European Courts and the Charlie Gard decision

[Guest Mingeeta]

Complete wankers have decided they won't even hear what the parents of the poor little lad have to say.

They stick their beaks into cases regarding murderers in our prisons, to listen to the arguments to give them a cushier life, and to preserve their human rights to which they didn't afford their victims.

They listen to rapists when they complain they want a shorter sentence and a reduced category jail because they picked on, yet their victims have a life sentence to live with the ordeal.

Yet, this poor little lads life will end before it's began, and these twats won't even listen to what has to be said. Fucking disgraceful.

And to put the boot in more, they can't even take him home to die. 

[Guest Drew P Pissflaps]

But if we continue to intervene in cases where natural selection has decided otherwise we might have to deal with even bigger mongs who can grow up and contribute to sites like this. A sort of genetically modified super Punkape, imagine that.

[Guest Mingeeta]

3 minutes ago, Drew P Pissflaps said:

But if we continue to intervene in cases where natural selection has decided otherwise we might have to deal with even bigger mongs who can grow up and contribute to sites like this. A sort of genetically modified super Punkape, imagine that.

I know, they still piss me off though when they decide to rule on cases which they should have no say over.  But It's human rights they are supposed to stand up for. Thank fuck when they have no say anymore.

And a simple Punkape is bad enough jeez.

[Guest Lady Penelope]

3 minutes ago, Mingeeta said:

I know, they still piss me off though when they decide to rule on cases which they should have no say over.  But It's human rights they are supposed to stand up for. Thank fuck when they have no say anymore.

 

The court involved has got nothing to do with the EU, we will remain a member of it after we leave the EU. The parents took the case to the European Court of Human Rights and all they have done is to confirm the decisions made by the UK courts.

[Guest Mingeeta]

20 minutes ago, The Lady Penelope said:

The court involved has got nothing to do with the EU, we will remain a member of it after we leave the EU. The parents took the case to the European Court of Human Rights and all they have done is to confirm the decisions made by the UK courts.

Fucking hell you been away a long time where you been? And it's called the European Court of Human Rights, so of course it's got something to do with the EU. 

[Guest Lady Penelope]

1 hour ago, Mingeeta said:

Fucking hell you been away a long time where you been? And it's called the European Court of Human Rights, so of course it's got something to do with the EU. 

The EU court is the European Court of Justice .. the UK was one of the founders of the European Court of Human Rights.

[Guest Mingeeta]

3 minutes ago, The Lady Penelope said:

The EU court is the European Court of Justice .. the UK was one of the founders of the European Court of Human Rights.

Yes, a court who keeps overruling our court decisions, so why should they not consider overruling this one.

Where ever you've been..   Please go back.

[Guest Lady Penelope]

The two courts are entirely different. I now understand why you are so concerned about the rights of people with non-functioning brains.

[Mrs Roops]

Lady P is correct. The European Court of Human Rights was set up by the 47 members of the Council of Europe to enforce the European Convention of Human Rights and is quite distinct from the 28 member European Union whose judiciary arm is the European Court of Justice. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU Commission of Human Rights refers human rights cases to the ECHR.

[Roadkill]

It's really sad that they basically forced the parents to watch their kid die without letting them take every chance (no matter how small) to save him. It wouldn't have cost them a penny, seeing as the money has already been raised via fundraiser and even if it didn't work it would have at least provided valuable data on an experimental treatment that could potentially save lives in the future.

It was a bad call on this one. Parents should always have the last say in these situations provided that they're sound of mind. Refusing him treatment is one thing, but refusing others to treat him and holding him against the will of the parents under the ridiculous ideal that he should "die with dignity" is pretty sick.

[The Beast]

10 minutes ago, Roadkill said:

It's really sad that they basically forced the parents to watch their kid die without letting them take every chance (no matter how small) to save him. It wouldn't have cost them a penny, seeing as the money has already been raised via fundraiser and even if it didn't work it would have at least provided valuable data on an experimental treatment that could potentially save lives in the future.

It was a bad call on this one. Parents should always have the last say in these situations provided that they're sound of mind. Refusing him treatment is one thing, but refusing others to treat him and holding him against the will of the parents under the ridiculous ideal that he should "die with dignity" is pretty sick.

