And your evidence....? Or is it just more bare assertion?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Matt Walsh: Stop pretending you’re killing Charlie Gard ‘for his own benefit,’ you monsters
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
I believe the issue is responsibility. I believe that, biblically, the family is a unit where the parents are responsible and accountable for their children. So I lean against the general idea that the courts should made the decisions about the care of a child except in cases where the parent is failing to meet his or her responsibility.
In this case the parent should decide. I have watched as friends died of cancer. Some fought to the end and others opted to decline treatment in order to live as they saw best. I supported both decisions, and I do not think either was poorly made.
I have a friend who had a terminally ill child (she was 8 years old, the same age as my son, when she passed). It was hard to take. They did what they could to give her a chance at life. I don’t think they would have been wrong if they declined treatment (as she was terminal). But I also don’t think that they could live with themselves if they did not at least try.
In this case the parent should decide. I have watched as friends died of cancer. Some fought to the end and others opted to decline treatment in order to live as they saw best. I supported both decisions, and I do not think either was poorly made.
I have a friend who had a terminally ill child (she was 8 years old, the same age as my son, when she passed). It was hard to take. They did what they could to give her a chance at life. I don’t think they would have been wrong if they declined treatment (as she was terminal). But I also don’t think that they could live with themselves if they did not at least try.
The Brits don't know what they are talking about on this point.
Again, evidence? Or are you just throwing soundbites out there?
Meanwhile, this:
I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:
Charlie Gard: Death threats sent to Great Ormond Street staff - Charlie Gard: Death threats sent to Great Ormond Street staff - BBC News
I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:
Charlie Gard: Death threats sent to Great Ormond Street staff - Charlie Gard: Death threats sent to Great Ormond Street staff - BBC News
IMHO, this is nothing more than immature low-lifes (regardless of political, social, academic or economic status) letting their bulldog mouth over-ride their butterfly brain.
I can understand the conflict, although I very strongly believe that the Hospital should have just explained the situation to the parents and allowed them to call the shots. When a third party decides life or death IN PLACE OF THOSE WHO CARE MOST, then a very, VERY, VERY dangerous precedent is being set.
Unfortunately this precedent is being set (IMHO) every time there is an abortion or assisted suicide. This seems to be the goal of the progressive(?) left though, and seems the Rs are just letting the left nibble at our society with only token resistance.
The UK murdered this child the same way the US murdered Terri Shivo
#1. Just to be clear, not only was Charlie not “brain dead,” he “still responds to us, even now.”
#2. “The American [Dr. Michio Hirano] and Italian team [presumably Dr. Bertini, who is mentioned later] were still willing to treat Charlie after reviewing the MRI head scan from July 2017 as they still felt that there was a chance of meaningful improvement in Charlie’s brain. However, due to the deterioration in his muscles, there is now no way back for Charlie. Time that has been wasted. It is time that has sadly gone against him.”
Five months of non-treatment, to be precise.
“His muscles were in pretty good shape in January, although obviously weaker than a child of similar age, and his brain scan was that of a relatively normal child of his age. He may well have had some disabilities later on in life but his quality of life could have been improved greatly.” This is just six months ago.
#3. “ut after reviewing the recent muscle MRI it was considered that Charlie’s muscles have deteriorated to the extent that it is largely irreversible and, were treatment to work, his quality of life would now not be one which we would want for our precious little boy.
“They [the outside physicians] both agreed that treatment should have been started sooner.”
It gets worse for the hospital:
#4. Why was his “treatment was not commenced in January or April this year”? Because “Charlie was found to have ‘irreversible brain damage’ and treatment was considered as ‘futile’. Dr Hirano and Dr Bertini, together with other internationally renowned paediatric neurologists have now reviewed Charlie’s MRI’s and EEG’s which were performed in January and April respectively, and they have confirmed that these MRI’s and EEG’s showed NO actual evidence of irreversible brain damage.”
