Death Notices

[gallsman]

If you think there is any hope however illogical it seems to others you will hold onto it... maybe those who dont have children dont fully understand this.

I don't think you'll find too many who disagree with that. That doesn't mean it's what's best for the child. The attacks on GOSH and its staff are certainly not in the best interests of anybody.

From Janice Turner in The Times

Imagine startng your nursing shift on a children's cancer ward with demonstrators calling you scum. Or trying to keep your daughter calm as she is admitted for heart surgery amid a placard-waving march. If we can, why couldn't Charlie Gard's parents who purported to be the embodiment of selfless love?

They said it was all for Charlie, that they just wanted to save their little boy. They said the death threats to Great Ormond Street staff were not in their name, their case just struck an emotional chord. And when the legal arguments were about efficacy of treatment, we could forgive their strange alliances with far-right US preachers, put their screaming at judges and denial of expert evidence down to a noble, grief-fuelled battle for their son.

And yesterday in a hospice poor Connie Yates and Chris Gard finally said farewell to their terminally ill son. But did it have to end this way, with only anger for the hospital that cared for him for so long? They must have known, or at least have been advised, that dragging GOSH back to court then declaring "we've been denied our final wish" to let him die at home would only recharge the hate. They ignored the ever-patient doctors saying no amount of love could get Charlie's vast high-pressure ventilator through their front door or that taking him out of ICU risked a disordered, painful death.

If they die we don't believe we'll see them in some better place
Because this wasn't about their child, but about them. They "promised Charlie" he'd sleep for two days in the home he'd never seen, could never see, since he was unconscious, in the cot they had bought. No matter that their tragic fantasy of an ordinary life would divert intensive care staff away from other babies who might live. As the Rev Giles Fraser wrote in The Guardian in praise of the Gards: "I would rain fire on the whole world to hold my child for a day longer."

So would I. Because parental love is the most selfish love of all. Not altruistic, but Darwinian: we are programmed to perpetuate our genes, our bloodline. We'd give our children our savings, organs, our last breath. Yet we do so heedless of all beyond our own kin, and drive our precious cargo around in fortress 4x4s, unconcerned that we imperil every other passing kid.

Yet is parental concern, at heart, about our own self-protection? Please don't stray far, I'd say when my sons were small. Please don't ride motorbikes or join the army, I beg now. Just try not to die! Not only because I love you, for your unique, wonderful self, but because your death would leave me struggling to live. In an areligious world our children are our household gods. And if they die we don't believe we'll see them again in some better place: they are just gone and we are left alone, undone.

So the Gards cannot be blamed for delaying the ultimate emotional pain, even if it meant perpetuating their son's physical suffering. Was it ever a loving act to keep Charlie alive? Even if the US neurologist Professor Michio Hirano had been permitted to treat him, the prognosis was hopeless. His most successful patient so far, six-year-old Arturito Estopinan, is still profoundly brain-damaged and needs a respirator most of the time. His father reports: "He can now move his fingers, hands and toes, and sit (with support) at a 90 degree angle for 90 minutes compared to a 45 degree angle for 15 minutes previously."

The parent prepared to lose their child is the truly selfless one
Is that enough of an existence for a child? Arturito's parents clearly think so and sacrifice their lives to care for him. But as medical science advances, children, many born prematurely with profound disabilities, are sustained where once they'd have peacefully died. With his rare genetic disorder Charlie Gard could never have been, whatever his mother's belief, "a normal little boy", but barely sentient, strapped to machinery, in medically preserved limbo. In the hospital's oddly poetic legalese "Charlie's has been an existence devoid of all benefit and pleasure", "his relationship with the world around him has been one of suffering".

David Cameron was once asked if his son Ivan, who had cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy, enjoyed his life. "Not really," Cameron replied. "I think his life is very tough." He and his wife always downplayed their sacrifices to care for him, until his death aged six: "It was only Ivan that ever really suffered." Their love was clear-eyed: we know the price of still holding you in our arms is your pain.

It is perhaps to be expected that Giles Fraser, a priest, values belief over science, thinks that "love must carry greater weight than the calculations of reason". But sometimes love is cruel and faith is blind. In 2012 the High Court ruled to switch off the life support of an eight-year-old with lung failure whose Christian parents wished to keep him alive. Ignoring evidence that he had no hope of recovery and would die of an infection, they insisted they could summon up a miracle with their prayers.

