• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Against his parents’ wishes, terminally ill infant will be allowed to die

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think you want to really know what I think. I'm pretty sure I see what you're trying to get across and honestly I have no desire to go down that discussion path with you. It's clear that no matter what I say, you will just push it aside and say the docs/courts know better. I'll end it right here for ya.

If some parents had a child at a hospital suffering from cancer that they were treating with chemo, and the parents came up with a plan to take him off chemo and instead treat him with sungazing, would you want the "courts and doctors" to not have the right to interfere? Do you not understand the horrible precedent this could set, if we take away medical institutions capacity to ensure patients are receiving the best treatment possible based on medical science?

Children aren't property.

By the way, people do want to know what you think. It's the internet. Noone is scared of anyone since people's locations are anonymized. As far as I or any other rational person is concerned, claiming we don't really want to know what you think, seems more like a way to back out of an argument instead of having the capacity to use your wits to demonstrate your beliefs are correct with reasoning and evidence.

I'm not having any of it. Doctors and medical researchers have been attacked by society enough in cases like these.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Horrific situation, but if there really is an experimental procedure overseas, is it not cruel to rob the parents and the child of that chance? I realize there's a line between hope and just stalling, but I can't imagine someone forcing to pull the plug if there's an avenue I haven't yet tried.

How many avenues should one try before they admit they're delaying the inevitable?
 
All of them that are being worked on by reputable medical professionals.

What is the difference in a parent's own mind that prayers cure cancer better than chemo etc.?

The people whose job it is to make these determinations are qualified by actual science to make the right call. At a certain point any person has to realize that it is time to stop. If they can't then a decision like this is made.
 
^Are any of you actually parents?


If, as in this case, there was an active line of research showing promising results, even pre-animal trials I would want to hold on. That's what my emotions tell me.

You aren't the one that'd be trapped in a tomb masquerading as a body.
 

xk0sm0sx

Member
Right call.

Death is all around in our lives and one have to embrace it even if it is painful.
I believe if one loves a person and there's no cure, the greatest gift of love is to let the person go without suffering.
At least the child is still young to not fully realize the disappointment yet.

I'm also pessimistic generally, because I have seen the pain of parents losing their children for no reason, and realize it is better to embrace this worldview rather than the ideal fantasy that no one's kids should pass before the parents.

I had a dog not long ago, it still had a few more years to live, but it got cancer, so I had to decide to treat or attempt to cure it (very low chance).
Given the low chances of recovery and that my dog would likely be more sick after therapy, I opted to not do anything and let it live for 'as long as it wasn't suffering'. Two months later, my dog started vomiting and not eat anything, and I euthanized it in a few days.
The decision hurts, but I knew I gave my dog the best love by not letting it suffer.
Of course, it's just a dog and not my own kid. But just saying this is my worldview.
 

Yeoman

Member
I don't think you want to really know what I think. I'm pretty sure I see what you're trying to get across and honestly I have no desire to go down that discussion path with you. It's clear that no matter what I say, you will just push it aside and say the docs/courts know better. I'll end it right here for ya.
Right well ignoring this fingers in the ears "I can't hear you" post.


Here are some facts for everyone in this thread to read:

Charlie Gard was being treated at Great Ormond Street Hospital - widely regarded as the best childrens hospital on the planet. They specialise in dealing with children that have extremely rare health conditions.
It was their experts who first ruled against any further attempts at prolonging Charlie's life.
In their own words treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm".

The case then went to the European Court of Human Rights which concluded that Charlie was "being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress" and undergoing experimental treatment with "no prospects of success... would offer no benefit".

As for Charlie's condition:
Charlie’s brain, muscle and ability to breathe are all severely affected. In addition, Charlie has congenital deafness and a severe epilepsy disorder. Charlie's heart, liver and kidneys are also affected.1

Charlie has severe progressive muscle weakness and cannot move his arms or legs or breathe unaided.1  

Charlie's eyelids cannot stay open and his eyes point in different directions because of muscular weakness. Charlie’s retina would struggle to develop and his brainwaves suggest that he is not going to be able to lay down normal visual patterns that should be learned at an early age. Eyesight is not something you’re born with, it develops over time.
One of the factors that influenced this decision was that Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred.

