In the aftermath of the decision to abandon their legal fight to keep him in life support, they have continued to spread misinformation about the case.

It's all of that entirely understandable because of their grief, fear and desperation? Yes.

Does that make it right? No.

Have you read anything about it yet? Do you still not know why they were refused "the treatment"?

[omaghjoe]

You seem fierce keen to have a debate about it.... Im not your man I only wanted to find out a bit more about the case without preset agendas, which seems virtually impossible.

But I am calling you out on saying the parents brought it on themselves and that they were wrong to fight for his life in the face of adversity. They were 100% right to pursue the course of action they did if they felt that they should and should be applauded for doing so.

Its much the same as the BS the McCanns had to put up, people think because they are in the public eye they are fair game, they arent they are parents in a desperate situation and should be let alone.

[Owen Brannigan]

Why where the parents not allowed to get the treatment? It appears that cost had nothing really to do with it and the doctors opinion was overridinig that because they felt there was no hope of sucessful treatment, is that correct?

So, you read nothing the articles? It appears that you would prefer attacking others personally to reading for yourself.

US, EU and UK law place the needs of the child as paramount. On this basis, the request of the parents was measured against the effect on the child being moved to somewhere where treatment was not proven even on mice. Also court would not approve the child becoming a guinea pig for US doctor. His needs trumped everything else.

Cost has never been an issue for GOSH or NHS at any stage. Both went beyond usual bounds to get full diagnosis and possible treatment.  All their work was made available to the court for assessment.

The US doctor was shown to be useless. Firstly, his 'success' was with a child with a different condition. Secondly, he never reviewed the child's records or scans and made his pronouncements blindly and for self publicity. Also he had financial links to company providing the drugs he was going to use on Charlie even though they hadn't been tested on mice.

All of this is in the public domain in the court papers, nothing was secret. Just exploiters making use of the poor child for their own ends.

[LCohen]

But I am calling you out on saying the parents brought it on themselves and that they were wrong to fight for his life in the face of adversity. They were 100% right to pursue the course of action they did if they felt that they should and should be applauded for doing so.

There has been vitriol posted on line about GSOH and its staff. Some that the police have been forced to take seriously. We also have judges specifically including in their communications the regret that so so many have commented on social media on a subject that they don't have the full facts on and that others in turn have interpreted what they have read on social media as fact. It's a downward spiral of inaccuracies akin to Chinese whispers.

On the parents we need to appreciate the difference between it being "understandable " that they would want to fight on for the life of their child and them being "right" to do so if it was only going to create suffering. My understanding is that is where the medical opinion lay from the outset and after due process the highest courts agreed.

[Owen Brannigan]

But I am calling you out on saying the parents brought it on themselves and that they were wrong to fight for his life in the face of adversity. They were 100% right to pursue the course of action they did if they felt that they should and should be applauded for doing so.

There has been vitriol posted on line about GSOH and its staff. Some that the police have been forced to take seriously. We also have judges specifically including in their communications the regret that so so many have commented on social media on a subject that they don't have the full facts on and that others in turn have interpreted what they have read on social media as fact. It's a downward spiral of inaccuracies akin to Chinese whispers.

On the parents we need to appreciate the difference between it being "understandable " that they would want to fight on for the life of their child and them being "right" to do so if it was only going to create suffering. My understanding is that is where the medical opinion lay from the outset and after due process the highest courts agreed.

Correct. Effectively in law, the parents had taken the legal action against their own child as his rights have primacy in law and GOSH had a duty to uphold his rights on the basis of the medical opinion that the hospital had acquired from its own staff and the experts available in the world. Even the opinion of the US doctor was considered when it was based on zero evidence something he had not expected.

[gallsman]

But I am calling you out on saying the parents brought it on themselves and that they were wrong to fight for his life in the face of adversity. They were 100% right to pursue the course of action they did if they felt that they should and should be applauded for doing so.

Its much the same as the BS the McCanns had to put up, people think because they are in the public eye they are fair game, they arent they are parents in a desperate situation and should be let alone.

I said they brought the publicity and controversy on themselves. I never once criticised or did they were "wrong to fight for his life".

