Posts
10111
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA
US
Fantasy
798th
Have you guys been following this?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3248426/charlie-gard-death-legal-battle-t…
Essentially, a baby (Charlie) born with a terminal disease was taken off life support and died today. He had a condition that was essentially untreatable, but some doctors have developed an experimental treatment that had maybe a 10% chance of helping the kid. The offer to treat was extended and the parents wanted to make it happen, but the hospital he was in refused, saying it would make Charlie suffer needlessly. They also cited medical difficulties in actually transporting the child, risks involved, etc.
I don't know what you guys think, but I say if there's a 10% chance, you take it. Pain, money, convenience be damned; if you can even possibly help that kid to live, you fucking do it. This really torques me.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3248426/charlie-gard-death-legal-battle-t…
Essentially, a baby (Charlie) born with a terminal disease was taken off life support and died today. He had a condition that was essentially untreatable, but some doctors have developed an experimental treatment that had maybe a 10% chance of helping the kid. The offer to treat was extended and the parents wanted to make it happen, but the hospital he was in refused, saying it would make Charlie suffer needlessly. They also cited medical difficulties in actually transporting the child, risks involved, etc.
I don't know what you guys think, but I say if there's a 10% chance, you take it. Pain, money, convenience be damned; if you can even possibly help that kid to live, you fucking do it. This really torques me.
Seems so strange to have the ability to end a pregnancy (viable life), but the parents didn't have the right to help their child live.
Strange strange world sometimes.
My own son is around because they have learned lots about premature birth over the years. If he had been born in 1971 instead of 2009, I doubt he would have lived three days.
I think that I had read that one of the main arguments that the hospital had was that the transportation alone would cause extreme pain and that he wouldn't likely survive the transport from the hospital. There was nothing to believe that the proposed treatment would have any positive effect on his condition, and after the doctor from the US who wanted to try the treatment finally examined the records, scans, and charts for the young boy, even he agreed that there wasn't any hope that the treatment could help.
In my opinion, that doctor should be scrutinized for building up a false hope for the parents based on no evidence whatsoever that the treatment would work, and then not taking the time to actually examine the child or even his medical information at any depth.
All that is from a detached bystander, though. I would be unbelievably emotional and be grasping at any and everything even resembling a straw if it were my child, I suppose. But realistically, this was a tragic congenital condition that doesn't even have anything close to a cure or treatment.
The Shop
While I agree with the idea that a parent should be able to chose their childs medical treatment, there is also a part of me that thinks no medical professional go into that line of work to make people suffer, and if their expert opinion is that prolonging a life causes unnecessary suffering for no reason other than a selfish one, I would have to take notice.
Post a reply to: Charlie Gard