European Courts and the Charlie Gard decision

[camberwell gypsy]

1 hour ago, The Beast said:

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.

It wouldn't have caused discomfort. That's a cop out by the judges. 

[Guest Mingeeta]

2 hours 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. 

I doubt the cunts  will give it a second thought. It may be experimental, but how do they expect to see if it works if they won't allow someone to be treated.

There was nothing to lose and everything to gain for both the little lad and his family, and the future of medicine. Ridiculous decision it is.

[ratcum]

Extended warranties are a fuckin con

[Roadkill]

1 minute ago, ratcum said:

Extended warranties are a fuckin con

Fucking hell, Ratty!

...good one, though.

[The Beast]

23 minutes ago, camberwell gypsy said:

It wouldn't have caused discomfort. That's a cop out by the judges. 

A cop out from what? 

[Cuntybaws]

9 minutes ago, ratcum said:

Extended warranties are a fuckin con

On a completely, er, unrelated note, my cousin had a cabbage patch doll.

[Roadkill]

4 minutes ago, The Beast said:

A cop out from what? 

From being lectured by you, Roops and Rick for hours on end in an attempt to bludgeon your own personal morals and standards into others through the power of smug righteousness.

[The Beast]

1 hour ago, Roadkill said:

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.

If this was allowed the whole care process would become open to all sorts of unlicensed practices that would undermine the principle of having evidence based trained clinicians. 

[Roadkill]

2 minutes ago, The Beast said:

If this was allowed the whole care process would become open to all sorts of unlicensed practices that would undermine the principle of having evidence based trained clinicians. 

No, just the end of the process, where the doctors have admitted they have no other ideas to try. I'm not agreeing with you on this one Beasty and you aren't going to agree with me, so let's just leave it at that.

[Cuntybaws]

8 minutes ago, Roadkill said:

From being lectured by you, Roops and Rick for hours on end in an attempt to bludgeon your own personal morals and standards into others through the power of smug righteousness.

Somebody has to decide. Your contention is that it should be the parents, whose sole medical qualification might be the ability to get the childproof cap off the Junior Calpol, and who are hardly impartial. You might be right, though, just fucking glad it's not my call. 

[Mrs Roops]

The ECHR did look and consider the case. They ruled that the Gard's submission was inadmissible, i.e. without merit because, 1/ They concluded that the British (medical) authorities were competent and was this was not proved otherwise, and, 2/ The British judiciary, through the courts, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had been "meticulous" in reaching their respective judgments. The Gard's legal team did not dispute the Ormond Street Hospital prognosis but made the submission that the parents should have the right of final say. The "right of final say" was the only reason that the ECHR became involved whereupon they took the Supreme Court's position and basically stated, "yes, but not when emotion clouds rational judgment to the extent that an individual's (that is Charlie Gard) pain and lack of dignity was being unnecessarily prolonged". The American medicos conceded that their treatment was "not a cure".

As a parent, I would have done everything Charlie's would have done, but the medical staff and courts have reached the right decision.

[Guest Mingeeta]

19 minutes ago, The Beast said:

If this was allowed the whole care process would become open to all sorts of unlicensed practices that would undermine the principle of having evidence based trained clinicians. 

I'm pretty sure the legal team acting for the parents would have checked it out. If there was no chance at all, I'm sure they would have had no qualms. But if, just if, there is a chance of survival, and it is paid by them, then they should be allowed. They brought him into the world, not the twats behind a desk, so the final say should be their own. And as for not letting him go home even, talk about doctors playing god doesn't wash sorry.

 

 

 

And at last some proper debate.

[The Beast]

19 minutes ago, Roadkill said:

From being lectured by you, Roops and Rick for hours on end in an attempt to bludgeon your own personal morals and standards into others through the power of smug righteousness.

Just trying to make sense of this judgement. Not moralising or bludgening. I think Mr Baws states the point well. Don't get upset Mr McMurphy

[Guest Wizardsleeve]

3 hours ago, The Beast said:

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

I think in cases like this, the parents know the child better than clinicians. The doctors can determine medical interests and hazards and inform the parents. It then becomes the domain of parental right to use that information to decide what's best for their child. Informed consent; or acting against medical advice, it still falls to parental discretion. 

[camberwell gypsy]

2 hours ago, The Beast said:

A cop out from what? 

To justify their decision. 

[Guest Mingeeta]

4 minutes ago, camberwell gypsy said:

To justify their decision. 

