- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Charlie Gard has died
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:37 pm to Speedy G
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:37 pm to Speedy G
Bruh, how does this not scare the frick out of you?
quote:
Great Ormond Street hospital has applied to the high court for a fresh hearing in the case of critically ill baby Charlie Gard, to decide whether it is in the baby’s interests to be given an experimental drug.
The application to the court follows a letter from seven doctors urging the hospital to reconsider the possibility of treatment.
The clinicians and researchers say in their letter, sent from the Vatican children’s hospital in Rome, that unpublished data suggests that 11 month-old Charlie’s condition could potentially improve if he is given experimental nucleoside therapy.
Great Ormond Street hospital won permission from the courts to turn off Charlie’s life support systems, on the advice of its own experts.
1
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:39 pm to AwesomeSauce
I work in the healthcare field and this case will definitely be discussed in future health ethic classes. If the doctor had any financial ties to his treatment while knowingly it won't benefit the patient, that would be worse than what the UK government did. According to the UK hospital, the US doctor did not review of any of Charlie's brain scans or charts before telling the parents that he had an treatment that could help. Once he did have the chance to review the charts, he agreed that Charlie's condition was irreversible. What the US doctor did was despicable and unethical to give Charlie's parents false hope without fully reviewing the case. Still, I believe the government should have no say in end of life decisions if the patient is terminally ill. The parents should have every right to do what they believe is in the best interest in their child.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:45 pm to LNCHBOX
You'd rather they go with the advice of laypeople?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:45 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
There is a condition worse than death? Interesting.
Yes. I'd elaborate but it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:59 pm to Speedy G
That article is basically a letter from the hospital's PR dept. This is a case of a hard-line stance of a government ran hospital. I nor anyone else are saying that Charlie would have survived or had a different outcome. Seven experts and two international hospitals said there was a chance the treatment could reverse the effects of his disease. The fact that the government can choose whether someone lives or dies is scary. The government here basically had the choice whether to back it's own doctors and hospitals or say they were wrong.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:04 pm to AlbertMeansWell
Oh dear Lord. ??
Poor little fella never had a chance.
May Jesus take him into his arms.
Poor little fella never had a chance.
May Jesus take him into his arms.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:07 pm to Speedy G
quote:
You'd rather they go with the advice of laypeople?
I'd rather the family makes their own decision. Why are you so against being free?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:25 pm to AwesomeSauce
quote:
That article is basically a letter from the hospital's PR dept. This is a case of a hard-line stance of a government ran hospital. I nor anyone else are saying that Charlie would have survived or had a different outcome. Seven experts and two international hospitals said there was a chance the treatment could reverse the effects of his disease. The fact that the government can choose whether someone lives or dies is scary. The government here basically had the choice whether to back it's own doctors and hospitals or say they were wrong.
The hospital NEVER changed their position or admitted they were wrong, contrary to your "actual facts."
They filed the rehearing petition b/c they, the prevailing party, were the only ones who could. They gave the parents the opportunity to present new evidence. The same conclusion was reached by the court.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:31 pm to Speedy G
None of y'all's arguments matter. This little boy is gone. I hope hus parents at least know that their fight for their son's life has helped other kids living with mito just by bringing awareness to these diseases.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:42 pm to tidefan408
I read they had raised over $1 million through donations.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:00 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
I'd rather the family makes their own decision. Why are you so against being free?
Like the freedom to decline treatment prescribed by doctors?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:47 pm to AwesomeSauce
quote:Seriously, how does anyone disagree with this?
Seven experts and two international hospitals said there was a chance the treatment could reverse the effects of his disease. The fact that the government can choose whether someone lives or dies is scary. The government here basically had the choice whether to back it's own doctors and hospitals or say they were wrong.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:48 pm to Speedy G
quote:So you're saying they had "freedom" because they could choose to accept or decline the 1 hospital's treatment plan?
Like the freedom to decline treatment prescribed by doctors?
Freedom does not mean what you think it means.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:48 pm to AlbertMeansWell
Very sad that the parents lost their precious son, but there is no argument in this case. Understanding the function of mitochondria and what mitochondria deletion syndrome will tell why.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:51 pm to Isabelle81
quote:7 doctors, among others who know way more than we do, say otherwise.
Very sad that the parents lost their precious son, but there is no argument in this case.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:54 pm to shel311
quote:
So you're saying they had "freedom" because they could choose to accept or decline the 1 hospital's treatment plan?
Freedom does not mean what you think it means.
No, not even anything close to that. That doesn't even make sense. You haven't really made any sense at all in this entire thread and clearly haven't read much of anything about this story.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:58 pm to Speedy G
quote:This means little...nothing coming from the guy who responds to the statement of allowing the parents the freedom to choose by saying they had the "freedom" to accept or decline the ONE hospital's treatment.
No, not even anything close to that. That doesn't even make sense. You haven't really made any sense at all in this entire thread and clearly haven't read much of anything about this story.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 6:09 pm to shel311
quote:
This means little...nothing coming from the guy who responds to the statement of allowing the parents the freedom to choose by saying they had the "freedom" to accept or decline the ONE hospital's treatment.
That's not at all what I said. Not even close.
I asked if the freedom to demand any and all treatments, even against medical advice, includes the freedom to reject prescribed treatment, also against medical advice. Like when the parents of a suffering child elect to rely on divine healing instead of chemotherapy.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 6:21 pm to Speedy G
quote:It's almost word for word what you said, actually.
That's not at all what I said. Not even close.
quote:Are there experts in the field/doctors that state the divine healing may work? If not, what kind of point are you trying to make? That's entirely irrelevant otherwise.
I asked if the freedom to demand any and all treatments, even against medical advice, includes the freedom to reject prescribed treatment, also against medical advice. Like when the parents of a suffering child elect to rely on divine healing instead of chemotherapy.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 6:37 pm to shel311
quote:
It's almost word for word what you said, actually.
That's not even close to true. I presented the opposite scenario into the analysis. Sorry you didn't get it.
quote:
Are there experts in the field/doctors that state the divine healing may work?
I am sure you could find some. Just like you can find "experts" that oppose vaccinating. Go ahead and look up what the experts said in this case. It would be the first thing you added to the discussion.
quote:
If not, what kind of point are you trying to make? That's entirely irrelevant otherwise.
It's not irrelevant when people imply that parents have the final say in the treatment of a sick child. It cuts both ways and has nothing to do with the government boogeyman.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News