BREAKING: New Hope for Baby Charlie Gard – UK Hospital Considers Experimental Treatment

[Revmitchell]

In an excellent and stunning development, the hospital caring for baby Charlie Gard is now considering experimental treatment.

In a statement, the hospital explained:

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children has today applied to the High Court for a fresh hearing in the case of Charlie Gard in light of claims of new evidence relating to potential treatment for his condition.

We have just met with Charlie’s parents to inform them of this decision and will continue to keep them fully appraised of the situation.

Two international hospitals and their researchers have communicated to us as late as the last 24 hours that they have fresh evidence about their proposed experimental treatment.

And we believe, in common with Charlie’s parents, it is right to explore this evidence.

Vatican children’s hospital in Rome and at least one U.S. hospital have offered to treat baby Charlie and administer an experimental treatment that could improve his condition.


BREAKING: New Hope for Baby Charlie Gard – UK Hospital Considers Experimental Treatment | American Center for Law and Justice

 

[Revmitchell]

Charlie Gard’s parents are embroiled in the fight for their son’s life and — importantly — the fight for their right to be parents.

Diagnosed with a rare mitochondrial disease, a condition that disables the cells of the body from functioning adequately, little Charlie — who is not yet a year old — has been on life support. And the British courts, not his parents, are assuming responsibility for his life.


Why? Because doctors have determined that his brain function is beyond repair.

Let me be the first physician to say that those doctors may not be right. Time and again, in my 30 years of practicing pediatrics, I have seen children declared brain-dead by physicians — only to recover and regain brain function.

Sometimes these children's brains recover well, sometimes only minimally; but that's not the point. The "right" here belongs to the child's parents, not physicians or the government, to decide what they want for their child.

And, wouldn't you know — early this afternoon, Great Ormond Street Hospital in the U.K. declared that "claims of new evidence" in the treatment of the child have prompted it to request a new court hearing. The hospital said in a statement, "We have just met with Charlie's parents to inform them of this decision ... We believe, in common with Charlie's parents, it is right to explore this evidence," as Sky News reported.

The Fight for Charlie Gard’s Life: Maybe Doctors Aren’t Right

 

[just-want-peace]

Charlie Gard’s parents are embroiled in the fight for their son’s life and — importantly — the fight for their right to be parents.

Diagnosed with a rare mitochondrial disease, a condition that disables the cells of the body from functioning adequately, little Charlie — who is not yet a year old — has been on life support. And the British courts, not his parents, are assuming responsibility for his life.


Why? Because doctors have determined that his brain function is beyond repair.

Let me be the first physician to say that those doctors may not be right. Time and again, in my 30 years of practicing pediatrics, I have seen children declared brain-dead by physicians — only to recover and regain brain function.

Sometimes these children's brains recover well, sometimes only minimally; but that's not the point. The "right" here belongs to the child's parents, not physicians or the government, to decide what they want for their child.

And, wouldn't you know — early this afternoon, Great Ormond Street Hospital in the U.K. declared that "claims of new evidence" in the treatment of the child have prompted it to request a new court hearing. The hospital said in a statement, "We have just met with Charlie's parents to inform them of this decision ... We believe, in common with Charlie's parents, it is right to explore this evidence," as Sky News reported.

The Fight for Charlie Gard’s Life: Maybe Doctors Aren’t Right

Based on past actions, if this child were mine & I had the contributions supposedly recieved, I would certainly opt for treatment in the USA.
I would be very hesitant to accept the "results" of any "new" procedure that the hospital's "claims of new evidence" may produce. I would feel there would be an inherent bias AGAINST success, though it may not (??) be conscious!
Just MHO!!!

 

[HankD]

There is a formula which equates the overall monetary value of the individual to society in contradistinction to the outlay of funds to save the life of said individual.

Wouldn't babies and even little children then be considered of high value seeing they have their whole life ahead of them?

No for the most part because a huge outlay of funds is going to be required for the child's education and the normal medical requirements to get them to a point of self-sufficiency
.
The brother of Rahm Emanuel - doctor Ezekiel Emanuel - a past advisor to President Obama is a propounder of eugenics although he doesn't actually use the word.

According to the doctor the human beings of the most value to society fall within the 40-45 age range all others on either side of the spectrum fall with a greater degree within the formula of death.

He provides a chart showing the typical “age-creativity curve,” according to which “creativity rises rapidly as a career commences,” peaks at about age 40-45, and then enters “a slow, age-related decline,” with the last significant creative contribution shortly after age 60.

“Why I Hope to Die at 75”: Ezekiel Emanuel’s sinister argument against prolonging life

HankD

 

[Use of Time]

We know Rev. Matt Black brought that point up in the thread about this exact topic. You know. The one you participated in all day long yesterday. You ignored it in there when he said it but now want to make a thread about it for some reason.

 

[Use of Time]

Based on past actions, if this child were mine & I had the contributions supposedly recieved, I would certainly opt for treatment in the USA.
I would be very hesitant to accept the "results" of any "new" procedure that the hospital's "claims of new evidence" may produce. I would feel there would be an inherent bias AGAINST success, though it may not (??) be conscious!
Just MHO!!!

Uh, the "bias" hospital reopened the case dude. These are the hysterics without any medical basis that are not helpful. Who has the bias here again? You perhaps?

 

[HankD]

Uh, the "bias" hospital reopened the case dude. These are the hysterics without any medical basis that are not helpful. Who has the bias here again? You perhaps?

Just giving the facts, so what if it supports his bias?

Medical bias - hysterics?

HankD

 

[Use of Time]

Just giving the facts, so what if it supports his bias?

Medical bias - hysterics?

HankD

I didn't see a whole lot of either in his post Hank.

 

[HankD]

I didn't see a whole lot of either in his post Hank.

True it's debatable. That's why we are here at the BB.

HankD