Support NeoGAF

[Fantastapotamus]

I truly hope nobody here will ever be in a situation where he/she has to make such a choice.
You cannot feasibly ask parents to make such a decision. Which is why the court stepped in. Sadly, it's the right thing to do.

 

[Charles Brandon]

If we're going all in on "as a parent", as a parent myself, I don;t think I could bear to see my child suffer unnecessarily.

 

[the_darkness]

If we're going all in on "as a parent", as a parent myself, I don;t think I could bear to see my child suffer unnecessarily.

Cool beans man. A lot of people think that way but until they're in that particular situation, probably best to refrain from shitting on the poor people who are.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I truly hope nobody here will ever be in a situation where he/she has to make such a choice.
You cannot feasibly ask parents to make such a decision. Which is why the court stepped in. Sadly, it's the right thing to do.

It is a difficult choice, but what's the alternative? To keep someone 'alive' because you can't let go?

You receive a lot of support when you have to decide to turn someone's life support off. You're not told to turn off the machine and be done with it. The team of doctors involves you in every step of the process, they tell about each test result in detail, they explain all the possibilities and potential outcomes to the best of their abilities and then you have a tremendous amount of support from counsellors and nurses too.

Taking the couple to court was a last ditch effort because they are being selfish and causing undue suffering.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Cool beans man. A lot of people think that way but until they're in that particular situation, probably best to refrain from shitting on the poor people who are.

I'm not shitting on anyone

 

[kyser73]

Did I say children are someone's property? And are you are saying the parents do not have the moral and legal duty to protect their child as well? I mean, they are clearly trying to protect their child from their perspective, and yet they are not allowed to do so any further.


What does this even mean? A doctor in the US said there's a chance. That's also science. Science isn't some giant, all-encomposing body in complete agreement on everything always. The "argument from science" makes little sense when you consider science disagrees on lots and lots of things.

If a doctor in the US thinks they could potentially save the child's life, why not? Because some other scientific body says it's not worth bothering or would cause suffering? Are we really so naive to think such things are so obviously set in stone, and if some high court has decided it must be the right call. You are effectively making an argument from authority, which really doesn't hold any water when one considers the unknowable ethics of this kind of situation.

I don't understand these arguments in any way, shape, or form.

There is no 'science' here. This medication hasn't even been animal tested, let alone had any kind of extended study in humans, there's almost zero chance it would work, and even if it did the child would stil be brain damaged & permanently on a respirator.

There are no unknown ethics here. This type of scenario is actually covered extensively in medical ethics & philosophy, but don't let that get in the way of your feelings.

Btw - father of two, and if one of my kids was literally living off a machine with some quack offering a cure I know exactly what my decisions would be, for the same reasons I have a DNR order legally registered.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Pope has decided to get involved,

The Pope is reportedly considering giving terminally ill Charlie Gard a Vatican passport so he can be treated at its hospital.

Giving the 11-month-old Vatican citizenship may "overcome" court rulings preventing further treatment, sources told the Sun.

”It would be unprecedented if citizenship was granted to Charlie, but it is being investigated," a Vatican source told the newspaper.

”Legal parameters are preventing him from being moved and treated overseas. If that can be overcome, then so be it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iving-charlie-gard-vatican-passport-overcome/

This madness isn't going to end any time soon.

 

[MotionBlue]

Everyone says like they would act perfectly rational in the same situation, but that is rarely the case.

Its very sad, and I hope the parents are able to get grief counseling.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Everyone says like they would act perfectly rational in the same situation, but that is rarely the case.

Its very sad, and I hope the parents are able to get grief counseling.

There will be some resistance, there always is. Maybe the doctors are wrong, I know they are strong and they'll get better, they just need time and care.

Three weeks later when they are still in the same condition, where a nurse has to continue wiping away their spit because they lack any kind of motor function and there's a dead stare looking back at you, where their body jerks in sync with the life support machine, you come to the realisation that they aren't going to get better and it's time to let go.

 

[spineduke]

Pope has decided to get involved,



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iving-charlie-gard-vatican-passport-overcome/

This madness isn't going to end any time soon.

Poor kid - what did he do to deserve this?

 

[Fantastapotamus]

It is a difficult choice, but what's the alternative? To keep someone 'alive' because you can't let go?

