General Chat

There was never going to be a 'winner' in this situation.

I sincerely hope the Yates-Gards (& GOSH) can take comfort , knowing they did all they could for their son.

The parents of this delicate child did their level best for the benefit of their offspring.

In doing so, their actions started a worthwhile debate.

Daily Fail headline and article:

'He won't make his first birthday': Charlie Gard's parents weep as they admit their son will die within days and blame Great Ormond Street doctors for not letting him fly to US

Charlie Gard's parents give up fight to save their boy

Charlie Gard will be allowed to die after his parents today made the heartbreaking decision to let him 'slip away'. Chris Gard and Connie Yates arrived at the High Court in tears as they ended a campaign to save his life that has touched millions around the world. They have battled for six months for their beloved 11-month-old son to be flown to the US for pioneering drugs to treat his rare strain of mitochondrial disease. But they have now decided to let him die clearly believing that Great Ormond Street's refusal to let him travel to a New York hospital had cost him his chance. Grant Armstrong, for the parents, told High Court judge Mr Justice Francis: 'Poor Charlie. It is too late. The damage has been done. Sadly time has run out. Sadly the window of opportunity no longer exists. The parents have taken an extremely hard decision.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THAT won't help GOSH staff at all.
Imagine the situation if we didn't have the NHS.
Ever the cynic, I have visions of Charlie's parents being encouraged to sue.

Sadly I agree with Maggie. It doesn't sound like an end to the fight which the parents are prepared to accept.

I really want to scream at the American specialists who made the 'reversible damage' claims without all the clinical facts.

How cruel to be thrown an emotional lifeline only to have someone cut the rope.

Having said that I sincerely hope that GOSH staff can be left to carry on with their wonderful work without further abuse.

I also hope that Charlie's parents can, in the months to come, allow other medical professionals to access his records to help with research.

....Charlie's parents being encouraged to sue.

I hope you're wrong, but fear you're right.
......
Unfortunately his parents believed that if he'd been assessed & accepted for the experimental treatment earlier, he would have potentially been a 'normal little boy'.

Who knows what we as parents would have done? Like them, we may have clutched at straws. On the other hand, we may have accepted that a less than 1% chance of a slight improvement was to low to risk moving him overseas.

If my father, after rejecting a brain operation, was told the 80% success rate was too low, 1 % is off the scale.

Parents are not always the best people to make decisions about their children. I hope this little boy can slip away peacefully and be free from pain.

However, after flying over from the US to examine him in person for the first time, after being asked to do so by the judge, and assessing the scans he concluded that the NBT therapy was no longer a viable option.
(Dr Michia Hirano, a US professor of neurology)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/
2017/jul/24/charlie-gard-parents-end-legal-fight-over-critically-ill-baby

I believe the treatment he intended using was experimental and had never been used for Charlie's condition before - so he was giving the parents false hope.

The doctor hasn't helped the situation - " assessing the scans he concluded that the NBT therapy was no longer a viable option." - it's the 'no longer a viable option' that is (to my mind) the wrong thing to say.

Had it ever been a viable option?
He'd never seen the scans when he said he could help, and the treatment was experimental, so perhaps wouldn't have helped at all, but the staff at GOSH will face the flack.

Oh, and the American neurologist has a financial interest in the treatment - so it's wonderful publicity for him.

it is a fact of life that "most" American doctors have a financial interest in he treatment they offer any patient ............

that covers everything from the prescription the GP gives a patient because that is the drug that the drug company has "paid" him by inviting him to a conference with all expenses paid, to the specialists who are conducting research on their own behalf or offering to use someone else's research on payment of a small fee.

Even those who may give glowing reports on how a certain drug or treatment acts have usually been paid to do that.

That's in addition to all the wild and wonderful treatments offered to cure cancer, etc etc ................. one could almost call many of those offering such treatments as "charlatans" offering snake oil.

it is truly horrifying to read medical ethics articles and books.

USA health companies and their dubious ethics already have a bridgehead in the UK. Post brexit there is every possibility that the NHS will be sold off to them while retaining its upfront facade.

Rollo .......

I was not talking about Health companies and their dubious ethics ........... that's a whole other barrel of monkeys

I was talking about the ethics of doctors, specialists, researchers and drug companies, and that has been going a lot longer than Health companies have been operating.

By their fruits ye shall know them.