Some of the best paediatricians are at Great Ormond Street. It is World renowned. I think the courts have sensibly backed up the correct clinical decision and prevented some phantom quack taking the raised money with nothing offered in return. 

The current climate of empowering people about health care choices doesn't make them clinicians. It makes them more susceptible to being mugged by any cunt who promises miracles without researched evidence to qualify their claims.

[Roadkill]

34 minutes ago, The Beast said:

Some of the best paediatricians are at Great Ormond Street. It is World renowned. I think the courts have sensibly backed up the correct clinical decision and prevented some phantom quack taking the raised money with nothing offered in return. 

The current climate of empowering people about health care choices doesn't make them clinicians. It makes them more susceptible to being mugged by any cunt who promises miracles without researched evidence to qualify their claims.

I understand that, too. But if that's the risk that the parents are willing to take with their donated money then why stop them? Instead they're [the hospital] taking a load of bad press and getting demonized by the masses. The family are now going to be stuck with a dead son and a million quid with a lot of strings attached that they can't even justify spending seeing as the original purpose of it can't be fulfilled.

 

[Guest nobgobbler]

4 hours ago, Mingeeta said:

I know, they still piss me off though when they decide to rule on cases which they should have no say over.  But It's human rights they are supposed to stand up for. Thank fuck when they have no say anymore.

And a simple Punkape is bad enough jeez.

The more I hear about human rights the more its seems they only apply to sub-humans. Should be renamed sub-human rights.

[camberwell gypsy]

It's a sad case and one that makes me angry. I believe that Charlie should have been allowed to travel to the US to undergo this treatment. Yes, the treatment is experimental but literally all drugs and treatments in medical history have gone through an 'experimental' stage. If Charlie hadn't have survived, then the data collected would have been anylised and acted on.  I hope that the judges involved who took the decisions are haunted by it for the rest of their lives. But I won't hold my breath. 

[The Beast]

18 minutes ago, Roadkill said:

I understand that, too. But if that's the risk that the parents are willing to take with their donated money then why stop them? Instead they're [the hospital] taking a load of bad press and getting demonized by the masses. The family are now going to be stuck with a dead son and a million quid with a lot of strings attached that they can't even justify spending seeing as the original purpose of it can't be fulfilled.

 

The responsible clinicians have a duty of care to the child. They clearly believe it is not in the child's best interests to be taken abroad and have acted to ensure his best interests are upheld. 

I don't think being stuck with one million pounds is a problem, it can contribute to research for genetic diseases in children. What they are stuck with is grief, and that should be an entirely private matter for them to express out of the gaze of publicity.

[Eric Cuntman]

17 minutes ago, nobgobbler said:

The more I hear about human rights the more its seems they only apply to sub-humans. Should be renamed sub-human rights.

Human rights don't tend to apply to human whites, remember, black lives matter.

[The Beast]

5 minutes ago, camberwell gypsy said:

It's a sad case and one that makes me angry. I believe that Charlie should have been allowed to travel to the US to undergo this treatment. Yes, the treatment is experimental but literally all drugs and treatments in medical history have gone through an 'experimental' stage. If Charlie hadn't have survived, then the data collected would have been anylised and acted on.  I hope that the judges involved who took the decisions are haunted by it for the rest of their lives. But I won't hold my breath. 

If it is considered that travelling abroad is likely to prolong or increase suffering of the child then the Judges have acted in the child's best interest. This judgement would have been made scrutinising the efficacy of the proposed treatment abroad. There is no easy solution in this case, only taking what is believed to be the least harmful choice.

[Roadkill]

2 minutes ago, The Beast said:

The responsible clinicians have a duty of care to the child. They clearly believe it is not in the child's best interests to be taken abroad and have acted to ensure his best interests are upheld. 

I don't think being stuck with one million pounds is a problem, it can contribute to research for genetic diseases in children. What they are stuck with is grief, and that should be an entirely private matter for them to express it out of the gaze of publicity.

The clinicians shouldn't have the right to overrule the wishes of the parents when the alternative isn't going to harm them or their institution. Their rights stop when he isn't their patient any more and the parents as his legal guardians should have the ability to decide that factor.