You receive a lot of support when you have to decide to turn someone's life support off. You're not told to turn off the machine and be done with it. The team of doctors involves you in every step of the process, they tell about each test result in detail, they explain all the possibilities and potential outcomes to the best of their abilities and then you have a tremendous amount of support from counsellors and nurses too.

Taking the couple to court was a last ditch effort because they are being selfish and causing undue suffering.

Oh, I agree with you. Just a terrible situation all around. I can't fault the parents too much for not thinking straight though.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

Everyone says like they would act perfectly rational in the same situation, but that is rarely the case.

Its very sad, and I hope the parents are able to get grief counseling.

'Able to get'? This is the UK, it's free, don't worry.

OT: that Vatican thing is crazy. I don't doubt he hasn't read up on this case. The details were outlined back in page 2 but it seems there's still some confusion in this thread as well.

This is a horrible affair all-round.

 

[Impeccable]

The more people try to be a hero the more I am sad.

Saddling on this poor kid to look like a saviour in the eyes of the delusional around the world.

 

[Rmagnus]

Everyone says like they would act perfectly rational in the same situation, but that is rarely the case.

Its very sad, and I hope the parents are able to get grief counseling.

Come on man,no one is saying they will be perfectly rational, I can't speak for others but I am glad that the doctors are able to step in and give their professional judgement and honestly speaking they will have 2nd opinions, 3rd etc. It's not an easy choice to make but it is the right choice.

 

[le.phat]

I'm quite surprised at home many responses are so quick to say that this is the right call and the parents need to just let him go. How many of you are parents and have children? Is this something you honestly think you'd be able to do if you were in this situation?

But the bigger question I have, which prompted me to post this, how can a court order the child to stay in the hospital and not be allowed to leave so he can die at home as the parents wish? I assume the parents would require a lot of assistance to transport him to the US and that's what they're being denied... but it sounds like he's being ordered to stay there. How is that possibly okay?

Because there is a right way and a wrong way of letting the child pass. The doctor and court deemed it wrong to let the child leave the hospital, and so it came to be.

This is a tragic situation for everyone involved, but there still needs to be room for regulation. These parents cannot judge what's right for their child because they are far too emotional to make these calls. The court did right.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Already getting politicized all over fuck these parents.



OT: science isn't an entity

 

[TheContact]

Feel bad for the kid that's no way to "live"

 

[The Hobo]

The child is only able to breathe due to the treatment he's receiving, so of course they're not going to permit him to be brought home.

 

[Discourse]

My wife's an ICU nurse and gets to see all kinds of gory stuff on a daily basis. After everything she's told me, I wouldn't do what these parents are doing to their kid to even my worst enemy. Everyone deserves the right to die with dignity.

 

[Zelenogorsk]

I feel awful for the parents and even worse for the child. I can't get mad at the parents for how they're going about things considering the circumstances, but the child's life should be terminated (and hopefully as quick as possible).

This whole situation is truly horrible.

 

[Emwitus]

Already getting politicized all over fuck these parents.



OT: science isn't an entity

You definitely do not have a child of your own

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

You definitely do not have a child of your own

So what? Doesn't absolve them, gods forbid I end up in a similar situation and I might just be a huge hypocrite I'll have bigger issues to worry about.

Their child now not only will continue to suffer but also be a PR bargaining chip.

 

[TyrantII]

"Do no harm"

Keeping a brain dead, crippled body hooked up to a machine that gives the appearance of life is doing harm.

The parents are looking for magic, not medical treatment. Let nature take it's course.

 

[Snkfanatic]

Cool beans man. A lot of people think that way but until they're in that particular situation, probably best to refrain from shitting on the poor people who are.

In what possible way was that post doing that?

 

[Hoo-doo]

You definitely do not have a child of your own

Irrelevant. If we let emotions decide the course of treatment in medicine, our healthcare system would fall apart.
These parents are going through hell and I sympathize with them, but right now this child is suffering and there is no cure on the planet that will ever reverse the damage that's already done. As painful as it must be for these parents, they have yet to realize that this story has only one conclusion and that the only sensible decision is to let the boy go.

I feel for these parents, as their grief must be unimaginable. But right now this grief and denial is actively causing the boy harm.

 

[boiled goose]

Brain damage meant the "child" was probably long gone in any meaningful way.

Parents were being delusional and selfish, which is why someone else had to make a rational decision.

You don't own your children. Your responsible for them. Once you can't be responsible, care falls upon the state

 

[TimmmV]

Exactly. So little fucking nuance most of the time. Everything is so goddamn binary.

