Charlie Gard

GOSH can't release him, only the courts can order that. As for the US doctors coming here, I don't know but I guess it would be a legal and ethical minefield.

If you had the slightest idea of what CA was posting on Facebook ab - it's not about supporting the parents but about lying, libellous, wicked, evil, unfounded comments about GOSH and the staff there. That is NOT acceptable

So sorry if this has already been covered, can't read every post.

But if so much money has been raised, which I believe it has, and GOSH are reluctant to release the little chap, then why not let the American doctors come to the UK to try the treatment?

I feel now that the child should be offered any treatment available or GOSH and the medical team will actually be accused by some of killing him.
This is a very sorry state to be in but things have now gone too far. I think that like animal activists, some people will respond in a dangerous way if he is allowed to die.
I say this with a very heavy heart.

Thank You Ana, Iam.

Rigsby I can't agree with your mocking of the people supporting the parents request , some who are genuine Pro Life campaigners have flown here from America, they are no different to those who campaign for causes they believe in , are those who csmpaign against fox hunting, which I have done but many support the sport. And I am not comparing the child with an snimal , just believe in people's right to campaign for causes which are their beliefs .

I don't defend the shooting of staff at an abortion clinic, hypocritical to take a life if one is Pro life .

I found more references than you did when I googled, Iam64. Mainly to daily newspapers, admittedly (but not the DM)

I agree gb ( if it's true) I was just irritated that ab jumped to the conclusion it was GOSH.

A summary of the available information:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/10/charlie-gard-key-questions-answered

There really are only three possible sources of leaks aren't there Rigby46 ? The parents themselves, the medical team or someone present in court.

TBH I have no idea whether it's true or not, I was merely answering Annie's question.

Xposted there Rigby, don't know if you've seen the Facebook page but your phrase 'truly awful ' sums it up.

I googled and the only reference I found to this baby being given morphine was on one of the Charlie Gard Facebook sites. The suggestion there is that the information was given in Court by the legal representative for GOSH. The comments on the page accused GOSH of starting Charlie on morphine in order to somehow cover up, and convince the Court the baby is in pain. I won't repeat more but I can't believe the type of comments being made will help anyone.

I think it's incredibly unfair to jump to the conclusion that GOSH have leaked it - they have behaved with incredible dignity and constraint in the face of the most dreadful and wicked provocation from the truly awful 'Charlie's Army'.

It could have been leaked via the courts Anniebach .

It is a terrible thing to lose a child, but surely the love you have for a child must be strong enough to let go and stop his suffering. I do feel this is more about the parents than the child, but will the treatment they are seeking allow him to have a happy and fulfilled life, or will he always be so disabled that he needs 24/7 care? And if that is the case, who will give him that care if he outlives his parents? Will the parents' relationship be strong enough to survive the demands of constant care? It is a heatbreaking situation however you look at it

I'm not being goady but do we really know that this information is true? Reported in the media does not automatically = true.

Thank you Ana, it is so wrong this medical information was released, it could only have come from the hospital, no matter how much they want to do what they think is best for the child releasing information about his medication is breaking patient confidentiality which is ilegal, I think

I agree there is a difference between JW and this case but there is still the basic underpinning principle of the parents' right to decide. is it an absolute or not? And if not, which is probably the case, how does society decide when parents can choose or not? My understanding is that no child at all with the same severe condition as Charlie has been treated, successfully or otherwise. The King case is very different.

There is a big difference between parents who are Jehovah's witnesses wanting to withhold proven life saving treatment from their children, parents wanting FGM (which is mutilation and illegal, and not medical treatment of any kind) for their daughters, and parents who want to be allowed to try experimental treatment which has been used in other countries and appears to have some limited success.

I stress that I don't really know my own feelings on this; I'm glad I'm not the one who will be involved in making the final decision. But I can't criticise the parents, I can't demonise them either. Whenever I have heard them speak they come across as rational, loving, devoted parents who are very clear about what they want for Charlie and also the limits on this. I think it is most unfair to accuse them of using social media, enjoying the publicity, losing sight of their baby's best interests. What right do we have to sit in judgement of them when they are in a situation most of us thankfully cannot even bear to imagine?

I think that in their shoes I too would use all the publicity I could muster, including social media, if I genuinely felt there was a treatment that could help my child and that he was being sentenced to death when all avenues had not been fully exhausted.

I am very aware that none of us (I assume) have been privy to the lengthy court proceedings and have not had the benefit of hearing all the evidence in this case. I honestly believe that the judgements made will have been made in good faith and with full consideration of the evidence provided. But that doesn't mean that the chances of this treatment helping have been assessed correctly, given that it is so new and has not been fully tested. The treatment denied to Ashya King in this country is now to be provided on the NHS from next year, and he is well thanks to the fact that his parents were willing to break the law. We can speculate all we like about Charlie's quality of life but we really don't know and I would venture to suggest that no one really knows, including the doctors. It makes me uneasy that he could be removed from life support if there is any chance at all that in a few years time we might see this treatment being used successfully on children with his condition.

Annie, it's been reported in the media - apparently the doctors aren't sure Charlie isn't in pain (how could they be?).

when I look at poor Charlie with that clip over his nose I think it must be extremely uncomfortable to spend unending time with such a thing on your face.
My niece who is a midwife spent the last weeks of her pregnancies in fear her babies would not make it to 39 weeks because she knew that the premature babies had a lot to suffer with their sensitive skina and all their tubes etc.

As to Charlie let him go and send this awful priest home.
If Lord Winston thinks Charlie has no future then that convinces me.

Who said the child was receiving morphine? Was it said in court?

This is a heartbreaking situation for little Charlie's parents to be in. But I think perhaps they are allowing their heart (their obvious love for their child) to rule their head.

Life, but at what price? Are we talking about a near normal little boy with a slight disability who will grow up to be a valued member of society or are we talking about a profoundly mentally and physical disabled little boy with very little quality of life who could grow up to be a profoundly mentally and physically handicapped man with no quality of life? From what I have read and heard it would seem to be the latter (although happy to learn otherwise) in which case the parents must be so traumatized that they are probably not thinking straight and (although I hate to say it) they are thinking about themselves and their own grief of letting him go, before they are thinking about a very poorly little baby boy, who for all we know could be in the most horrific pain. Poor little lamb.

He is severely brain damaged. I wish they would just let his precious soul fly free xxx

The idea of parents having the last word on their child's treatment seems completely right until you remember Jehovah's Witnesses and mothers wanting FGM for their daughters, or the parents who want to use alternative treatments rather than chemotherapy.

The judge may decide to let the treatment go ahead but I'm not expecting the miracle some of the papers have been talking about.