Enter this dispute at your peril

Mind you, the peril you suffer may be nothing compared to that of young Charlie Gard, the 11-month old 'nipper' who is the life or death subject of the legal-medical dispute between the 'quacks' at Great Ormond Street Hospital and his parents.  I don't think I need to rehearse the details which are the subject of global media attention.  Suffice to say that the 'quacks', on the basis of their medical expertise, insist that Charlie be put to death as soon as possible.  His parents, on the basis of their love for their son, are desperate for him to be sent to America for what they admit is very experimental treatment even if the chance of success is 10% or less.

Despite my off-hand description of the medical establishment at Great Ormond Street Hospital, I do not denigrate their medical expertise but my general knowledge of what might be called 'establishment group think' raises questions in my mind.  In particular, I can imagine their 'shock 'n' horror' at the prospect of non-expert parents daring to resist their decisions.  Now, however, there appears to be another set of medical experts who support the parents.  Obviously, there is no way that I, or a collection of Grand Legal Poobahs sitting in sundry courts can decide between these mutually contradictory opinions - although that will not stop them!

The crux of the matter is that Charlie's parents have raised the money to pay for his experimental treatment in the USA so who could possibly object to the effort being made?  In the meantime, why am I worried that a bunch of 'quacks', supported by another bunch of 'Cocklecarrots', should have the power to execute an 11-month old baby before the full gamut of treatments have been tried?

 

Comments

[Pat]

That's the logic of a nationalised medicine. You belong to the state.

[Whitewall]

You belong to the state. Nothing outside the state, everything within the state. The single payer has the final say and the state court will back them. Ultimately this is the immorality of nationalized healthcare. The single payer may well choose to pay no more, but to stand ahead of a child's parents to orchestrate their child's death...simply evil. The parents have the higher standing and their child may never make it to America where his chances are very slim. But, the parents decide. If the child dies in the parents care, then that is proper. Even if there was no offer from across the Atlantic, the parents still have the moral high ground to have their son in his last days.

[Michael F Adams]

I realize that people were dying in the streets before Obamacare, BUT, in the real world, about twenty years ago, I helped care for a baby boy (parents here illegally) who was very premature, and was fed formula in the Newborn Intensive Care Unit, even though this causes bowel necrosis in a substantial number of kids. Without most of his intestines, he could only be kept alive through intravenous feeding of Hyper-Al, and that was only so long as his veins held up. Sin embargo, we cared for him, managed his pain, (His liver was failing at that point) and he died at home, (a tiny tourist cottage moved to the site from an old motel) but in his mother's arms.

I don't come cheap, although, I do confess, I did not list all my hours worked, to keep under Medicaid's budget. However, the only important thing here is that we cared for this child until the moment of natural death. We can do the same for little Charlie. What kid of monsters would deny him this chance?

[Bob]

In cases of sure fatality medical doctors work according to protocols outlined by ethicists and experience. The general public can second guess them, but there can be a price to pay in the needless suffering of a loved one. Why shouldn't we also suspect the parents of being cruel for wanting to experiment on their child with such a low expectation of success? Should contempt for experts overwhelm all other considerations?

[Peter G]

Well this looks like fun. It seems the pro baby torture crowd have managed to overlook certain inconsistencies in their arguments. Abortion we are told is wrong because zygotes feel pain and should enjoy the full rights of born humans. Once born however they must endure excruciating agony in order to serve in medical experiments. Oddly enough this is the same crowd, in the US at least, that wants to deprive millions of children of medical care because they are unworthy of consideration. We'll just let ol' market forces figure that one out shall we.

[Peter G]

I would guess Michael F it would be the same sort of monsters who want to slash Medicaid by 800 billion dollars so they can give huge tax cuts principally to the top 2 percent of income earners.

[David Duff]

In this case, Bob, as I understand it, Charlie is in no pain at all simply because he is well medicated. As to your final question as to whether "contempt for experts overwhelm all other considerations", the answer is maybe!

Peter, we recognise, of course, that you are an expert on everything and as such you stand as a 'prima facie' example of why 'experts' should always be doubted!

And don't think I missed your careful use of the word "zygotes", so useful when it is necessary to avoid any hint of human life-form, especially when their body parts sell for so much money!

[Michael F Adams]

There is no Medicaid cut. There is some reduction in the amount of increase. "so they can give a tax cut..." is baloney. Or, as we are now taught to describe it, a Democrat meme.

I am paid by Medicaid. I know that there are no cuts. We still take care of babies who will never write books. I have serious doubts about schooling for some of these kids. If they can't talk, or see, How much education can we give them? Still, they go to school, or a teacher comes to the home.

[Peter G]

I fear Michael is somewhat at odds with the CBO or Congressional Budget Office and every economist who has examined the Republican plan AND whose salary isn't paid for by billionaire funded think tanks. But let us presume he is right. Then we must ask what is expected to happen to the millions upon millions of Americans who are soon to be deprived of their Obamacare health insurance by those same Republicans and whose only hope of care is through Medicaid.