It is the parent who is prepared to put their child first, even if it means losing him, who is truly selfless. Like Mark and Julie James, who accompanied their son Daniel, 23, to a Dignitas clinic, because he felt that being paralysed from the neck down in a rugby accident had given him "a second-class existence". And this is what the Gards faced in the end.

When we speak of "dignity in dying" and "quality of life" we mostly mean the old, those who've already had a life, not someone who has barely lived. The only positive outcome of Charlie's tragic year is that he has made us consider many hard truths. Including whether the pure force of parental love is always best for a child.

[theskull1]

That's a well written piece that will be totally dismissed by those on the other side of the argument

[Tony Baloney]

If you think there is any hope however illogical it seems to others you will hold onto it... maybe those who dont have children dont fully understand this.

Lots of people with children, including me, think the parents were misguided at best.

[T Fearon]

This shouldn't apply to just children,but any human life.It is illogical to continue treating incurable illnesses,in cases where as a wide a range of medical opinion and expertise as possible maintains this to be the case.Of course it is only natural that hope is held among the family members,even for a miracle.

Sadly too much of the sensationalist media distorts the facts and insinuates that treatment is being withheld to save money,which the public believes.

[Owen Brannigan]

If you think there is any hope however illogical it seems to others you will hold onto it... maybe those who dont have children dont fully understand this.

I don't think you'll find too many who disagree with that. That doesn't mean it's what's best for the child. The attacks on GOSH and its staff are certainly not in the best interests of anybody.

From Janice Turner in The Times

Imagine startng your nursing shift on a children's cancer ward with demonstrators calling you scum. Or trying to keep your daughter calm as she is admitted for heart surgery amid a placard-waving march. If we can, why couldn't Charlie Gard's parents who purported to be the embodiment of selfless love?

They said it was all for Charlie, that they just wanted to save their little boy. They said the death threats to Great Ormond Street staff were not in their name, their case just struck an emotional chord. And when the legal arguments were about efficacy of treatment, we could forgive their strange alliances with far-right US preachers, put their screaming at judges and denial of expert evidence down to a noble, grief-fuelled battle for their son.

And yesterday in a hospice poor Connie Yates and Chris Gard finally said farewell to their terminally ill son. But did it have to end this way, with only anger for the hospital that cared for him for so long? They must have known, or at least have been advised, that dragging GOSH back to court then declaring "we've been denied our final wish" to let him die at home would only recharge the hate. They ignored the ever-patient doctors saying no amount of love could get Charlie's vast high-pressure ventilator through their front door or that taking him out of ICU risked a disordered, painful death.

If they die we don't believe we'll see them in some better place
Because this wasn't about their child, but about them. They "promised Charlie" he'd sleep for two days in the home he'd never seen, could never see, since he was unconscious, in the cot they had bought. No matter that their tragic fantasy of an ordinary life would divert intensive care staff away from other babies who might live. As the Rev Giles Fraser wrote in The Guardian in praise of the Gards: "I would rain fire on the whole world to hold my child for a day longer."

So would I. Because parental love is the most selfish love of all. Not altruistic, but Darwinian: we are programmed to perpetuate our genes, our bloodline. We'd give our children our savings, organs, our last breath. Yet we do so heedless of all beyond our own kin, and drive our precious cargo around in fortress 4x4s, unconcerned that we imperil every other passing kid.

Yet is parental concern, at heart, about our own self-protection? Please don't stray far, I'd say when my sons were small. Please don't ride motorbikes or join the army, I beg now. Just try not to die! Not only because I love you, for your unique, wonderful self, but because your death would leave me struggling to live. In an areligious world our children are our household gods. And if they die we don't believe we'll see them again in some better place: they are just gone and we are left alone, undone.

So the Gards cannot be blamed for delaying the ultimate emotional pain, even if it meant perpetuating their son's physical suffering. Was it ever a loving act to keep Charlie alive? Even if the US neurologist Professor Michio Hirano had been permitted to treat him, the prognosis was hopeless. His most successful patient so far, six-year-old Arturito Estopinan, is still profoundly brain-damaged and needs a respirator most of the time. His father reports: "He can now move his fingers, hands and toes, and sit (with support) at a 90 degree angle for 90 minutes compared to a 45 degree angle for 15 minutes previously."

