The Briefing Room
General Category => World News => Topic started by: TomSea on July 28, 2017, 05:36:12 pm
-
Charlie Gard, sick infant at center of hospital dispute, dies
New York Daily News · 2 minutes ago
BY Terence Cullen
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, July 28, 2017, 1:24 PM
Charlie Gard — the ailing 11-month-old whose parents fought to keep him on life support — died Friday, the Daily Mail reports.
A British judge ruled Thursday that Charlie be moved to hospice care, where he’d be taken off life support.
Charlie, who would’ve turned 1 year old next month, suffered from a genetic disorder his entire life that prevented him from breathing without the help of a respirator.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/charlie-gard-sick-infant-center-hospital-dispute-dies-article-1.3365283
I heard Mark Steyn first mention this just minutes ago on Rush.
-
Coming soon to America, now that ObamaCare is here to stay.
-
I watched Newsmax just two nights ago, they had a pro and con on Obamacare, the country is so divided, practically the best that could have been done in my view, was some sort of compromise but others don't want any compromise like Sen. Rand Paul, I respect that. It's just that we are stuck with it.
-
I have no words......... **nononono*
-
tears
-
I have no words......... **nononono*
I do...."BASTARDS!"
-
It was the only logical outcome. May he RIP.
-
It was the only logical outcome.
After the NHS botched treatment.
-
After the NHS botched treatment.
There never was a viable treatment.
-
It was the only logical outcome. May he RIP.
Sadly we are becoming a disposable society. We murder our unborn children and throw them in the trash. The elderly we warehouse them since they have no use in society...then when they get sick...take an aspirin. Years ago...family's respected their elders and kept them in their homes until they died. We don't value life much anymore.........
May God have mercy on us.
-
Hoping his mom and dad got some good hugs for their little boy and have some pictures to keep for all time.
-
There never was a viable treatment.
Why not let the parents make that call, rather than the State.
-
Sadly we are becoming a disposable society. We murder our unborn children and throw them in the trash. The elderly we warehouse them since they have no use in society...then when they get sick...take an aspirin. Years ago...family's respected their elders and kept them in their homes until they died. We don't value life much anymore.........
May God have mercy on us.
Speak for your own family.
In mine, we keep our elderly at home. My MIL recently underwent a major surgery for cancer at age 89. She lasted about a month after, but succumbed to complications. She lived in her youngest son's home.
My mother aged 92 lives with my youngest sister, and gets excellent medical care.
Those two were on Medicaid. I believe their doctors and other health care resources, are top notch.
If you actually know somebody that is relegated to "warehousing," try to get their family to take the elderly person home.
If you actually know an elderly person just getting "aspirin" only care, advise them to seek better care.
In my area Blue Shield 65 Plus and Blue Shield 65 Choice has been excellent.
-
Why not let the parents make that call, rather than the State.
The results would be the same. Just more pain and suffering to a terminally ill child.
-
The results would be the same. Just more pain and suffering to a terminally ill child.
So why not simply have the government euthanize anyone whose pain and suffering, in the view of the government alone, is above a certain predetermined threshold? We do it for sick dogs, why not sick humans?
-
So sorry little fellow. God speed.
-
So why not simply have the government euthanize anyone whose pain and suffering, in the view of the government alone, is above a certain predetermined threshold? We do it for sick dogs, why not sick humans?
Those other things are above my pay grade. I am commenting on one case where all the facts lead to one unfortunate but foregone conclusion. Letting emotion cloud a persons view doesn't change anything.
-
There never was a viable treatment.
Wingy, I love you, but sometimes you say things that I don't. We don't know if there was a viable treatment because it was never given to him.
-
Those other things are above my pay grade. I am commenting on one case where all the facts lead to one unfortunate but foregone conclusion. Letting emotion cloud a persons view doesn't change anything.
And bad cases make bad rules. Your comment calls for allowing the government to intervene at a certain point. That implies to either want a rule such as mine, or simply arbitrary discretion on the part of some government official. Otherwise, it should be left to the parents generally speaking.
-
Wingy, I love you, but sometimes you say things that I don't. We don't know if there was a viable treatment because it was never given to him.
I read up on this little guys disease and his condition at the time the story broke. Now Maybe just maybe the kid had a chance if he had the experimental treatment earlier on??? I don't know. I'm not speaking to that. My contention has always been and always will be.... He was toast by the time it hit the news.
-
I have no words......... **nononono*
There are no words.
Only tears. At least from me.
Why Charlie Gard's Life was Worth Fighting For (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449947/charlie-gard-life-worth-defending)
-
Why not let the parents make that call, rather than the State.
Time was when it would be the parents making the call.
That was then. This, disgustingly enough, is now.
-
I read up on this little guys disease and his condition at the time the story broke. Now Maybe just maybe the kid had a chance if he had the experimental treatment earlier on??? I don't know. I'm not speaking to that. My contention has always been and always will be.... He was toast by the time it hit the news.
That's the point - had the hospital not interfered, he would have received the treatment before he became too ill for it to be effective. How effective - we'll never know.
-
The results would be the same. Just more pain and suffering to a terminally ill child.
This was the issue.
Are parents allowed to put their children through pain and suffering, or does society have a obligation/right to step in?
If so, at what point?
-
The results would be the same. Just more pain and suffering to a terminally ill child.
Even the courts couldn't prove he was experiencing pain and suffering; they made an assumption, and you know what that does.
As far as results being same yes, likely, but (1) there would have been a much better chance of some level of improvement if NHS didn't decide in February NOT to do the treatment that Columbia-Presbyterian docs said they'd try in June and (2) there is value in the research, of learning whether this treatment DOES cross the blood-brain barrier, as it would have to in order to have helped Charlie Gard, and by refusing to allow the parents to make the attempt when the medication at the heart of the treatment is easily administered and with few side effects, NHS and GOSH have deprived us all of the research
-
Poor little angel 😇 G-d bless.
May he Rest In Peace. I'll pray for his parents. It must be horrible to loose a child.
-
Very sad situation.
I lean towards erring on the side of freedom. Gray areas should favor the parents, especially when the costs of care are not being passed on to the state.
-
Years ago I was the liaison between our local hospital and mothers of distressed newborns. Heart wrenching to say the least. Most of these babies would not survive. One thing I was VERY careful about was never giving these families false hope about the condition of their infant. Encouraged them to visit, encouraged them to touch their babies if allowed. Encouraged them to take pictures, and to love their babies while they were here. Encouraged them to let their babies hear their voices.
Am not an MD and did not pretend to be one. No one knows which baby might survive. The doctors in the hospital made sure not to exploit these families.