Read the next paragraph carefully”
“Unfortunately Professor Hirano did not have access to the raw data and he based what he said in April on reports. We did not have access to these second opinions before the initial trial [in which Justice Francis ruled Charlie should be “allowed to die with dignity], hence why we are where we are today. Had we had the opportunity to have raw data of the MRIs and EEGs independently reviewed, we are convinced Charlie would be on treatment now and improving all the time.”
Connie Yates Tells the Inside Story of What Was Not Done for Charlie Gard | LifeNews.com
#2. “The American [Dr. Michio Hirano] and Italian team [presumably Dr. Bertini, who is mentioned later] were still willing to treat Charlie after reviewing the MRI head scan from July 2017 as they still felt that there was a chance of meaningful improvement in Charlie’s brain. However, due to the deterioration in his muscles, there is now no way back for Charlie. Time that has been wasted. It is time that has sadly gone against him.”
Five months of non-treatment, to be precise.
“His muscles were in pretty good shape in January, although obviously weaker than a child of similar age, and his brain scan was that of a relatively normal child of his age. He may well have had some disabilities later on in life but his quality of life could have been improved greatly.” This is just six months ago.
#3. “ut after reviewing the recent muscle MRI it was considered that Charlie’s muscles have deteriorated to the extent that it is largely irreversible and, were treatment to work, his quality of life would now not be one which we would want for our precious little boy.
“They [the outside physicians] both agreed that treatment should have been started sooner.”
It gets worse for the hospital:
#4. Why was his “treatment was not commenced in January or April this year”? Because “Charlie was found to have ‘irreversible brain damage’ and treatment was considered as ‘futile’. Dr Hirano and Dr Bertini, together with other internationally renowned paediatric neurologists have now reviewed Charlie’s MRI’s and EEG’s which were performed in January and April respectively, and they have confirmed that these MRI’s and EEG’s showed NO actual evidence of irreversible brain damage.”
Read the next paragraph carefully”
“Unfortunately Professor Hirano did not have access to the raw data and he based what he said in April on reports. We did not have access to these second opinions before the initial trial [in which Justice Francis ruled Charlie should be “allowed to die with dignity], hence why we are where we are today. Had we had the opportunity to have raw data of the MRIs and EEGs independently reviewed, we are convinced Charlie would be on treatment now and improving all the time.”
Connie Yates Tells the Inside Story of What Was Not Done for Charlie Gard | LifeNews.com
The British courts would now allow the infant to be discharged via air ambulance to treatment at another hospital even though it would not cost the British government a penny. There is some sort of evil going on in the Tory Party that May could close her ears to this case. The world can now see the evil side of government healthcare.
Does this incident leave any doubt that government run health care uses death panels?
It appears that Hirano never actually examined Charlie and has a financial interest in the treatment he was advocating: US doctor's intervention in Charlie Gard case 'raises ethical questions'
Sorry, but this is misinformation and 'fake news': Hirano has a vested interest in this treatment he was peddling, both financially and ethically (this treatment has not been tried on someone with Charlie's condition and of course Hirano would like a willing lab rat...), and he failed to declare this conflict of interest. He never even met Charlie still less examined him so quite why his 'evidence' was given any kind of weight and sensationalised in the media I have no idea; to hold out this false hope to his parents was nothing short of disgraceful. Moving Charlie to another building let alone another country would almost certainly have been fatal and would certainly have inflicted further suffering on him; I wonder whether those 'pro-life' advocates lobbying for his removal to the US actually stopped, thought and realised that they were thus advocating for his premature death?
I'm not interested in speculation or media hype that sells newspapers but rather fact-based evidence of experts that stands up to court scrutiny. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we have had.
Right, and please explain how you get a roomful of life-sustaining medical equipment into a helicopter? There isn't even enough space to house his equipment at his home (builders have offered to extend the property to accommodate it and of course all parents want their baby to die on a building site...) so how is it all supposed to fit into an air ambulance? Quite apart from that, the trip will almost certainly kill him.