The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit.
That's not from some tabloid, it's from Great Ormond Street Hospital themselves - you can find more information about the situation on their website: http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case
Does that sound like a good quality of life to you?

Furthermore this treatment (which has never been tested on mice let alone Humans) will not cure the condition, it will just prolong his life. Again he's still be in the same condition he's currently in.


It's a horrible terrible situation and my thoughts are with the parents but multiple doctors and medical professionals have ruled against prolonging his life any further for a reason.
Again,the dedicated section on the Great Ormond Street Hospital website is informative:
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case
 

Kadin

Member
Is the discussion path you don't want to go down that the judgement was that the brain damage is permanent and this treatment can't repair it?

Otherwise I'm confused.

If some parents had a child at a hospital suffering from cancer that they were treating with chemo, and the parents came up with a plan to take him off chemo and instead treat him with sungazing, would you want the "courts and doctors" to not have the right to interfere? Do you not understand the horrible precedent this could set, if we take away medical institutions capacity to ensure patients are receiving the best treatment possible based on medical science?

Children aren't property.

By the way, people do want to know what you think. It's the internet. Noone is scared of anyone since people's locations are anonymized. As far as I or any other rational person is concerned, claiming we don't really want to know what you think, seems more like a way to back out of an argument instead of having the capacity to use your wits to demonstrate your beliefs are correct with reasoning and evidence.

I'm not having any of it. Doctors and medical researchers have been attacked by society enough in cases like these.
The parents had a possibility of taking their child to the US for some treatment that they felt would help their child. They felt, based on what they know about this information, that it could possibly help him and give him a better life than he has now. Is that a fallacy and completely wrong? It might very well be. But it's what they feel they should do and I for one feel they should be allowed to try it.

People continue to throw around the term "children are not property" and yet the second a parent doesn't do something in the child's best interest, someone like CPS gets called and they get their children taken away. So they have to do everything they can to give them a good life but when the doctors all agree that there's very little hope, they just have to say okay and not be allowed to still try. That's what I'm getting at. At least allow them to do what they can and make their own choices. If they're just sitting in the hospital and pleading to not take the child off life support with no plan of action, then of course, step in and try to help them make another decision.

But I'm speaking to an audience that clearly shares the opposite opinion and I'm okay with that. I just don't care for the condescending remarks (or questions) that clearly are trying to invoke a response that seems will get brushed aside.
 

jaekeem

Member
The parents had a possibility of taking their child to the US for some treatment that they felt would help their child. They felt, based on what they know about this information, that it could possibly help him and give him a better life than he has now. Is that a fallacy and completely wrong? It might very well be. But it's what they feel they should do and I for one feel they should be allowed to try it.

People continue to throw around the term "children are not property" and yet the second a parent doesn't do something in the child's best interest, someone like CPS gets called and they get their children taken away. So they have to do everything they can to give them a good life but when the doctors all agree that there's very little hope, they just have to say okay and not be allowed to still try. That's what I'm getting at. At least allow them to do what they can and make their own choices. If they're just sitting in the hospital and pleading to not take the child off life support with no plan of action, then of course, step in and try to help them make another decision.

But I'm speaking to an audience that clearly shares the opposite opinion and I'm okay with that. I just don't care for the condescending remarks (or questions) that clearly are trying to invoke a response that seems will get brushed aside.

I see where you are coming from, but when you enter the territory of subjecting a child to experiments that every medical professional is saying aren't going to solve the underlying issue, well, that's just more than a step too far.

You can't wave that reality away by saying "parents make their own choices." There are consequences imposed upon 1) the child 2) those that have to help the parents in facilitating those choices, whether paid or unpaid.
 
Right well ignoring this fingers in the ears "I can't hear you" post.


Here are some facts for everyone in this thread to read:

Charlie Gard was being treated at Great Ormond Street Hospital - widely regarded as the best childrens hospital on the planet. They specialise in dealing with children that have extremely rare health conditions.
It was their experts who first ruled against any further attempts at prolonging Charlie's life.
In their own words treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm".

The case then went to the European Court of Human Rights which concluded that Charlie was "being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress" and undergoing experimental treatment with "no prospects of success... would offer no benefit".

As for Charlie's condition:


That's not from some tabloid, it's from Great Ormond Street Hospital themselves - you can find more information about the situation on their website: http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case
Does that sound like a good quality of life to you?

