Current Events > Remember Terri Schiavo?

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/03/health/charlie-gard-trump-pope-bn/index.html

The fate of Charlie Gard, a terminally ill infant, has come to the attention of two of the most powerful people on the planet: Pope Francis and US President Donald Trump.

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a hospital can discontinue life support to the baby, who has a rare genetic disease. His doctors wish to take him off life support, but his parents disagree. Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, wanted the hospital to release Charlie into their custody so they can take him to the United States for an experimental treatment.

On Sunday, Pope Francis called for the parents of the baby, who is in a hospital in London, to be allowed to "accompany and treat their child until the end."

"The Holy Father is following with affection and emotion the situation of little Charlie Gard and expresses his closeness to his parents. He is praying for them, in the hope that their desire to accompany and care for their own child until the end will be respected," the director of the Holy See Press Office, Greg Burke, said in a statement Sunday.

On Monday, Trump tweeted his support for Charlie's parents as doctors in London prepare to turn off his life support.

"If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so," Trump posted.

Born in August, Charlie has mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Caused by a genetic mutation, the disease leads to weakened muscles and organ dysfunction, among other symptoms, with a poor prognosis for most patients.

Charlie has been in the intensive care unit at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London since October. His doctors now wish to take him off life support.

But Charlie's parents, refusing to accept the prognosis, want to take him to the United States for an experimental treatment.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/27/health/charlie-gard-european-court-ruling-bn/index.html

Parents are rightly at the "heart" of decisions made about life-sustaining treatment for critically ill children, noted Dominic Wilkinson, director of medical ethics at the Oxford Uehiro Centre.

"However, there are limits," Wilkinson wrote in a recent editorial about Charlie's case published in The Lancet, a medical journal.

"Sadly, reluctantly, doctors and judges do sometimes conclude -- and are justified in concluding -- that slim chances of life are not always better than dying." Sometimes, the "best that medicine can do" -- and the most ethical decision -- is to provide comfort and to avoid painful and unhelpful medical treatments, he wrote.

The court said the decision was meticulous, noting that they spoke with Charlie's health care providers, independent experts, experts recommended by the family, and Charlie's parents to inform the ruling. In the end, the press released said they determined, "it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm."

---

only the Family Guy musical

Terri Schiavo!
She's kinda of alive-o!
The most expensive plant you'll ever seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
---

Terri Schaivo was an issue because Jeb Bush and other government fuckwads interfered with her husband trying to turn off life support because god.

In this case, the family of the child wants to keep life support on so that they can try out an experimental treatment in the USA.
---

Trump literally willing to offer more assistance to a foreign baby than his own citizens
---

Bio1590 posted...

Trump literally willing to offer more assistance to a foreign baby than his own citizens

Hey, just as long as they're not "anchor babies" am i rite?
---

UK Death Panels
---

I don't see anything wrong with trying to save the thing's life if there's a chance.

If this experimental procedure has no shot tho, I'd say it's inhumane to drag this baby across the ocean to have it poked and prodded for whatever reason.
---

As long as there is a chance it could save its life I say go for it, good on Trump.
---

Or just her career?
---

I supported the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, but this is completely different. This is an infant who's totally reliant on its parents. Terry Schiavo was a married adult. Her parents' whims don't hold the same weight as the parents in this scenario. If they want to put themselves into bankruptcy on the off chance they can save their baby's life, that's their right.
---

My problem with government-sponsored healthcare has always been this kind of exceptional case. If the parents were footing the bill themselves, they could keep the baby on life support as long as they wanted.

I suppose it's more an idealist argument since most parents won't be able to afford to do that anyway. But it's not diffiult to generalize.
---

Just put the poor baby out of its misery. People need to know when to let go.
---

lilORANG posted...

I don't see anything wrong with trying to save the thing's life if there's a chance.

If this experimental procedure has no shot tho, I'd say it's inhumane to drag this baby across the ocean to have it poked and prodded for whatever reason.

But where's the limit? 0.1% is by definiton a "chance" but also basically no shot.
---

IDK how likely this experimental treatment is to actually work. I would assume it is very slim, but it would be hard for me to tell the parents not to try it. I have no idea what I would do if faced with such a situation.

Those quotes from medical professionals make this experimental treatment sound like it is extremely unlikely to be effective and very likely to cause discomfort/pain for the child. Not entirely sure if that is actually the case though. If so it'd be real hard for me to view the parents choice for treatment as a good decision, but it really isn't my choice anyways.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Just put the poor baby out of its misery. People need to know when to let go.

Easy to say when it isn't yours.
---

I remember the jokes. Offensive and funny. The best kind of jokes.
---

Wedge Antilles posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Just put the poor baby out of its misery. People need to know when to let go.

Easy to say when it isn't yours.

Mr Sandbag posted...

I remember the jokes. Offensive and funny. The best kind of jokes.

That's the tricky thing with offensive jokes.

They're hilarious if done right and disastrous if done wrong
---

Wedge Antilles posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Just put the poor baby out of its misery. People need to know when to let go.

Easy to say when it isn't yours.

Not saying which thing is right, but I don't know if we should appeal to "The people whose decision making abilities are emotionally clouded would choose THIS option".
---

Wedge Antilles posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Just put the poor baby out of its misery. People need to know when to let go.

Easy to say when it isn't yours.

It's easy to say if it was mine. No one gains anything from dragging out the inevitable. You suffer longer. Your dying loved one suffers longer. Death is the most merciful, loving thing to do in these situations. You can hold out for a nonexistent being to do an impossible thing, but who is that fair to?
---