So you are paid by Medicaid are you Michael? What happens when you aren't? Aren't you curious as to why the Republican AHCA contains tax cuts at all?

[Peter G]

I am expert at one thing David. Asking inconvenient questions is my metier. Here's one for you. Since there is absolutely no way to determine what sort of pain anyone feels who is not feeling the pain how do you know what Charlie feels? I ask because I once watched the wife of a very dear friend die writhing in agony from bone cancer because her doctor did not wish to risk her becoming addicted to morphine. That doctor thought he was being superlatively moral as well. That is the greatest thing about claiming moral certitude isn't it? You can justify anything at all with it.

You can even justify withholding life saving medical treatment like blood transfusions from your own children, as Jehovah's Witnesses believe they do. Except that the nasty state says you can't.

Which brings me to my last question. If your moral judgment was so certain then why is there any peril in entering the debate?

[David Duff]

Peter, I grant that you can ask questions although not many of them are "inconvenient". For example, "Since there is absolutely no way to determine what sort of pain anyone feels who is not feeling the pain how do you know what Charlie feels?" Can you spot the teensy-weensy logical error in that sentence? Thought not! Anyway, going by all the reports and photos showing a docile Charlie with tubes disappearing into various facial apertures, I gain the distinct impression that he is not in pain.

You then go on to provide an example of a doctor who *appears* to have been totally in the wrong, and yet in Charlie's case you insist that they are right and the parents have no say.

Your last question confirms what I have suspected for some time, that your reading skills are limited. My post above is anything but "certain". The "peril" I referred to was that in this hideous situation there is no certainty.

[Peter G]

I suppose that is why only one set of doctors are referred to as quacks. After all if you dismiss expertise when convenient, or right up front, then it really need not be considered. But I notice you ignored that very compelling question of when government should interfere with parental rights vis-a-vis the care of their children. Do they have such an obligation? Of course they do. They do it all the time. And I did not insist they were right. In fact, you will notice I actually took no position at all. That's what courts are for. I merely used loaded language to indicate that the "moral" foundation of the argument is rather a matter of perspective. Sauce for the goose and all that.

[Whitewall]

The state/courts do step in when there is a question of competence of the parent(s) in a child welfare case. Such is not the problem here with Charlie. The higher moral standing still rests with the parents. The experts will still be expert long after this event is over. The judges will still be judges. In this case, neither experts nor judges are Charlie's parents.

[Dom]

"I once watched the wife of a very dear friend die writhing in agony from bone cancer because her doctor did not wish to risk her becoming addicted to morphine." if this is true -- and I find it unbelievable --then you have a story about how some experts should be ignored.

In any case, this story and the one about parents withholding a blood transfusion are not similar to charlie's case. In the first two, it is known that the patient will suffer and die. Charlie's parents are hoping for life and health.

[Michael F Adams]

Congressional Budget Office? The same people who told us so many lies, before Obamacare was passed, rammed down our throats, which were easily revealed to be lies, immediately afterward. I did not believe in nationalizing health care even when I was a young fool (AKA a Democrat) Probably, while I did not know it at the time, this realization was an early step away from the stupidity of electing a government based upon how much of MY money they would dispense in largess.

And economists? Statisticians, who make government management of economies plausible? Nah, not likely to fall for that one again. I wandered away from the Demo plantation when they started telling me lies about matters of which I had actual direct knowledge, directly contradicting what they were telling me, regarding many more topics than health care economics.

[Whyaxye]

Particularly sinister here is Lord Winston's contribution. According to him, the offers of help from the Vatican and Trump are "unhelpful and cruel interference". If I were to genuinely believe this, I hope I would have the decency to remain silent. Winston just looks like a person who values the quiet managed death of babies above all else. Gruesome.

[Whitewall]

Whyaxye...Well put.

[Bob]

David,

In the developed world there has been no such thing as a natural life or death for some time. We far outlive our natural lifespans, suffer far fewer infirmities, and manage the ones we have because we've learned to do so through medical intervention. Charlie's life is being extended and he's presumably not feeling pain because he's under care and medicated. It's too late for any "natural" outcome and life without downsides hasn't been mastered yet.

If you want life to be natural and free from do gooders and busy bodies, avoid any contact with the medical sciences and government. Stop taking prescriptions and refuse all procedures under all circumstances. Keep your hernia the rest of your life. Leave strict instructions to not call an ambulance in case of a fall or heart attack. If your house catches fire don't call the fire department. If someone breaks into your house don't call the police. Possibly after some no doubt extended period of time you'll reconsider your lack of appreciation for experts and the issues they face.

[TheBigHenry]

David,

I searched for the word "natural" in this thread, and I didn't find a single occurrence in anything you have written here. My understanding of what you advocate is that the medical services should not have the power to deny parents their right to find treatment for their child. This is certainly not the same as wishing to forgo any and all services that modern medicine has to offer to humans who want at least some of it.

Don't let the Leftists get you down. Go get treatment for your hernia, and let the master baiter go f*ck himself.