Furthermore this treatment (which has never been tested on mice let alone Humans) will not cure the condition, it will just prolong his life. Again he's still be in the same condition he's currently in.


It's a horrible terrible situation and my thoughts are with the parents but multiple doctors and medical professionals have ruled against prolonging his life any further for a reason.
Again,the dedicated section on the Great Ormond Street Hospital website is informative:
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

Hey Yeoman I have the magic words to absolutely destroy your argument: "You're not a parent though".
/s

Fucking seriously, y'all are into feels over facts. The kid's suffered enough.

I'd like to die peacefully thank you very much. I really need to put some thought into writing a DNR order. They've been asking me at the hospital if I have one.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
So the parents wanted to torture him cause emotions.

You may be right, but Goddamn such a heartless and dismissive way of saying it, as if you really see no value at all in the emotions of a parent forced by circumstances to kill their own child.

Such a chilling, cold, and lack of an empathy way of saying things, I am actually kinda surprised to see it.
 
Right well ignoring this fingers in the ears "I can't hear you" post.


Here are some facts for everyone in this thread to read:

Charlie Gard was being treated at Great Ormond Street Hospital - widely regarded as the best childrens hospital on the planet. They specialise in dealing with children that have extremely rare health conditions.
It was their experts who first ruled against any further attempts at prolonging Charlie's life.
In their own words treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm".

The case then went to the European Court of Human Rights which concluded that Charlie was "being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress" and undergoing experimental treatment with "no prospects of success... would offer no benefit".

As for Charlie's condition:


That's not from some tabloid, it's from Great Ormond Street Hospital themselves - you can find more information about the situation on their website: http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case
Does that sound like a good quality of life to you?

Furthermore this treatment (which has never been tested on mice let alone Humans) will not cure the condition, it will just prolong his life. Again he's still be in the same condition he's currently in.


It's a horrible terrible situation and my thoughts are with the parents but multiple doctors and medical professionals have ruled against prolonging his life any further for a reason.
Again,the dedicated section on the Great Ormond Street Hospital website is informative:
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

Thank you for this. Confirms most of what I expected. Good to hear the U.S. doctor also agreed the brain damage would not be reversed. This should nip away any arguments that doubt the science of the brain damage based on "Doctor's disagreeing".

It is clear Charlie has irreversible brain damage, and it is clear this U.S. treatment could not help it.
 

Finalizer

Member
One of the factors that influenced this decision was that Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred.

The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit.

This is a great post in general, but this bit in particular really needs to be added to the OP, what with all the posters suggesting that the parents should be allowed to seek the "experimental" treatment in the US.
 
Sucks they couldn't do the experimental treatment in the U.K. to ease the parents minds that they tried everything. Even so, if the treatment did everything it promised, the result would still be a brain-dead child that can't even breathe on their own.

A reminder that there are fates worse than death, and I hope the parents can understand that.
 

Yeoman

Member

Ponn

Banned
Sucks they couldn't do the experimental treatment in the U.K. to ease the parents minds that they tried everything. Even so, if the treatment did everything it promised, the result would still be a brain-dead child that can't even breathe on their own.

A reminder that there are fates worse than death, and I hope the parents can understand that.

It deserves introspection on why we do what we do and how alot of times we do things out of selfishness instead of compassion. If you polled people if they wanted to be kept alive if they were brain dead, especially in this thread, you would probably come back with a majority saying no. When faced with loved ones in the same situation though we suddenly want to do everything possible to keep them around in our lives for as long as possible. And if we don't its a failure on our part. It's an understandable position that I completely empathize with, but at the same time you have to give some thought to why you really are doing what you are doing and put yourself in the loved ones shoes.
 
What is the difference in a parent's own mind that prayers cure cancer better than chemo etc.?

The people whose job it is to make these determinations are qualified by actual science to make the right call. At a certain point any person has to realize that it is time to stop. If they can't then a decision like this is made.

Lets hope you don't get the wrong doctor.
It's not like all of them agree on everything.
 

Abhor

Member
I agree with the court. Living from birth like that is NOT living. It is a meaningless torture for the sake of clinging to a life that will never truly begin in the vain hope something will change.
 