[The Beast]

1 minute ago, Roadkill said:

The clinicians shouldn't have the right to overrule the wishes of the parents when the alternative isn't going to harm them or their institution. Their rights stop when he isn't their patient any more and the parents as his legal guardians should have the ability to decide that factor.

It is not about the parents or institutions. It is about the best interests of the child.

[Roadkill]

3 minutes ago, The Beast said:

It is not about the parents or institutions. It is about the best interests of the child.

When the doctors say its in the best interest of the child to simply die then the parents should have the last word on the matter, not the courts. Even if they wanted a fucking witch doctor to dance around him rattling bones to scare the evil spirits away they should be allowed to do so if the real doctors are out of ideas.

[Guest Alfie Noakes]

6 minutes ago, Roadkill said:

When the doctors say its in the best interest of the child to simply die then the parents should have the last word on the matter, not the courts. Even if they wanted a fucking witch doctor to dance around him rattling bones to scare the evil spirits away they should be allowed to do so if the real doctors are out of ideas.

The poor little lad has absoluely no chance, even the specialists in America think it would not really help him. The fact that intervention these days can keep even the most unlikely cases alive does not necessarily mean it is the best thing to do. Sometimes reason and cold logic are the answer, no matter how horrific it may seem at the time and to stop raw emotion ruling the decision making you have to arbitrate those decisions with law.

[The Beast]

Just now, Roadkill said:

When the doctors say its in the best interest of the child to simply die then the parents should have the last word on the matter, not the courts. Even if they wanted a fucking witch doctor to dance around him rattling bones to scare the evil spirits away they should be allowed to do so if the real doctors are out of ideas.

I give you an example of a situation I have encountered. 

A child was admitted to the A&E department following a road traffic collision. The child had sustained injuries which showed a splenic rupture. The child required immediate commencement of a blood transfusion (to prevent death from hypovolaemia) and immediate surgery. However, the child's parents were Jehovah Witnesses, and had no objections to consenting for the surgery but were adamant that a blood transfusion should not be started. Are clinicians supposed to respect the wishes of the parents or act in the child's best interests that the relevant laws allow them to do?

[Roadkill]

1 minute ago, The Beast said:

I give you an example of a situation I have encountered. 

A child was admitted to the A&E department following a road traffic collision. The child had sustained injuries which showed a splenic rupture. The child required immediate commencement of a blood transfusion (to prevent death from hypovolaemia) and immediate surgery. However, the child's parents were Jehovah Witnesses, and had no objections to consenting for the surgery but were adamant that a blood transfusion should not be started. Are clinicians supposed to respect the wishes of the parents or act in the child's best interests that the relevant laws allow them to do?

Of course they are. In this situation, where they have a clear plan of how to treat the patient and give them a chance at life, the doctors are 100% right. However, if the kid's injuries had left him in a vegetative state and the doctors decided the best thing to do was to let him die peacefully, then I believe the parents should have the last say, especially if they have other alternatives to attempt at their own cost.

[Roadkill]

12 minutes ago, Alfie Noakes said:

The poor little lad has absoluely no chance, even the specialists in America think it would not really help him. The fact that intervention these days can keep even the most unlikely cases alive does not necessarily mean it is the best thing to do. Sometimes reason and cold logic are the answer, no matter how horrific it may seem at the time and to stop raw emotion ruling the decision making you have to arbitrate those decisions with law.

I dunno, Alfie. It's a fucked up situation all around and I'm all argued out. Where's Punkape? I need to go and tell him he's a cunt.

[Guest Mingeeta]

4 hours ago, The Lady Penelope said:

The two courts are entirely different. I now understand why you are so concerned about the rights of people with non-functioning brains.

Your days away have not helped, you are still completely thick.

I am not disputing a Justice Court. My post clearly says the Human Rights Court. It refused to look at the Charlie Gard case, yet will look at human rights for killers, rapists and paedos. What part of that does not ring a bell with you?

The above scum are put away by the Justice system, yet the Human Rights Court puts it's snout in on the way they are treated. The Justice Courts say the child has to die, so the parents appealed it's against his human rights and they wont look at it. What doesn't your haggled brain understand? If they didn't have a chance they would look at it, their legal team would have said so.

Give dignitas a fucking ring pease.