Turning off life support sounds like the right thing to do in this situation, but as a dad I absolutely ache for them. My mind can't even fully put myself in their position - it shuts the thoughts off because the full measure of them it is just too difficult to fully conceive

I noticed a few people saying "you don't need to have kids to understand". I hate to adopt the cliche... but unless you have kids, you really, really don't.

You realise this is about as binary as you can get right?

But yeah, the court was right.

 

[TankRizzo]

If we're going all in on "as a parent", as a parent myself, I don;t think I could bear to see my child suffer unnecessarily.

same here. As a parent, I hope I never, ever, have to bury any of my kids.

 

[Straight Edge]

As a parent, fuck these parents. No amount of grief would make me condemn my daughter to a living hell.

 

[Timeaisis]

There is no 'science' here. This medication hasn't even been animal tested, let alone had any kind of extended study in humans, there's almost zero chance it would work, and even if it did the child would stil be brain damaged & permanently on a respirator.

There are no unknown ethics here. This type of scenario is actually covered extensively in medical ethics & philosophy, but don't let that get in the way of your feelings.

Btw - father of two, and if one of my kids was literally living off a machine with some quack offering a cure I know exactly what my decisions would be, for the same reasons I have a DNR order legally registered.

Why does everyone bring this up, assuming everyone that is for trying the procedure is thinking in terms of emotion? Are you blind to the choices and how there is literally a chance at survival in one? Regardless of emotion of the situation. It infuriates me to no end. I'm not even thinking about it emotionally, I'm thinking in terms of:

There are two choices:
a) definitely let the child die
b) a slim chance at survival if they try an experimental procedure

What makes more sense to you? Obviously A. To me, it's B. And I've been arguing that until this thread started. My big sticking point is, regardless of the choice, it's in my opinion that it is 100% not the decision that should be made by the doctors at the particular hospital, but the parents of the child.

In my mind, it makes complete sense for the parents to want to go with option B, and I think it's unethical for the courts and doctor's at the particular hospital to make a call that blocks them from doing that, as it's not their decision. If the parents wanted to allow the child to die, I'd respect that as well. But they want to fight, and they are allowed to try (notice I didn't say "should be", because the power over life and death are not something that should yield to appeals to authority).

 

[Thatonemoor]

My sister use to be a emergency room nurse. One story she told me always stuck with me were the patient basically didn't have a brain but was being kept alive by machines. The family couldn't pay to keep said patient alive and they had to call it. People can be kept "alive" for way longer then you think they can be but it's not really living. Just my two cents.

 

[off duty ninja]

Except the child has severe brain damage and cannot function at all and will never during his life time live as a normal human being.

My child was born with a rare condition in which the brain stopped developing in utero. He is now blind and requires medication to stay alive. He will never live "as a normal human being" and would be dead if we lost access to his medication. At what point do you throw in the towel?

I don't blame the parents here. Death is permanent and final while all life is suffering. As an outsider I agree that they should let go but that isn't my decision to make.

 

[Earthbound64]

Why does everyone bring this up, assuming everyone that is for trying the procedure is thinking in terms of emotion?

Because people keep pulling the "You're not a parent, so you don't/can't understand" card.

 

[darscot]

Was hoping to hear the child had passed, this is so fucked. Let the child go already.

 

[Metroxed]

I do not understand why anyone would think that the child would be better off by staying "alive", even if the treatment proved to be successful (which most likely wouldn't be).

If by some miracle the experimental treatment worked (which even the American doctor says is unlikely); he would not die due to the illness, but his muscles and brain would still remain permanently damaged. He would be blind (eye muscles too weak according to the hospital), deaf, unable to move, forever stuck in a bed, needing machines to breath, unable to feed himself, to clean himself, to speak, or to laugh, to play with friends, to go to school, to form his own family, to live a fulfilling life, probably unable to move and depending how much degeneration his brain suffered, he would be basically a vegetable. He would be alive but it would be as if he wasn't, he would not be able to do anything. Remember: he has suffered extensive muscle and brain degeneration.

Is that life? That's basically being dead alive. Would anyone really say that this situation is is any way preferable to death?

It is almost monstrous to let him live further, maybe in pain, unable to know what is happening to him. His whole existence has been pain and suffering so far, and will continue to be so if he is kept alive artificially.

I know emotions get in the way, but the parents should know better.

