Charlie Gard

Anniebach, that is why in cases like this the Court steps in as they are removed from the problem and can look at it in a fair way to all sides, above all the child's. We all feel the deep emotions involved in cases like this but emotion sometimes blurs the line for the best way forward for the child whose welfare is paramount here. And sometimes, in very sad cases like this one, even the parents want someone else to make the final decision as it helps them cope with the grief and guilt.

Oh dear Annie I meant absolutely no offence to you at all.I have no intention of criticizing how often you post
Just sometimes the content.
We are both equally entitled to our views.

annsixty, I don't care what you think, I look at the child's suffering and the parents suffering, how easy some here think it easy to let go and how easy to think calmly and logicaly when swamped in grief . Well it is not .

And please do not tell me my posts on this thread have gone on too long.

Sorry Annie I do know you mean well but your playing Devil's advocate has gone on too long.

Annie - I'm not saying our Children Act is perfect. no one and nothing is perfect. It isn't appropriate to get into the complexity of Cleveland or Rochdale here. This is about the tragedy of this little boy and his loved ones, the doctors, nurses and the legal system which no one would chose as the route to resolve disputes like this. The Judge recommends that in future similar cases, mediation is attempted, in the same way that now happens in private and public law cases before they get to Court. He recognises that it may not resolve but may ensure the parties have a greater understanding of each other's position.
Does anyone have a solution that would be least worse than our current one (goes without saying. Legal aid to be available, mediation to be accepted by all pRties)

Great Ormond Street Hospital -v- Yates and Gard judgment 24 July 2017

I think this is it Iam. Thank you for flagging it up.

As the law worked in Cleveland ? Wrong diagnosis by paediatricians , then the courts acted on this diagnosis

I apologise for not being competent to do links. The Judgement covering the period from the GOSH application to the Court in early July is now available on line. If anyone can give a link, it summarises matters concisely. It covers interventions by the Vatican, President Trump and the US doctor who offered treatment without having examined the baby, or read his medical notes, despite this having been suggested by GOSH in January. The Judge is positive and compassionate about the parents. He sets out clearly the reasons why the law in this country is focussed on the best interests of the child.
He points out it isn't for the JudiciAry to get involved in politics but suggests he doesn't believe that when parliament reduced the availability of legal aid, it hadn't intended to leave parents in this kind of situation without legal aid. The parents' legal team worked without payment.

I did wonder if some of those involved with the American pro-life group actually had any idea how the NHS works and the care this child has been given Eloethan. There really is no reason why they should generally, but before you try and interfere in another countries justice system you should certainly learn about it.

I respect that they are distressed but I think it is time to stop. To go on adding a few days here, and this and that there does nothing to help the parents to let go.

I also take the point about making facities available for young children who may need and actually be able to benefit from GOSH's ITU.

I agree with you gracesgran. I find it especially disturbing that the doctor who suggested this treatment might work had not initially disclosed his financial interest in the company producing the particular drug to be used. And, as we all know, medicine and healthcare is big business in the US and some doctors seem to have few qualms about how they make their money. Much has been written about the suspiciously high levels of very expensive but unnecessary medical procedures that are carried out there. Meanwhile, those who have no insurance are denied proper healthcare.

I must admit I was surprised to read the parents want to have Charlie at home for a week, presumably before letting him die. They must still be convinced he's not suffering. One thing that won't happen even though it's one of the reasons why they want to take Charlie home, is that the media will give them space. The media will camp outside where ever the family are, no matter what the parents want.

What a very sensible and compassionate Judge this is. He has said that in similar cases in the future, where parents and hospital staff disagree they should have to go into mediation to avoid legal proceedings. He has also commented on the cuts to legal aid (voted on by MPs) which left Charlie's parents not entitled to legal aid.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.aol.co.uk/news/2017/07/24/judge-who-oversaw-charlie-gard-legal-dispute-hopes-lessons-can-b/amp/

I am sure the hospital is use to dealing with grief and the irrational thoughts and actions which are often part of grief.

I'm sorry, I should have read back but this is my first chance to get on here since first thing this morning and it has been going through my mind all day. Glad to hear I am not a monster! Life is so unfair but sadly it just is sometimes.

It is clear that the parents have lost faith in the medical staff - probably because they simply did not want to believe what they were being told - and who can blame them? Such sad news.

It is unlikely that they will feel comfortable with anything now suggested by GOSH, even though the staff are falling over themselves to try and accommodate the parents' wishes.

And all this in the glare of publicity - how good it would be if the media were simply to back off. I know the argument would proceed on social media anyway - but how good it would be to see the BBC and responsible print publications simply acknowledging that their involvement is just making things worse.

These poor young parents cannot possibly have known what they were getting themselves into when it all went to court. I feel so sorry for them - a dying child is quite enough misery without them having to be in the spotlight all the time.

I think most people do agree Gracesgran.

There are many babies out there whose parents are having to come to terms that they may not live beyond infancy; not with the same disorder as Charlie but with other life-limiting syndromes.

Are the parents expecting GOSH staff to leave the hospital and set up a twenty-four hour care facility at the flat? I don't really understand what they are expecting. That other children are not admitted whilst a number of staff are looking after Charlie? That can't be practically possible, no matter how much they wish it could be. It seems like ever-increasing demands by the parents.

GracesGranMK2
The majority of posters on here do agree with the points you have made. Most are appalled by the "media circus" that has been created by people who should not be interfering in these matters.
Women screaming death threats at staff are behaving like evil crones in my view.

That family need to be given some dignity.

I know many will not agree but I am horrified by all the machinations that have gone on round this poor child. The press, the extreme religious right-wing pro-lifers from America and the parents have all used the situation.

What that so called doctor did in suggesting that a trial - that hasn't yet been carried out on mice - should be carried out on this poor child and also in convincing these parents that had it been done earlier it could have worked is iniquitous.

I am sorry for the parents but it was always going to be the child's needs that have to come first. In this country no one owns anyone else; we are all autonomous and courts will always ensure that someone can be represented so that their needs are judged not those of a family member. That is our law and our justice and I have no idea why the USA or the Catholic Church think they have any say in how that law is carried out.

Good posts merlot and ann

trisher and Cold that makes sense, thank you.

GOSH offered the chance to take Charlie home to die using a mobile ventilator but the parents want him home for a week and the problem is managing that. Having read the court evidence of the palliative care expert it sounds like a risky business trying to arrange intensive care in a small flat. They would also need 24/7 nursing and medical care - I would think you would need at least double staffing as noone would want to work alone with the current threats of lawsuits and protests. Most medical insurance would not cover intensive care in a risky and possibly threatening environment.

It isn't just the hospital there are so many factors involved. The ventilator and apparently they can't find a specialist doctor willing to help. I remember when my friends little boy was ill in GOSH they would remove his drip, wrap him warmly and provide a pram so she could take him for a walk. It was extra work but they did it so she could bond with the baby. Above and beyond their duty, just done for the mum and baby.

I think a hospice could be the best answer. He could surely have his own cot and toys there. The parents could stay with him and I'm sure they would get a lot of support from the staff, which they may find they are grateful for.

He hasn't belonged to the hospital Anniebach he has belonged to the court. Until now the hospital hasn't been able to sanction him being moved.