The parent prepared to lose their child is the truly selfless one
Is that enough of an existence for a child? Arturito's parents clearly think so and sacrifice their lives to care for him. But as medical science advances, children, many born prematurely with profound disabilities, are sustained where once they'd have peacefully died. With his rare genetic disorder Charlie Gard could never have been, whatever his mother's belief, "a normal little boy", but barely sentient, strapped to machinery, in medically preserved limbo. In the hospital's oddly poetic legalese "Charlie's has been an existence devoid of all benefit and pleasure", "his relationship with the world around him has been one of suffering".

David Cameron was once asked if his son Ivan, who had cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy, enjoyed his life. "Not really," Cameron replied. "I think his life is very tough." He and his wife always downplayed their sacrifices to care for him, until his death aged six: "It was only Ivan that ever really suffered." Their love was clear-eyed: we know the price of still holding you in our arms is your pain.

It is perhaps to be expected that Giles Fraser, a priest, values belief over science, thinks that "love must carry greater weight than the calculations of reason". But sometimes love is cruel and faith is blind. In 2012 the High Court ruled to switch off the life support of an eight-year-old with lung failure whose Christian parents wished to keep him alive. Ignoring evidence that he had no hope of recovery and would die of an infection, they insisted they could summon up a miracle with their prayers.

It is the parent who is prepared to put their child first, even if it means losing him, who is truly selfless. Like Mark and Julie James, who accompanied their son Daniel, 23, to a Dignitas clinic, because he felt that being paralysed from the neck down in a rugby accident had given him "a second-class existence". And this is what the Gards faced in the end.

When we speak of "dignity in dying" and "quality of life" we mostly mean the old, those who've already had a life, not someone who has barely lived. The only positive outcome of Charlie's tragic year is that he has made us consider many hard truths. Including whether the pure force of parental love is always best for a child.

+1

[Owen Brannigan]

This shouldn't apply to just children,but any human life.It is illogical to continue treating incurable illnesses,in cases where as a wide a range of medical opinion and expertise as possible maintains this to be the case.Of course it is only natural that hope is held among the family members,even for a miracle.

Sadly too much of the sensationalist media distorts the facts and insinuates that treatment is being withheld to save money,which the public believes.

So the Pope was wrong to get involved and offer false hope while making some theological point?

[Owen Brannigan]

Another exceptional article:

https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/

[gallsman]

Another exceptional article:

https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/

Very good piece. I hadn't seen the Ted Cruz tweet about it. Disgraceful.

[omaghjoe]

Another exceptional article:

https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/

Very good piece. I hadn't seen the Ted Cruz tweet about it. Disgraceful.

Instead of creaming over these articles and demonising Ted Cruz explain how the parents brought it on themselves?

As for the article itself it seems to do more talking about America and Americans than the actual case itself

[omaghjoe]

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?

[longballin]

If you think there is any hope however illogical it seems to others you will hold onto it... maybe those who dont have children dont fully understand this.

Lots of people with children, including me, think the parents were misguided at best.

like myself I guess you've never been in that situation (I hope not) and dont know what I would do... easy to pass judgement here

[gallsman]

How about you take a break from being the reactionary, moronic imbecile you are and actually read the details of what happened - the timeline of his life, the disease he suffered from, the details of the court case and what it was about, the judgment and the reasons for it?

And be very careful when you accuse me saying the parents "bright it on themselves" without specifying what "it" is.

[omaghjoe]

How about you take a break from being the reactionary, moronic imbecile you are and actually read the details of what happened - the timeline of his life, the disease he suffered from, the details of the court case and what it was about, the judgment and the reasons for it?

And be very careful when you accuse me saying the parents "bright it on themselves" without specifying what "it" is.

Be careful What you gonna do you ......

anyway.... are you denying you wrote this

It wasn't nice to see all the publicity and controversy but it was all of their own doing unfortunately.

[gallsman]

No, evidently not. Where did I suggest I had?!

Have you read anything yet? Or are you just here to rant and rave without, as usual, having a grasp of any of the facts?

[omaghjoe]

No, evidently not. Where did I suggest I had?!

Have you read anything yet? Or are you just here to rant and rave without, as usual, having a grasp of any of the facts?

The only thing i could have been deemed to be ranting and raving about was your comment above, now we established you made it, so tell us how it was all of the parents own doing...?