All this blather about what can or can't be done "logically" (Drs, courts,& hospital ) is moot when the parents, the ones who love and care for the lad far, far more than the "deciders", are left out of the equation.
Say what you will about justice, legalities, medical expertise, etc., the parents should have been given the option of removing life support at the first thought of such, not later, after the decision had been made.
(As I understand, this decision was made with NO input from the parents - if this is wrong please show source negating such!)
If ever there were a justifiable reason for denying socialized medicine, this AND Terry Shiavo should be two standouts. MARANATHA
Say what you will about justice, legalities, medical expertise, etc., the parents should have been given the option of removing life support at the first thought of such, not later, after the decision had been made.
(As I understand, this decision was made with NO input from the parents - if this is wrong please show source negating such!)
If ever there were a justifiable reason for denying socialized medicine, this AND Terry Shiavo should be two standouts. MARANATHA
The child was made a political football under the veil of "sympathy" for the parents. A quack gave them false hope and the media helped plant false hope. I feel sorry for the family and think the turn of events and sensational media portrayal was gross.
No its not.
Mere contradiction is no argument but a base assertion again.
Applying the law to this case, there was cogent medical evidence that discharging Charlie into the care of his parents/ Hirano/ Donald Trump/ Republican members of Congress who had offered him US citizenship would cause him serious, probably fatal harm, as would keeping him alive artificially indefinitely (serious pain with no way of expressing it to anyone else - a living hell, in short) and the medics made the right call in referring it to the courts.
And don't give me this 'socialized medicine/ death panels' nonsense - you can bet quite literally your bottom dollar that a private healthcare insurance company, driven by profit and a first duty to its shareholders not the patient, wouldn't have made exactly the same decision, if anything sooner.
Then you understand incorrectly: far from being 'left out of the equation' and with 'NO input', the parents were involved every step of the way; heck, they were a party to all the court cases so if that's not 'involved' then I don't know what is. And the parents I am sure may love and care for him far more than the medics but they do not know what is best for him medically. Neither do I or you. This is where the hospital's duty of care to him kicks in: the moment a team of doctors start treating a patient, they owe him/ her a duty of care in law. This is amplified when the patient is a minor. They cannot in law simply hand that minor patient over to a third party (whether it be a research doctor from the US, the Vatican or even his parents) without being satisfied that the environment into which that patient was being discharged was good for the patient, otherwise they could be found to be negligent or even guilty of a criminal offence. For instance, if a hospital by a busy main road was treating a two year old and, having successfully treated the child for a sprained wrist, then received a phone call from the child's parents saying, "Oh, it's alright, just put him outside on the sidewalk once you've finished, we'll be along in about half an hour to pick him up", that hospital would be guilty of gross negligence if they complied with that parental request. Similarly, they would be negligent if they discharged a woman with Alzheimers into the 'care' of her disabled husband, even if that husband had full power of attorney to make that decision for her.
Applying the law to this case, there was cogent medical evidence that discharging Charlie into the care of his parents/ Hirano/ Donald Trump/ Republican members of Congress who had offered him US citizenship would cause him serious, probably fatal harm, as would keeping him alive artificially indefinitely (serious pain with no way of expressing it to anyone else - a living hell, in short) and the medics made the right call in referring it to the courts.
And don't give me this 'socialized medicine/ death panels' nonsense - you can bet quite literally your bottom dollar that a private healthcare insurance company, driven by profit and a first duty to its shareholders not the patient, wouldn't have made exactly the same decision, if anything sooner.
No you can't. In the US they don't get to. It is strictly a decision between the patient (or their family) and the doctor the family bearing the larger burden.Insurance companies can choose not to pay for it but they cannot choose to murder the child as the UK has done.
No-one has been murdered here...had he been made to board a plane to the US, then there might have been manslaughter charges to follow, but withdrawal of end of life treatment is not homicide.
- Status