Out of likes I owe you one.

[camberwell gypsy]

1 hour ago, Mrs Roops said:

The ECHR did look and consider the case. They ruled that the Gard's submission was inadmissible, i.e. without merit because, 1/ They concluded that the British (medical) authorities were competent and was this was not proved otherwise, and, 2/ The British judiciary, through the courts, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had been "meticulous" in reaching their respective judgments. The Gard's legal team did not dispute the Ormond Street Hospital prognosis but made the submission that the parents should have the right of final say. The "right of final say" was the only reason that the ECHR became involved whereupon they took the Supreme Court's position and basically stated, "yes, but not when emotion clouds rational judgment to the extent that an individual's (that is Charlie Gard) pain and lack of dignity was being unnecessarily prolonged". The American medicos conceded that their treatment was "not a cure".

As a parent, I would have done everything Charlie's would have done, but the medical staff and courts have reached the right decision.

Sorry, I disagree. I point to my first post regarding treatment being experimental. The information that would have been gleaned from the treatment whether successful or not could be studied and developed. 

[Guest Mingeeta]

Just now, camberwell gypsy said:

Sorry, I disagree. I point to my first post regarding treatment being experimental. The information that would have been gleaned from the treatment whether successful or not could be studied and developed. 

Exactly.

[The Beast]

1 hour ago, Wizardsleeve said:

I think in cases like this, the parents know the child better than clinicians. The doctors can determine medical interests and hazards and inform the parents. It then becomes the domain of parental right to use that information to decide what's best for their child. Informed consent; or acting against medical advice, it still falls to parental discretion. 

Not a lot wrong with that, but in the eyes of the law, the rights of the child are paramount. This is an essential safeguard against erroneous parental decisions.

[ratcum]

2 hours ago, Cuntybaws said:

On a completely, er, unrelated note, my cousin had a cabbage patch doll.

did he orgasm?

[The Beast]

2 hours ago, Mingeeta said:

I'm pretty sure the legal team acting for the parents would have checked it out. If there was no chance at all, I'm sure they would have had no qualms. But if, just if, there is a chance of survival, and it is paid by them, then they should be allowed. They brought him into the world, not the twats behind a desk, so the final say should be their own. And as for not letting him go home even, talk about doctors playing god doesn't wash sorry.

 

 

 

And at last some proper debate.

I don't understand that point. Money should not come into it. 

[ratcum]

• Imagine if you got Heimlich and Hamlisch mixed up? Some cunt’s choking to death on their bagel, you jump up and play “The Entertainer” on their back. Jillty blaggers all round eh?

[Guest DingTheRioja]

2 hours ago, ratcum said:

Extended warranties are a fuckin con

That is responsible for a mouthfull of tea on my TV screen right now, cunt.

2 hours ago, Roadkill said:

Fucking hell, Ratty!

...good one, though.

Is it too early to say if Connie wants another I'm happy to help?

2 hours ago, The Beast said:

If this was allowed the whole care process would become open to all sorts of unlicensed practices that would undermine the principle of having evidence based trained clinicians. 

15 minutes ago, camberwell gypsy said:

Sorry, I disagree. I point to my first post regarding treatment being experimental. The information that would have been gleaned from the treatment whether successful or not could be studied and developed. 

I'm with Cambers on this one, yes it could well be quackery, but we don't find out without trying, as per your transfusion and the god botherers point, we wouldn't know transfusion worked if that bloke didn't try it with pigs and humans would we?

 

1 minute ago, The Beast said:

I don't understand that point. Money should not come into it. 

Tell that the NHS "postcode lottery".... most things can be fixed if you throw enough money at it, most not all, but as I said above, "we" need to try shit out.

 

As for the courts actual decision, the only real good I can see coming from that is that the parents can comfort themselves that they tried everything, even if some others wouldn't...

[The Beast]

4 minutes ago, DingTheRioja said:

 

I'm with Cambers on this one, yes it could well be quackery, but we don't find out without trying, as per your transfusion and the god botherers point, we wouldn't know transfusion worked if that bloke didn't try it with pigs and humans would we?

 

 

I think the point being missed by many, is the absolute futility of this child's situation. 

With such a rare condition and lack of research, the evidence simply isn't there that the proposed treatment would make any difference. 

[Guest Mingeeta]

19 minutes ago, The Beast said:

I don't understand that point. Money should not come into it. 

90%of the time the courts will think of costs. This would not have been a factor.