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

That's right. I agree with all of those. They are all personal decisions (except for condemning someone to death), but I am against the death penalty because I don't think we should give the state the power to kill citizens. I can see that being abused (as I'm sure it has been many times). The LAST thing you should ever do is trust a government to do what is best and right. That is like . . . so opposite of every single government ever in history. They become corrupt and too powerful, like what we are seeing happening in the US more and more. That is why we need to start voting out career politicians.

 

It says a 10% chance of "measurable improvement."

If you wouldn't want to try it, then that would be your own decision. You and people like you shouldn't be able to force parents to not try every means possible and exhaust all means before they decide to give up on their child. That is a personal family decision and has nothing to do with you.

 

Measurable improvement means large enough or significant enough to be noticed.

 

The court system is part of the government...... the government is involved

 

If they can afford it then as I said let them do with this pathetic child what they want. This child has no life quality. It is in a prison of its own body. To prolong this hellish existence is beyond nuts.

 

Even the Ex govenor of Illinois who ended up in prison agrees with that..I am against the death penalty because I was in jail a few times before..I know giving a person death is the easy way out instead of letting them rot in prison of no way out..


.

 

Do you realise what "improvement" means?

My career has been with people with developmental disabilities. I know about what "improvement" means in the medical jargon where infant disabilities is concern. . . .and it sure doesn't mean "a child or an adult able to live a productive or even functional life!"

An "improvement" may mean that, if that child is not allowed to die peacefully, he will spend the next 30 or 40 years with life sustaining tubes, all his muscles will atrophy, and his brain will never reach the intellectual development of an 18 month old. He will probably have a feeding tube (which is likely to provoke multiple infections. . .each one a risk of dying), and he will need 24/7 1:1 care.

In addition, a baby on life support is so cute and helpless! Everyone wants to pick him up and hold him for hours, and sing to him and love him!

Have you ever seen a 30 year old developmentally disabled man who has been on life support for all his life? Have you ever seen his shrunk body, his cramped legs? Have you ever had to change his diaper and feed him through the hole in his stomach? Have you ever seen his parents's guilt at having let it go that far, and distress at not being able to stop it any more?

What about worrying about saving the potential of children who are born premature, but with a chance of survival, and a chance to lead a productive life?

 

Another more clinical point is that yes! The more they study these types of cases and TRY to find cures, the more likely they are going to be able to find more effective treatments in the future. If people want to seek out alternative treatments, then they should be able to try it out and see and decide for themselves if they want to continue with it or not. Nobody else should be making these types of decisions for a private citizen.

 

IOW, there is nothing in that case that is remotely on point.

 

So did you promote killing Stephen Hawking's with that logic?

The guy can't even go to the bathroom by himself, or even talk..


.

 

This still is your own "moral judgement," which you don't really have the right to make for another family. You can for your own family or would you like for someone else to make those decisions for you?

 

The case turns on the baby. From what I've read, the baby suffers an incurable mitochondrial genetic defect. He has never been conscious, can't breathe on his own. He's missed all the neurological thresholds - his brain isn't developing beyond the autonomic stage. There is zero hope for his recovery to a normal 1 year old - barring a miracle or a total body transplant of some kind - which is beyond our medical science @ this point.

The child has the form of a baby, & he looks OK in photos. That image is hardly going to change, & it's not the child's image that's the point. He's not going to improve, there is no known medical procedure that can restore him to ordinary health.

If his parents actually get to transport him for treatment, it will likely be to the Vatican hospital, simply because it's closer than the US - & getting baby & all the life support, plus trained personnel, on a transcontinental flight to the US isn't likely, without a military airlift or even more massive funding.

Yah, the UK National Health System has a fiscal responsibility & an ethical duty to their patients & also not to break the system on behalf of one patient or a handful of patients. Health care is most cost effective on preventive care - checkups, monitoring blood pressure, weight, dental, etc., & referral to doctors or specialists for treatment, as indicated. Dramatic end-of-life treatment by teams of specialist doctors & experimental peripheral treatments isn't a sustainable model for any healthcare system, unless massively supported by a modern technocratic state - & the voters need to make that clear to the health system, if that's what they choose to do.

I can't see the UK Health System breaking itself financially on behalf of this baby. If the parents have raised funding to transport him to the Vatican Hospital, the court should consider releasing the child. I don't think any state intervention @ this point makes any practical difference to his outcome, as far as the child is concerned. Releasing the child may set a precedent, the only reason I can think that UKNHS might balk.

But as a healthcare system, independent fundraising isn't a sustainable model. Even if the court orders the child released to the care of his parents, & Godspeed, this story is not going to have a happy ending. May God have mercy on us all.

 

Brace yourself: Judges = government.

 

Hawkings had the same condition at birth? This child is the next Hawkings? Hawkings cannot express his own desires and preferences? How did you come up with such as silly false equivalency?

 

Exactly, it's like breaking into someone's house and saying that child must die because "I say" ..it doesn't conform


.

 

It's not silly, I am using your logic.. why did you want Hawking's to live when you knew he needed care 24/7?


.

 

I am glad you finally came to the cross of this: what is of interest (especially to that "specialist" who wants a shot at "helping" that family) is not the life of that child. . .it is the FREE guinee pig he is getting! And he will get paid for it too!

 

Hawkins didn't have the same condition at birth! He was a perfectly independently functioning child, youth, and adult. . .capable even to marry and to father children!

Give it a break! You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

 

The story would have had a happy ending if the government and its judiciary had not aggressively violated the right of the parents to choose the doctors and treatment for their child.

The now obviously corrupt decadent and very authoritarian UK/EU political class has intervened because those who cannot pay to escape their Death Panels are outraged to think anyone who can pay might post bail and flee the repulsive system they are caught up in.

 

PeppermintTwist said: ↑
If they can afford it then as I said let them do with this pathetic child what they want. This child has no life quality. It is in a prison of its own body. To prolong this hellish existence is beyond nuts.

The cases are not remotely similar. Hawking graduated with honors & is a standout in physics, lecturer, author, director of research, & still writing & contributing to his field. He gets about in his motorized wheelchair, communicates by vocoder (I think a tracheotomy damaged his vocal cords), & TMK makes a nice income. He does have a lot of care, I don't know if he pays for that himself or not - as a productive member of UKNHS, I assume he's covered for his basics. As for his digestive & excretory systems - fortunately, that's not what he's paid for.

Baby Charlie apparently has no higher brain functions, & there's no way he's going to develop as he would have absent the mitochondrial defect he suffers from. Hawking's medical issues surfaced after he'd done a lot of his initial physics work. It would cost UK & the World whatever contributions he may yet make to arbitrarily shut off his support system, in some potty quest for ethereal & altogether inhuman justice on behalf on Baby Charlie, who merely happens to look like a normal baby.

 

Of course I know what I am talking about..so was Terri...

 

Charlie Gard has infantile onset encephalomyopathy mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS).

Hawkins developed a rare early-onset slow-progressing form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neurone disease or Lou Gehrig's disease, that has gradually paralysed him over the decades.

There is NO similarity between the two!

 

I am confused here, so you and the state wants death, what does that prove?


.

 

So you saying Charlie can't?


.
.

 

At this point and with the newest bleak prognosis of the specialist, I am almost starting to believe that the parents are milking this as well.