"Currants Bw..."

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Would it make a difference if they were Christian? If they'd been praying and believed God told them to press on with their pastor and congregation all backing them to press on and fight despite what the doctors have told them? Would that still make them idiotic?

I know that comment wasn't directed at me but just to clarify. I don't have any issue with the parents doing everything in their power to pursue the longest of long shots for their son. What I resent is the attitude that because the doctors have come to the conclusion that it would do him more harm than good (people who work for GOSH are dedicated in their care for children, it's a very tough decision for them to conclude a child cannot be helped) that they are de facto murdering their son.

[Letters]

Would it make a difference if they were Christian? If they'd been praying and believed God told them to press on with their pastor and congregation all backing them to press on and fight despite what the doctors have told them? Would that still make them idiotic?

I don't think that would carry much weight with a court and it probably shouldn't do.

[Power n Glory]

No I'm not missing the point, in the case of these doctors the decision they made was based on the fact that Charlie would most likely not survive the journey over to the United States to have treatment which even the people offering it stated would not reverse the damage done.

The argument about big pharma, can be very lopsided and overlooks the amount of clinical research these companies do that the NHS simply could not afford....which is why I don't get the piety of certain people (which politicians jump on) stating that there should be no private involvement in the service.

Are there doctors in the NHS who are paid to push the medication produced by certain companies....yes of course, it's wrong and in breach of medical ethics for me. But again find me the evidence that this was in anyway a factor in this case.

How many months did it take for them to arrive at that conclusion? The disease was diagnosed last September. 6 months later they say his life support should be switched off. How fast did this develop and could nothing have been done sooner?

I don’t need to provide evidence. The point you’ve just made contradicts what you’ve said about a ‘duty of care’. Unless you want to redefine what you mean?

[Power n Glory]

I don't think that would carry much weight with a court and it probably shouldn't do.

I didn’t ask if it would carry much weight in court. To clarify, how would you judge the parents if they were Christian and standing on faith, so to speak?

[Letters]

I didn’t ask if it would carry much weight in court. To clarify, how would you judge the parents if they were Christian and standing on faith, so to speak?

If it was an easily treatable condition I'd think they were being bloody idiots.
In a situation like Charlie Gard where there is no medical option then I'd admire their faith and hope they were right but I wouldn't think they'd be dragging this through the courts until God did His miracle.
If He's going to do one then He doesn't need to wait for a certain court ruling to do it.

[Niall_Quinn]

Why don't you, for a change, try and address the issues I've raised. To sum up for you:
Yes, parents by default should be the ones making decisions for their children. BUT there should be a process in place if it's felt the parents are making decisions which will harm their child.

Address the "issue" you've raised? All you did was chime in with a bunch of disconnected nonsense, That's not my opinion, btw. It's fact.

For instance, you believe in medical miracles AND the primacy of the medical profession - AT THE SAME TIME.

So how can anybody take you in the least bit seriously?

[Letters]

Yes, parents by default should be the ones making decisions for their children. BUT there should be a process in place if it's felt the parents are making decisions which will harm their child.

Have another go, NQ, there's a good chap.
What about the above do you disagree with? Very simple question, why do you always run away from those?

[Niall_Quinn]

I know that comment wasn't directed at me but just to clarify. I don't have any issue with the parents doing everything in their power to pursue the longest of long shots for their son. What I resent is the attitude that because the doctors have come to the conclusion that it would do him more harm than good (people who work for GOSH are dedicated in their care for children, it's a very tough decision for them to conclude a child cannot be helped) that they are de facto murdering their son.

It's actually none of their damn business. Why don't people understand that fundamental reality? The medical profession was asked for assistance in helping this child. They admitted they can't provide it. So fuck off already! Just because some kangaroo court claims state's rights based on statute (imaginary and arbitrary law) or just because some lecturer stuffed a drone's head full of authoritarian bullshit doesn't make a difference. The medical profession has clearly exceeded the bounds of its competency and authority, as has the court and the state. And if we don't believe that then we are self professed slaves. Owned by an imaginary construct that is administered by individuals who claim to know what's best for us and our offspring. By what right do they make such claims? If that's not intolerable then NOTHING is ever intolerable.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's actually none of their damn business. Why don't people understand that fundamental reality? The medical profession was asked for assistance in helping this child. They admitted they can't provide it. So fuck off already! Just because some kangaroo court claims state's rights based on statute (imaginary and arbitrary law) or just because some lecturer stuffed a drone's head full of authoritarian bullshit doesn't make a difference. The medical profession has clearly exceeded the bounds of its competency and authority, as has the court and the state. And if we don't believe that then we are self professed slaves. Owned by an imaginary construct that is administered by individuals who claim to know what's best for us and our offspring. By what right do they make such claims? If that's not intolerable then NOTHING is ever intolerable.

Where do you draw the line with that kind of thinking?

Do you think it's wrong of the state to interfere to prevent a child being mistreated by the parents. From denying them treatment on religious grounds to actually beating or sexually assaulting the child (statistically most child sexual offences go on within the family unit)

And there's something else you're forgetting. That in order to even attempt to transport this child across the Atlantic would have required the assistance of GOSH to begin with so in effect become complicit in the very thing they feel is damaging the child.

[Letters]

But, again, it's not just that they said they couldn't provide it, it's that they said NO-ONE can provide it and the kid was beyond help. The parents disagreed so fine, then someone has to make a decision.
It becomes their damn business when the kid is taken to hospital, then the doctors have a duty of care.
Their basis for thinking they know better than the parents is years of medical training and experience. Yes, doctors are fallible and prone to God-complex but overall I'd say they get it right more than they get it wrong.
Not all parents DO know what's best for their children and sometimes parents are actively a danger to their children. It's fairly rare but there are occasions when someone does need to intervene.