 

[Prophaniti]

Pope has decided to get involved,



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iving-charlie-gard-vatican-passport-overcome/

This madness isn't going to end any time soon.

Cool. Right. Catholic church, truly the champions of helpless children. Last bastion.

Let the kid die. Fuck the pope for enabling this.

Brain damage meant the "child" was probably long gone in any meaningful way.

Parents were being delusional and selfish, which is why someone else had to make a rational decision.

You don't own your children. Your responsible for them. Once you can't be responsible, care falls upon the state

Also this.

 

[metalslimer]

I don't care if I'm not a parent. I still can't empathize with then putting their child througu this because they can't let go. And fuck the pope for getting involved

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I do not understand why anyone would think that the child would be better off by staying "alive", even if the treatment proved to be successful (which most likely wouldn't be).

If by some miracle the experimental treatment worked (which even the American doctor says is unlikely); he would not die due to the illness, but his muscles and brain would still remain permanently damaged. He would be blind (eye muscles too weak according to the hospital), deaf, unable to move, forever stuck in a bed, needing machines to breath, unable to feed himself, to clean himself, to speak, or to laugh, to play with friends, to go to school, to form his own family, to live a fulfilling life, probably unable to move and depending how much degeneration his brain suffered, he would be basically a vegetable. He would be alive but it would be as if he wasn't, he would not be able to do anything. Remember: he has suffered extensive muscle and brain degeneration.

Is that life? That's basically being dead alive. Would anyone really say that this situation is is any way preferable to death?

It is almost monstrous to let him live further, maybe in pain, unable to know what is happening to him. His whole existence has been pain and suffering so far, and will continue to be so if he is kept alive artificially.

I know emotions get in the way, but the parents should know better.

I can think of few things more cruel than trapping a brain inside a body it cannot operate.

 

[TimmmV]

Why does everyone bring this up, assuming everyone that is for trying the procedure is thinking in terms of emotion? Are you blind to the choices and how there is literally a chance at survival in one? Regardless of emotion of the situation. It infuriates me to no end. I'm not even thinking about it emotionally, I'm thinking in terms of:

There are two choices:
a) definitely let the child die
b) a slim chance at survival if they try an experimental procedure

What makes more sense to you? Obviously A. To me, it's B. And I've been arguing that until this thread started. My big sticking point is, regardless of the choice, it's in my opinion that it is 100% not the decision that should be made by the doctors at the particular hospital, but the parents of the child.

In my mind, it makes complete sense for the parents to want to go with option B, and I think it's unethical for the courts and doctor's at the particular hospital to make a call that blocks them from doing that, as it's not their decision. If the parents wanted to allow the child to die, I'd respect that as well. But they want to fight, and they are allowed to try (notice I didn't say "should be", because the power over life and death are not something that should yield to appeals to authority).

No one ever thinks about something "unemotionally", it's impossible to get away from. The people in here (including myself) who agree with the courts and doctors position are doing it emotionally just with empathy towards the child.

Reading about this, my heart breaks for the kid. And I can't understand wanting to make him suffer any more than he already has, for something that has zero chance of giving him any increase in quality of life.

You are making the emotional argument its worth going ahead with this treatment because "technically not dead" is somehow better for the kid, when it absolutely isn't.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Again who is begrudging the parents feelings, most feel for the parents but felt the right decision had to be made. So what does that's forums for you phrase suppose to mean? Or are you too good for forums?

There is plenty of that going on in this thread.

 

[off duty ninja]

One thing that I really don't understand is the assumption that this child is in pain and suffering. Isn't it entirely possible that this child feels no pain and is even possibly in some type of dream state that he actually may enjoy? Not that I think this is the case but why is it always the immediate assumption that this child is in pain and suffering? This is a sincere question because I am not personally aware of any science that would prove this child is actually in pain or suffering in any way.

EDIT: Also, I definitely understand the assumption that being trapped in a body that you can't control would be living hell. It is easy to assume that since you have never been in that position and have lived your lives as "normal" human beings. For the person that has never known anything else they may appreciate what bit of life they have and not want to let go.

My son doesn't understand the concept of a normal human life. He is essentially trapped inside of a body he can't control and will likely never be able to care for himself, have a family, drive a car, play a video game or any of the other things we generally take for granted. He likely suffers more than most anyone on this forum but we haven't stopped giving him the medications he needs to keep him alive.