Again, you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no knowledge of the matter and, rather pathetically, have tried to use this thread about it to have a pop at me.

[gallsman]

For those who refuse to read the details of the case and continue to demand an answer to the question of "why was he refused treatment?", consider this.

The treatment the American doctor was proposing, and would have gone ahead with if allowed, had never been tested for the specific genetic mutation of Charlie's disease, which affected both both his muscles and brain. Not even on mice. It wouldn't have been treatment, it would have been a science experiment. One the treating physician would have a financial interest in.

[theskull1]

Blinkered perspectives against solid undeniable evidence to the contrary. What is it with some people? Is this way of thinking a virus that hasn't been discovered yet?

[Dougal Maguire]

For those who refuse to read the details of the case and continue to demand an answer to the question of "why was he refused treatment?", consider this.

The treatment the American doctor was proposing, and would have gone ahead with if allowed, had never been tested for the specific genetic mutation of Charlie's disease, which affected both both his muscles and brain. Not even on mice. It wouldn't have been treatment, it would have been a science experiment. One the treating physician would have a financial interest in.

I assume the parents logic was  if the child is going to die anyway, is this not worth a punt? What was there to lose?

[armaghniac]

For those who refuse to read the details of the case and continue to demand an answer to the question of "why was he refused treatment?", consider this.

The treatment the American doctor was proposing, and would have gone ahead with if allowed, had never been tested for the specific genetic mutation of Charlie's disease, which affected both both his muscles and brain. Not even on mice. It wouldn't have been treatment, it would have been a science experiment. One the treating physician would have a financial interest in.

I assume the parents logic was  if the child is going to die anyway, is this not worth a punt? What was there to lose?

The issue would be the quality of life of the child in the meantime.

[Minder]

For those who refuse to read the details of the case and continue to demand an answer to the question of "why was he refused treatment?", consider this.

The treatment the American doctor was proposing, and would have gone ahead with if allowed, had never been tested for the specific genetic mutation of Charlie's disease, which affected both both his muscles and brain. Not even on mice. It wouldn't have been treatment, it would have been a science experiment. One the treating physician would have a financial interest in.

I assume the parents logic was  if the child is going to die anyway, is this not worth a punt? What was there to lose?

The issue would be the quality of life of the child in the meantime.

Yeah and the suffering he was enduring

[Owen Brannigan]

For those who refuse to read the details of the case and continue to demand an answer to the question of "why was he refused treatment?", consider this.

The treatment the American doctor was proposing, and would have gone ahead with if allowed, had never been tested for the specific genetic mutation of Charlie's disease, which affected both both his muscles and brain. Not even on mice. It wouldn't have been treatment, it would have been a science experiment. One the treating physician would have a financial interest in.

I assume the parents logic was  if the child is going to die anyway, is this not worth a punt? What was there to lose?

The biggest issue was the apparent pain being suffered by the child, registered by diagnosis but not registered physically by the child's responses which were removed by his condition. Appears to be like a patient with locked in syndrome experiencing pain but not able to show it.

[Dougal Maguire]

Thanks for clarifying that. I now realise that the hospital was right.

[omaghjoe]

But I am calling you out on saying the parents brought it on themselves and that they were wrong to fight for his life in the face of adversity. They were 100% right to pursue the course of action they did if they felt that they should and should be applauded for doing so.

Its much the same as the BS the McCanns had to put up, people think because they are in the public eye they are fair game, they arent they are parents in a desperate situation and should be let alone.

I said they brought the publicity and controversy on themselves. I never once criticised or did they were "wrong to fight for his life".

Again, you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no knowledge of the matter and, rather pathetically, have tried to use this thread about it to have a pop at me.

Dont flatter yourself Id call out any post that is callous to parents losing a child, hardly a coincidence that you made it tho.

Stop trying to turn this into my opinion on the case I dont even have 1 ffs. Its the most flagrant Straw man Ive ever seen, but sure knock sure self out.

Parents believing they are doing the best for their child so not be subject to heartless statements like they had been no if or buts, and blaming them for it instead of the perpetrators like what you were doing is akin to giving them those people a pat on the back.

[theskull1]

Moral certainty gives anyone using it so many outs. Like talking to the dup.