[Peter G]

Did you also notice TheBigHenry that the "quacks" in question are not actually trying to kill young Charlie Gard as our host has suggested. That would be euthanasia. What they are trying to do is make him as comfortable as possible given that experimenting on human beings is actually a bit on the questionable side. Especially when the researcher pioneering this treatment himself has said it will probably do no good. And if even moderately successful would do no more than prolong his life by a very short time.

Why not show the child a little mercy?

[TheBigHenry]

PG,

I certainly feel that all children should be shown mercy. I do not, however, have a strong inclination as to which would be the more merciful action in this particular instance. Nor do I believe that my own judgment should have any role in this particular matter. But I do believe the parents' right to seek medical treatment for their child should not be infringed.

[Bob]

Big Kahunry,

The reference was not to David's comment specifically, but more to the incessant general bitching about having to live in a society that makes legal demands. The parents don't know more than doctors and have no absolute right to determine medical treatment.

Not far from where I am right now parents removed their child from a hospital and tried to cure him with faith healing. Of course the child, who would otherwise have lived, died. Are you deluded enough to also defend that?

[Bob]

Come to think of it, I'm not done with you yet. How about the demented anti-vaxers on both the extreme left and right? Do they have a right to put school children and the rest of us in danger?

[TheBigHenry]

You are a stupid fuck, Bob. I did not say parents know more than doctors. I said parents have the right to avail themselves of medical services. The right to seek medical service or any other lawful service is not the same as an "absolute right to determine medical treatment".

I do not believe that those parents who would jeopardize their children's welfare by removing them from hospital care in favor of faith healing or deprive them of vaccines that have been shown to protect children from dangerous diseases are taking proper care of their children. You have some nerve imputing otherwise.

I also don't believe in voodoo as an appropriate healing approach.

[Cuffleyburgers]

I agree with TBH.

[Bob]

Big Hen,

Do you eat with the same fingers you type nasty things? Do you touch family members with them? I implied or imputed nothing and merely asked your opinion. One might suspect you're an overly sensitive as well as childishly vulgar little man.

[Cuffleyburgers]

Bob it seems to me TBH is an intelligent and decent person who has against his better judgement allowed himself to be provoked by socialist troll dickheads - oops there I go, I seem to have the same problem.

[Bob]

Cuffleyburgers, Thank you for your opinion.

[Loz]

I haven't read the details of the odds of success, or what success might mean for Charlie.

Everyone has talked about what the parents and the state want. But I wonder if it makes sense to conduct what can only be a thought experiment, and that is to put yourself in Charlie's shoes: What would you want for yourself if you were in his position?

I gather (only from having read the above) that in the event of success, Charlie won't have much time and it won't be remotely fine or dandy.

But, he will get the chance to feel the material presence of his parents, and their Love, and his Love for them.

Since Loving and being Loved is all that any of us carry with us after life, whether we had a "full" life or not. Charlie would get to take from this world as much as any of us will, up to and including the most materially life fulfilled person that every existed, if he has the chance.

So I would go for it.

Fuck the materialists, grab as many moments of Love and Loving as you can before the reset button gets pressed.

So what about if it were you? Off switch, or not?

SoD

[Mayfly]

Off switch for me. Absolutely. I don't believe in an afterlife, and I don't want my parents weeping over my bed whilst I have no idea about what's going on. If there is no hope for me, then let me go and prevent the grotesque concept of someone visiting my corpse, unable to move on.

My mother has instructed me to do the same for her, and I have made it clear that I don't want to linger, I'd rather my body parts were used to give someone who actually has a shot at a normal life a chance.

[Bob]

Mayfly has it right. Medical intervention kept my father "alive" almost a month after he was most probably unable to understand or feel anything but discomfort. I don't want anything similar. Death is part of the human condition and at some point the best outcome, as briefly unpleasant as it might be. Charlie never had the faculties to understand anything about his condition. A case can be made his parents are merely self-indulgent, as some of my family were who refused to pull the plug.

[Loz]

The example of someone having lived and Loved and been Loved wanting the machine off is subtly different from someone who never has.

I could accept "off" if I'd had the experience of Loving and being Loved, even if for a few precious moments.

I remember another recent case where the mother just wanted to hold her child and let that "beyond the material" bond form, while at the same time saying she wanted him to have the anesthetic necessary so that "He will never feel pain or know what it is, but only ever feel Love and know what it is", until he drifted away past the "off".

'bout sums up the best you can hope get out of this life in a nutshell.

SoD

[Mayfly]

"I remember another recent case where the mother just wanted to hold her child"

That again is another case. A mother who wants a few precious moments with her child, but who is still prepared for the fact that the child is about to die, is different from parents who seem to want to keep their child alive for no reason other than that they can't move on. I appreciate that medical science in the future might be able to save Charlie, and give him a normal life, but realistically speaking, is that going to happen? Also, the "mother holding her child" moment is really for her, not for the child. No less tragic, but I just can't believe in this "beyond the material" bond.

We are not going to agree on this, though, so there we go.

[Bob]

SoD,

How do you know sick and drugged up little Charlie is capable of feeling love? Even healthy newborns are said to respond only to the imperatives of dependence. You're quite the romantic.