• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Charlie Gard[W:193]

Re: Charlie Gard

countryboy said:
They raised their own money to travel abroad for treatment, the government said NO. So no, the question isn't "how far is too far" for treatment. The question is "how far is too far" for government intrusion. And this was clearly a case of, TOO FAR. It's not even debatable.
Click to expand...

There was no government intrusion whatsoever. Your use of a terminally ill child to further your noxious politics is noted.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Manc Skipper said:
There was no government intrusion whatsoever. Your use of a terminally ill child to further your noxious politics is noted.
Click to expand...

What? Who then was it that prevented the Gard's from seeking treatment abroad?
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Lutherf said:
There is a GoFundMe account for Charlie that holds in excess of a million English pounds.
Click to expand...

Maybe this can be donated to research treatments for his disease.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

ttwtt78640 said:
This entire thread is about a "patient" that has no reasonable chance of recovery and suffers from a terminal condition. Even those offering the "experimental treatment" have said that the current severe brain (and other organ) damage is not reversible thus "recovery" is not an option. Charlie is not ever going to become the pinball wizard no matter what resources are offered, meanwhile, resources that could be put to much more productive use are being wasted on this lost cause.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're offering me a million dollars to treat your no hope case, of course, bring him over!
 
Re: Charlie Gard

countryboy said:
What? Who then was it that prevented the Gard's from seeking treatment abroad?
Click to expand...

From the OP: Charlie Gard case explained - BBC News

How did Charlie's doctors reach this decision?

Charlie's doctors said his brain was extensively damaged at a cellular level.

They said the US clinician offering the experimental treatment agreed it would not reverse this brain damage so GOSH applied to the High Court for judges to decide Charlie's future.

The High Court agreed with the GOSH doctors.

Charlie's parents then appealed against the decision, but courts ruled that the original decision should stand and that it would be in Charlie's best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.
Click to expand...

Why did the case return to the courts?

GOSH applied to the High Court for a fresh hearing "in light of claims of new evidence" relating to potential treatment for Charlie's condition.
Two international hospitals and their researchers got in touch with GOSH with more information about nucleoside therapy - drugs designed to help treat MDDS.
Click to expand...

What is nucleoside therapy?

The therapy is a treatment, not a cure. And it is highly experimental.

It has been used on some patients, but none with Charlie's type of MDDS.

There have not yet been any trials in mice to see if it would work in Charlie's condition, which is caused by a mutation of a gene called RRM2B. The faulty DNA means Charlie's cells cannot easily make energy to power his muscles and brain.

GOSH did apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy on Charlie.

By the time that decision was made, however, Charlie's condition had greatly worsened and the view was that his brain damage was too severe and irreversible for the treatment to help.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Dang, people are flippen cold. That's somebody's child and the parents reached out for some small bit of hope and that makes them bad people, as are the people who thought the parents should make the decisions for their baby? It's scary how many people are happy and glad the government got its way on this.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Dragonfly said:
I believe the fear was inducing unnecessary and undue suffering on an infant.

Should parents be able to do anything they want to their child regardless of the pain and anguish it may cause to the child?
Click to expand...

Like seek medical treatment? Yeah, what asshole's they are.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Dragonfly said:
Who said that?

Who's happy about all this?
Click to expand...

I'm seeing lots of judgement for the parents. Obviously you're a lot more fine with everything that's happened here than I am. Glad it went the way you wanted it to.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

X Factor said:
I'm seeing lots of judgement for the parents. Obviously you're a lot more fine with everything that's happened here than I am. Glad it went the way you wanted it to.
Click to expand...

The philosophical question here is what is BEST for the infant/child.

Keeping the child alive longer, and possibly in pain, so that YOU can feel better about it all is not really the best path to take now is it?
 
Re: Charlie Gard

ttwtt78640 said:
You can't have it both ways - if the public pays then the pubic (via its assigns, agents and policy) decides.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what's scary and wrong about single payer. In this case it wasn't about the money, it was about making sure the parents had no say in this, even if they though they had the means for alternative care. I think most people would like to think they can make those kinds of decisions for their own babies rather than the collective that supposedly knows what's better for your baby and you and I'm actually surprised you're defending it.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

X Factor said:
it was about making sure the parents had no say in this,
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it was about making sure a human baby suffered as little as possible, based on the extreme circumstances he was unfortunate enough to have to endure.