Nobody has responded to any of my posts in this thread so I don't know what I am expecting. I just wish people didn't see this as so black and white. Life isn't black and white no matter how much people want it to be.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Why does everyone bring this up, assuming everyone that is for trying the procedure is thinking in terms of emotion? Are you blind to the choices and how there is literally a chance at survival in one? Regardless of emotion of the situation. It infuriates me to no end. I'm not even thinking about it emotionally, I'm thinking in terms of:

There are two choices:
a) definitely let the child die
b) a slim chance at survival if they try an experimental procedure

What makes more sense to you? Obviously A. To me, it's B. And I've been arguing that until this thread started. My big sticking point is, regardless of the choice, it's in my opinion that it is 100% not the decision that should be made by the doctors at the particular hospital, but the parents of the child.

In my mind, it makes complete sense for the parents to want to go with option B, and I think it's unethical for the courts and doctor's at the particular hospital to make a call that blocks them from doing that, as it's not their decision. If the parents wanted to allow the child to die, I'd respect that as well. But they want to fight, and they are allowed to try (notice I didn't say "should be", because the power over life and death are not something that should yield to appeals to authority).

Your option 'B' is entirely fictional. Why can't you realize this.

It won't give him a chance at survival. At most (and this is a chance so Infinitesimal that no doctor in his right mind recommends it) it would give him an extension of his current life. The kind of life where machines keep him breathing. A life wherein his brain damage is so severe that he won't even be able to open his eyes, move his limbs or make a sound.

You really want to give this boy that chance? There's really nothing rational about that.

 

[RRockman]

It's really sad. I don't like the state saying when my child gets to die, but at the same time I don't think it's good for him to live on like this, and I agree with the doctors in this situation. I pray the parents may be able to find some semblance of peace in the future as this sort of thing is the type to stick with you for life.

 

[Prophaniti]

One thing that I really don't understand is the assumption that this child is in pain and suffering. Isn't it entirely possible that this child feels no pain and is even possibly in some type of dream state that he actually may enjoy? Not that I think this is the case but why is it always the immediate assumption that this child is in pain and suffering? This is a sincere question because I am not personally aware of any science that would prove this child is actually in pain or suffering in any way.

That's ridiculous. Doctors measure quality of life. Also we know what a brain in a peaceful dream state looks like. You aren't aware of technology that measure brainwave activity?

 

[Lifeline]

Don't get why people are against the parents. As long as they're able to afford it, they should be able to keep their kid alive.

No one else has the right to make this decision other than the parents.

 

[zeemumu]

What I find most disturbing about this is that the parents kept tormenting him when it became clear that he was a goner. People don't even do that to animals. Why children?

It's not really that hard to understand that parents would have a hard time allowing their child to die, even if they were in pain. It's also not that hard to understand that the feelings mercy killing a kid would be more complicated than mercy killing a pet.

It's a rough situation but there was really nothing that could be done at that point.

 

[KingV]

The child is only able to breathe due to the treatment he's receiving, so of course they're not going to permit him to be brought home.

In all honesty he would die before he reached the car.

 

[Saganator]

One thing that I really don't understand is the assumption that this child is in pain and suffering. Isn't it entirely possible that this child feels no pain and is even possibly in some type of dream state that he actually may enjoy? Not that I think this is the case but why is it always the immediate assumption that this child is in pain and suffering? This is a sincere question because I am not personally aware of any science that would prove this child is actually in pain or suffering in any way.

If it is in some kind of "dream" state then I don't know what it would be dreaming about. His brain has nothing from the real world to draw from to form the dreams. I guess it could be dreaming of being in the womb still, but I can't imagine that being an awesome thing to dream about for your entire life.

 

[darscot]

One thing that I really don't understand is the assumption that this child is in pain and suffering. Isn't it entirely possible that this child feels no pain and is even possibly in some type of dream state that he actually may enjoy? Not that I think this is the case but why is it always the immediate assumption that this child is in pain and suffering? This is a sincere question because I am not personally aware of any science that would prove this child is actually in pain or suffering in any way.

We know that sensory deprivation is very effective method of torture. The human brain requires input, without it for any extended period of time is not pleasant.

 

[HStallion]

Seems similar on a smaller scale to people who won't let their dogs pass and forcing them to live in a horrible situation that really only benefits the owners. Not trying to insult the parents or lessen the situation but some people just can't let go and their charges suffer for it even if it's done in the name of love.