The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Do you feel the same about severely retarded people?

 

Do you think that is your decision or the government's decision to make for a family, for the parents?

 

Reminds me a lot of the Terry Schiavo case. Terry was reported to have smiled in response to people talking to her, according to her family members and some of her caretakers. But others decided for her and her family that her quality of life was not worth living.

 

I would opt to let this baby die peacefully and naturally. If a "severely retarded" child was physically suffering, I would hope their life span would be a relatively short one.

 

That is a difficult question but IMO, it all come down to whether or not the child is suffering.

 

You would hope to involve yourself or have the government involved in a family's private and personal decisions regarding their sick children. Well that is not a decision for you or the government to make. It's not much different than how you feel about people involving themselves in a person's decision to abort a child. Is that what is coming next? Forced abortions because of an anomaly or something?

 

It clearly says they do not know if the child is suffering. I think if anyone would know, then it would be the close relatives of the child who spend their time with him and caring for him and who love him.

 

I gave you an honest answer but you just seem to want an opportunity to be belligerent. If it were my child I'd allow it to die with dignity and the least amount of suffering as possible as opposed to being plugged in vegetable. IMO, they should release the child to the parents and let them do whatever the **** they want. It is also of my opinion that these are very dimwitted selfish parents if they prolong the inevitable.

 

But this is not your child, is it? Therefore, not your decision to make for another family. If the parents want to take any means necessary to try to save their child, then that is their decision to make and nobody else's.

 

It is a 10% chance of clinically meaningful sucess. Which means a 10% chance of some measurable improvement not a 10% chance of a happy or normal or painfree or even concious life.

 

Oh, so now you feel that you are a perfect enough human being to judge these parents, while they are sitting in a situation that you know NOTHING about, is that right?

 

Exactly and she was brain dead which gives you some idea of just how meaningful or reliable the opinions of wisful thinking people can be. That case was a perfect example of why medical decisions are best left to the experts.

 

Well you certainly seem willing to have an opinion on something you have no first hand knowledge about. And in fairness anyone posting here is probably in exactly the same position.

 

Are you the opinion police? What's the matter I gave you an answer that you could not deal with because I said let the parents have their way and take their son and do as they please, so you change tack? Try that belligerency elsewhere.

 

You don't have a clue as to what these parents are going through, and you call them selfish. When you have a sick and/or dying child, then come talk to us.

 

It is not the governments decision, it is made in the end by a judge, who does not represent the government. He decides based on the very best medical evidence. The decision is being reviewed based on the access given to the doctor who thinks he may be able to help, new evidence which will be considered. Not one person knows what that evidence is or what the decision will be.

 

And judges are influenced by governors and mayors and all other government officials. Let's not be naive. The child is just a number to them. They don't love or care about this child.

 

I pointed out your three lies. They are all from your own words in your posts. Suggest you go back and read again what you posted.

But lets take your claim of providing considerable care. Were you the primary care giver. Were they at home and did you feed them, and take them to the bathroom and clean up their messes and administer their medicines or were they in hospice and all you really did was spend time sitting with them? Go ahead and tell me anout yhe considerable care.

And then there is your claim that hospice is essentially assisted suicide which is unarguably a lie.

And then there is your lie that opiods at the end of life spped death which is just not factually true.

So I stand by my position. But feel free to try and post any actual evidence to support your lies.

 

How exactly do you know that!

 

You don't think so? Judges are political pawns too! Just like we are!

 

Chris please look at the system we have in the UK, it is not the same as in the US. This judge is paid to make the best decision for Charlie, not what the doctors want, not what the hospital want,not what the parents want, simply what he believes is the best thing to do for Charlie, nothing else. And again the final decision has not been made, for all we know the doctor from the US may now feel he cannot help.

 

I already posted the case chief. My god.... you'll have to READ!!!!! Oh the huge manatee!!!

 

You didn't do any such thing, you've just assumed a whole lot of things you know nothing about. Hang on to your denial though, if it makes you feel better.

 

This case has nothing to do with the government, but with medical ethics and the law.
At no time have the government been involved. Charlie's mother asked Theresa May to intervene, but she can't do that, even if she wanted to.
Politicians should butt out and that includes Trump.

The position of GOSH is clear. There is no medical treatment that can help Charlie. His medical team hope very much that he cannot feel pain, but they cannot be sure he doesn't. That being the case, he's receiving a low dose of morphine.
They came to the end of the road a long time ago and Charlie is deteriorating more and more.
In the UK, and also in the US, parents do not own their children. Charlie is a person and has rights.
No person may own another person.
As Charlie is not only seriously ill, but a baby, a legal guardian has been appointed to make sure those rights are not infringed.
Anyway, the following should explain everything you need to know.

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

 

Well how can he make the "best decision" when it is not his child? It is a child that he doesn't even know except for what he read about in some medical files. Nobody should be allowed to make such decisions except the parents/guardians, unless their decisions are found to be negligent in some way. Trying every means necessary to help your child is not negligence. That is what most parents in that situation would do. They want to try everything before they just give up on their child. That is because they love the child. The judges and the government do not.