Rmagnus

Banned
As the father of two 6 month olds I would never let go. Death is the ultimate enemy that must be conquered by any and all means.

Lmfao death conquer? Dood seriously?

If the parents are unable to make a rational decision which is the best for the child I think the courts and doctors did the right thing
 

johnny956

Member
^Are any of you actually parents?


If, as in this case, there was an active line of research showing promising results, even pre-animal trials I would want to hold on. That's what my emotions tell me.


Thankfully doctors make decisions based on research and generally won't test experimental drugs that haven't even been tested on mice on patients. Truly shows that ethics get thrown out the windows once emotions get involved
 

catmincer

Member
I echo the majority that this is the right decision from a logical point of view. I empathise with the parents not wanting their child to die but he is barely alive as it is.
 

johnny956

Member
Lets hope you don't get the wrong doctor.
It's not like all of them agree on everything.

Which is why you have 2nd opinions and if serious enough a ethics board consisting of experienced doctors who can rule on these things. Look into the ethics of organ transplants if you really want to see how detailed they get on these kinds of decisions
 

Staccat0

Fail out bailed
Because there is nothing, ever, on this earth more painful than losing your child.

If you were a parent you would understand, I don't agree with their choice, he was hurting and they had to let go.

But the idea of letting your child die is worse than your own death, it's hell.

This will haunt both of them for the rest of their lives, I feel immense sympathy for them.
Agreed.

It makes no logical sense but I would lose my mind wondering if there was something I could have done. Feel bad for these people. I'm sure they'll come to terms with what had to be done in time, but there is no consoling someone looking down the barrel of that.
 

Clockwork5

Member
You don't own your children, you are not allowed to do whatever you want with them, you do what's best for the child. I'm sure if this "experimental treatment" had any weight to it doctors would have taken another decision. Still I can't really blame the parents, hope is that last thing you lose and I can't even imagine what they must be feeling.
By this logic apparently in the EU, the state owns your child.
 

akira28

Member
really tough call, and the parents decide to hope against hope you can't really fault them. It does raise questions about how far the medical services are willing to go to keep someone alive, but in this case, if the child really was just going to live life severely brain damaged and in pain, this might be the best for them.

By this logic apparently in the EU, the state owns your child.

some scary political arguments for this have been made before.
 
By this logic apparently in the EU, the state owns your child.
It can happen in the US as well. If you are deemed incapable of providing care to your child, the child can become a ward of the state. The same goes for anyone of any age that becomes incapable of making decision. It's still a case of abuse to the child. Reminds me of the Terry Schavio case about 10 years back.
 
No matter what you want your child to fight. To try to live. You don't ever give up on your child ever and some people will hope and pray and strive for a 1 in 484828829482829929585883829295882717378488828284 chance of a miracle that defies all the experts theoretical and practical models. Because it's your child and you want them to live.

I'm not an advocate of the state deciding when my child dies.
 

Rmagnus

Banned
No matter what you want your child to fight. To try to live. You don't ever give up on your child ever and some people will hope and pray and strive for a 1 in 484828829482829929585883829295882717378488828284 chance of a miracle that defies all the experts theoretical and practical models. Because it's your child and you want them to live.

I'm not an advocate of the state deciding when my child dies.

And that 1 in bullshit number hope as more tubes and needles are jab into your child, when is enough is enough?
 

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
As someone who lives with a relatively benign but still occasionally debilitating genetic illness, I'm on the courts' side here.

I don't even want to have blood offspring because the risk of passing on my condition is unacceptably high (50%); the one in a million shot at saving this baby while still condemning him to a life of brain damage isn't even remotely appealing as a choice.

People who lived a life of health, not even great health or some kind of blessed genetics, but just average first world life expectancy don't realize what it's like to be suffocated by the prison of your own body.
 

border

Member
I was born with a congenital heart defect that threatened my life as an infant, and my parents never gave up on me. I abhor the idea that a court could have forced them to cease caring for me, just because the odds weren't in my favor.

That said, it sounds like irreversible damage has already been done to the child, and the parents are merely looking to prolong a life that will be short and painful regardless of whether or not he is treated successfully. I don't really know what side to take.
 

Rmagnus

Banned
Most who are arguing for the parents side don't seem to be looking at the situation from the baby's pov. Kid is 10 months old, life time of pain was all he ever knew, doctors already said that the brain damage is not reversable. you guys honestly think it's fair to subject the kid to more experimental treatment?
 
