Charlie Gard

Bluebell, I have never said God takes away life , the little one is not yet a corpse , this is why I said 4% of life , we are either alive or dead , no middle bit

Spot on, bluebelle.

And mans intervention.

He would be dead but for a machine. The ability to keep someone 4% 'alive' with a machine does not mean we always should.

Would you want to live with 4 % of your life, that's what you have to ask yourself ....and if your arguement is only God can take a life away then remove the human interventions and allow God to take him as he is not alive through Gods will alone but through man s inventions

Sorry Aggie but 4% of a life, he is not yet dead , sadly very close to it though

the logistics of transporting a very poorly baby, with life support and all those tubes , to another hospital , never mind accross the atlantic are beyond anything reasonable . If he survived all that trauma he would be treated with so little improvement , 4% of nothing ,

Google news has a story about a five year old boy with a similar syndrome to Charlie. He has had some treatment and now at the age of 5 "can move his eyes slightly for the first time and can make some sounds"
He cannot breathe on his own and will be on a ventilator for the rest of his life.
Both parents have given up work to care for him and have raised funds to convert the garage in the wife's parents home for him.
What total dedication but..... could I do it?
I just thank God I Have not been put to the test.

Perhaps Mr Pence would like to look at the Commonwealth Fund research which found:

New York, NY, September 23, 2011 — The United States placed last among 16 high-income, industrialized nations when it comes to deaths that could potentially have been prevented by timely access to effective health care."

'Mike Pence, the US vice president, has also waded into the row, using Charlie’s case to insist a universal healthcare system would not work in the US.

Mr Pence told an American radio programme, hosted by a right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh: “The heartbreaking story of the 11-month-old Charlie Gard in England is a story of single-payer healthcare'
..sadly it seems to me that everyone is now using this tragic case to further their own political/moral beliefs, and the welfare of the poor child is becoming less and less important. I do hope he isn't suffering .

Agree, devongirl. Every time it gets near to a legal deadline someone manages to pull a chunk of "fresh new evidence" out of some kind of magic hat, to put before the court. And then the whole gruelling process is drawn out, yet again.

Terrible times for the parents, the doctors and - arguably, most of all - the judges who have all the responsibility placed at their feet.

But it HAS turned into a media circus and I suspect that Charlie's parents are being manipulated by some unscrupulous PR persons who can smell the big bucks from selling film rights, getting a lucrative publishing deal and flogging every aspect of this sorry saga for every last cent they can get.

This is - unfortunately - the world we now have......

I think they ought to be allowed to take him and try this, for all their sakes . I would fight the same for my children ?

I dont think most folk are PRO abortion we're pro choice ,most woman have abortions because there isn't a way they can have the child for a multitude of reasons,be it health or financial or any other...every reason is valid if it would affect the mother badly to carry the child and give birth.Any one I know who has had a termination carries the guilt of it with them ,some decades later .Even though it was a medical necessity .Its not the easy way out some of you think

Although it is a terrible situation for the parents, this must be about the little boy.

It has been reported that several doctors - some of whom have been involved in his care and treatment, and others who have seen him and studied his medical notes, have said this little boy cannot see or hear - or feed or breathe independently of machines. On top of that, he is said to have profound brain damage and to need regular doses of morphine, presumably to ease pain and distress. It is his doctors' opinion that his condition is terminal and that it is not in his best interests to keep him alive artificially.

Why would the little boy's doctors say this unless they truly believe it - and surely, having had day-to-day care of him, they have the most knowledge of his condition. Because of patient confidentiality they cannot speak out and explain exactly why they take the view they do, and so it seems unfair that they are being subjected to criticism.

In a TV documentary I saw a few years ago, a paediatrician admitted that he was often very troubled as to whether it was in a baby's best interests to carry out distressing procedures and continual surgery on very sick babies when the outcome was overwhelmingly likely to be eventual death.

As I understand it, the procedure the parents are seeking is experimental and, of course, it is only through experimentation that new treatments and surgical procedures are perfected. But it is my view that, whilst it is in order for a terminally ill adult to agree to submit themselves to experimental procedures that may prolong their lives, there is a question as to whether a baby, who cannot speak for himself, should be subjected to such experimentation.

But the real pro lifers like this appalling pastor do NOT believe in individual choice do they ab whereas pro-choicers do.

Tegan, I doubt there is one answer to your question, it comes down to people's opinions, rather like politics ,

There was a pro life activist in America who shot and killed staff members of an abortion clinic , make sense of that one if you can

There are no set rules , I said in an earlier post I am semi pro life , I have not come down on one side or the other in this discussion because for me to say he should live or he should die is too simplistic , in my opinion it is an individual choice to support pro life or condemn pro life

And what exactly is wrong with aborting a healthy but unwanted foetus? No one would force someone to do that in this country but 'pro-lifers' think they should be able to force anyone in whatever circumstances to give birth

Yep Tegan got it in one - it also means being mysogynistic and thinking you have the god given right not just to your own views but to impose those views on everyone else. It means shooting dead doctors who carry out abortions and ATM it means threatening physical harm to GOSH staff.

why do some get so carried away, where have I mentioned threats to anyone?
A pathetic way to try to prove you are sooooo right.

Soak of abortion and it's a twelve year old was raped, ignore the thousands of healthy babies aborted, pathetic

I don't understand 'pro life' really. Does it mean that no one ever uses contraception; that women are constantly pregnant and that everyone should be kept alive at all costs as long as there are medical interventions that can make that possible? Where is the line to be drawn between 'life' and 'living'[other than exisiting, that is?]. I find it all quite scary.

Annie, if you meant should those here who believe nature shouldn't be allowed to take its course,nthen of course people are free to express that belief. I cant imagine you meant that free speech includes the right to threaten eg GOSH staff.

The decision to give the parents a period of time with Charlie, after the last Court hearing was made in good faith, not to prolong the agony. GOSH made an application to the Court in response to what the parents see as new evidence. The Court gave them 48 hours to present that evidence. The Judge has indicated it will have to be significant new evidence for his decision to be changed. He also stressed that he, like everyone, would like to see Charlie well.

I agree with Rigby about the implications for the parents as well as for the Hospital.

I don't accept the concept of free speech that threatens death to people ( and neither did the courts today re Gina Miller) . Do you think that supporting his parents means threatening harm to GOSH staff? Surely not?

I agree ab about not extending the matter this time if the court rules as may be expected. The hospital will also need some time to plan against the huge backlash they will face as well from many quite frankly unhinged people in the Army.

But my point is that they are not being given wise counsel it appears - they are being egged on, exploited and used by others. When Charlie dies, it will only be the start of another nightmare I feel.

I agree Whitewave, they are so very vunerable , they will have to accept the courts decision come Thursday so I hope the hospital don't again extend the child's life by a few days as they did last time, I do not mean race from the court and withdraw trestment but don't wait days because there will never be a right day for these parents .