Parents, in extremely emotional and heart wrenching situations, may not always act on the best behalf of their child.
Sometimes the best of intentions could be harmful and prolong suffering while not changing the outcome at all.

Making accusations of malice in this situation is not constructive.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Dragonfly said:
The philosophical question here is what is BEST for the infant/child.

Keeping the child alive longer, and possibly in pain, so that YOU can feel better about it all is not really the best path to take now is it?
Click to expand...

Well we won't ever know if another type of treatment might have actually improved his condition or given some extra time with him that they would have valued even as you would resent it. Even if it didn't, maybe something could have been learned that could help someone else later. The funny thing here is how many people support the parent's having no say in this would probably consider themselves "pro-choice". Apparently not in this case, though.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Dragonfly said:
The philosophical question here is what is BEST for the infant/child.
Click to expand...

You mean, what's best for the child as determined by leftist ideological nonsense.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

countryboy said:
You mean, what's best for the child as determined by leftist ideological nonsense.
Click to expand...

:roll:

No....good lord.

Medical professionals. Lots of them. Probably plenty of them from the "right" too.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

ttwtt78640 said:
You can't have it both ways - if the public pays then the pubic (via its assigns, agents and policy) decides. That is why I prefer to have a public option (funded entirely, or at least heavily, by user fees) rather than a public mandate.
Click to expand...

In this case, it wasn't a matter of "who pays". The couple had secured their own funding. They literally weren't allowed, by the government to seek the treatment for their child.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Dragonfly said:
Actually, I think it was about making sure a human baby suffered as little as possible, based on the extreme circumstances he was unfortunate enough to have to endure.

Parents, in extremely emotional and heart wrenching situations, may not always act on the best behalf of their child.
Sometimes the best of intentions could be harmful and prolong suffering while not changing the outcome at all.

Making accusations of malice in this situation is not constructive.
Click to expand...

I know. What a terrible decision they made for their baby. To actually fight for his life, and you condemn them as simple wanting to "feel better" about it. Hopefully the parents will learn that what was truly important here is how everyone else that's not part of this situation are glad about the outcome.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

X Factor said:
Well we won't ever know if another type of treatment might have actually improved his condition or given some extra time with him that they would have valued even as you would resent it. Even if it didn't, maybe something could have been learned that could help someone else later. The funny thing here is how many people support the parent's having no say in this would probably consider themselves "pro-choice". Apparently not in this case, though.
Click to expand...

So you don't care how long this one child might suffer? That's not an issue for you?
At any and all costs, regardless of pain, keep him alive.
That's what you want?
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Dragonfly said:
:roll:

No....good lord.

Medical professionals. Lots of them. Probably plenty of them from the "right" too.
Click to expand...

For the most part, "the right" isn't as enamored with "euthanasia" and death as many on the left.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

X Factor said:
I know. What a terrible decision they made for their baby. To actually fight for his life, and you condemn them as simple wanting to "feel better" about it. Hopefully the parents will learn that what was truly important here is how everyone else that's not part of this situation are glad about the outcome.
Click to expand...

#1) I have not condemned them. You're making up lies.

#2) It's quite possible keeping that poor child alive for "as long as possible" is in fact a terrible decision - for the child
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Dragonfly said:
:roll:

No....good lord.

Medical professionals. Lots of them. Probably plenty of them from the "right" too.
Click to expand...

There is no "right" in the UK.

Leftists only care about human suffering when it suits them politically. It's sickening, actually.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Dragonfly said:
So you don't care how long this one child might suffer? That's not an issue for you?
At any and all costs, regardless of pain, keep him alive.
That's what you want?
Click to expand...

I think his life had value and was worth trying to preserve. At the very least, I support parents having a say in such things. Crazy talk, right? Quite frankly if you don't understand where I'm coming from, you never will.
 
Re: Charlie Gard

Harry Guerrilla said:
Unless I read it wrong, they raised the money to pay for the treatment and had the NHS just let them go and do it, there would of been time and no legal wrangling.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a bureaucratic NHS decision, it was the decision of the medical staff at Gt. Ormond Street.

Instead, not only did they not get a unlikely shot of saving their kid, the potential medical research was lost.
Click to expand...
The only people claiming that the untested treatment would have saved the baby is the parents. The American specialists didn't claim they could save the baby's life, just that they could prolong or 'improve his condition'. He is suffering from an incurable and terminal condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom