The tragic case of Charlie Gard?

Rotation Advertisements

We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.

If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.

Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk

If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Pages:
1
2

The tragic case of Charlie Gard?
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 9 2017, 06:06 PM (769 Views)
* Mitas	Jul 11 2017, 08:51 PM Post #16
It truly was a Shawshank redemption Posts: 12,129 Group: Retired Staff Member #2,993 Joined: December 16, 2007 Gender Male Favourite Anime DBZ What Browser do you use? Google Chrome Favourite Manga DBZ, Full Metal Alchemist	Political Piper Jul 11 2017, 08:04 PM Nobody has the right to play God. I truly hope you guys don't find yourself in a situation where you get sick and you want to try to get treatment and the Government says no, you have to die. Your life isn't worth the money or the hassle of the doctors to try and treat you. Again, you seem to be missing the entire point of this case and are putting words in our mouths in the process. This: Quote: in a situation where you get sick and you want to try to get treatment and the Government says no, you have to die. is not what is happening here, and nor is it something anyone in this thread is advocating for. Charlie Gard is incapable of saying whether he wants to try to get treatment or not, whether he wants to undergo the risks. THAT is the issue. Because the patient is incapable of making that decision, the responsibility needs to fall to another party; the debate is about who that party should be. Regardless of whether it's the government, the doctors, the family; none of those people are the patient, so somebody is playing God, as you put it. It's about who that person is, and I argue that the doctors and the state are more qualified than the parents and more likely to act in the best interests of the patient. At no point did anybody say that if a patient is of sound mind and able to converse that their wishes be ignored in favour of the opinions of the doctors and/or the state. That is, of course, ludicrous.
	"Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."


Tinny	Jul 11 2017, 11:15 PM Post #17
Posts: 6,060 Group: Super Moderator Member #12,355 Joined: May 24, 2015 Gender Not Specified Favourite Anime Silver Spoon, Fate/Zero, Legend of Galactic Heroes, Space Patrol Luluco, Psycho-pass, Miss Kobayashi What Browser do you use? Chrome, Edge Favourite Manga Wizard's Soul ~Holy War of Love~	I will say this. reading the actual ruling, it seems that the parents at first agreed that his current life isn't worth sustaining. The hospital was about to attempt it when his condition worsened and I quote "his epileptic encephalothy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him." The doctor who was offering said treatment also said that "it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely." He has said he'd pay for the treatment, but also that he never tried it on anyone who had encephalopathy. The nucleoside therapy has also been unanimously agreed that it won't reverse the structural brain damage, and while the medical community will benefit from this, Charlie himself, as the court record states, will not. It looks to me like Charlie Gard is going to die no matter what, and from what I can tell on a brief overview everyone seems to agree on this, and that the question to be had here, is where is Charlie Gard going to die, at home, or in the hospital. And the choice here, in either direction, is not something I can fault any party for choosing, at this point it is where the patient where be most comfortable before death. Like I just said, I do not blame the courts or parents for any decision reached here, but I do think that in Charlie Gard's best interests, that he doesn't undergo a care treatment that no one believes will work and will only benefit the medical community in that they see the effect it has, and that he doesn't go home, given that he's a baby and probably couldn't recognize home beyond his parents and any friends and family (if were to have complete control, I'd let anyone that the Gards considered to be friends and family members to Charlie Gard to visit, paying for any expenses along the way). It's a horrible position for anyone to be in, and I can't really hold out condemnation for any party making these decisions. Charlie Gard is going to die, and having him subjected to an experiment treatment just to see what happens before he finally dies is... Well I think a lack of consent should be assumed until the patient says otherwise. P.S. Political Piper, from what I can tell there is no life (even a small chance at it) and death here, there is only death, and where the baby is going to be when they finally die. Whether it's in a lab in America, in a hospital in Britain, or at their home. The universal healthcare seems about as related as going after a gun manufacturer after a shooting. It is misplaced politics Political Piper, the real question here, is whether he should die in the hospital, the home, or in America for the benefit of science. Edited by Tinny, Jul 11 2017, 11:27 PM.
	Above signature created by Graffiti


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Create your own social network with a free forum. Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2