I'm not an advocate of the state deciding when my child dies.
When multiple experts tell you there's no chance, and you still want to chase the rainbow because there might be someone out there who disagrees, that's basically child abuse. Even if it was done with the best intentions.

That state has a duty to protect its citizens. The child is a citizen too, and in this case it has to be protected from its parents, who can't give up on him.
 
The fact that one guy has an experimental medicine (one that has never been used on humans) that he claims will help is not enough to justify prolonging the child's suffering. Just because someone has a degree (or in some cases, claims to have a degree) doesn't mean they should be treated as experts or taken without skepticism. You look hard enough and you can find at least one shitty researcher who is willing to support any stance, through bending, ignoring, or even fabricating evidence. I get why the parents get desperate, but desperation can easily cloud rational judgement. There are tons of quacks who prey on this desperation for a profit knowing that when people get desperate, they'll try pretty much anything. That's why science needs to be taken as a body and not as an individual opinion, and why any look into research needs to take a position of skepticism. I'm a graduate student myself, and one thing they talk about is how, even with peer review systems, there's still many times when data in published papers is not good, either through honest mistakes that may get corrected later, knowing carelessness from individuals who were rushing to get a paper in, or outright fraud that just seemed plausible enough to pass the review process

Edit: To be clear, if there was even a small chance of success it might be worth it. But there really isn't in this case. From what I can gather, the therapy the parents wanted to try was essentially a gene therapy technique, which really can't do anything to undo the damage that's already been done to his brain, in the same sense that having the right genes to grow a right arm won't allow you to grow back your arm after it's been chopped off.
 
To counter this story, this mother chose the wishes of her four year old daughter to enter hospice care. She knew her child was nearing her end, there was no hope of things changing course.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/14/h...a-snow-heaven-over-hospital-erpise/index.html

Hospice means that you have watched your child suffer -- a lot -- and that you have stood beside them, wishing desperately that it could be you instead of them in that hospital bed. It means that you have fought, with desperation and ferocity, but come up short.
By the time you are considering hospice, you have already endured a thousand smaller deaths: your hopes, your dreams, your understanding of the world -- it's all died.
And yet my child was still there. She was in an impossibly fragile body, and it would one day fail. I was terrified of that day, but I knew that doing more would not necessarily mean her living longer. And even if it did, I was afraid of the cost to her -- because she was the one who had to bear it, and she had already done enough.

We can all throw our two cents at this decision, but very few mothers in this world actually understand and can relate to the situtation.
 

NewGame

Banned
There is a point where sadness becomes madness. You feel great loss, and you blame those around you; even when it is something so insurmountable, something no one can fix, no human can kick against it's power. We choose to blame others because it makes things simple "If only you'd move mountains, if only you'd stop the rain, if only you would take me back in time to when I was happy, if only you could cure death itself."
 

Kal

Member
No he spoke like someone who is a dick. Honestly GAF is an awful forum for these morality threads in general though.

No lies detected in his/her post though. While the parents might think they are doing the right thing keeping their child alive because there is a potential "cure" it doesn't change the fact that the child's needs/quality of life comes first. So yes, they are (probably without realising it) torturing the poor kid because of their emotions.

The court made the right call. I feel for the parents and hope they find peace.
 

Ascenion

Member
It seems like the treatment, if successful, would of only prolonged its suffering

Let's not call a 10 month old child an 'it' . Show some respect, the kid has a name and it's Charlie Gard. His, the baby, the kid's, there were numerous other ways you could've used to describe him.
 
I think it's the right call, but it's gotta be beyond devastating to have a court to basically tell you it's over, and you can't try anything else.

I don't understand some parents demonizing the parents. I'm not a parent myself, but it seems pretty obvious that these people wanted to protect their own, and sadly it's reached a point where they can't any longer. It's easy to look from an outside perspective and say, 'You know, they really shouldn't keep trying to preserve the life of the kid with irreversible brain damage', but that is their child, and knowing that they only have a sliver of a chance to survive is still going to trump rationality.

Still, calling this a difficult situation is putting it lightly. It's good that the child won't be in pain any longer, but I really do feel for the parents. It's gonna be tough to move past that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom