Charlie bit it (and it really hurts)

[The Emerald Legion]

Well first - "all other circumstances being equal" (your words, not mine) suggest you haven't actually read any of the case files, because if you had you would know that all other circumstances were anything but equal. They were not even close.

Secondly - the NHS didn't do anything. The NHS is not legally empowered to do anything of the sort. The NHS is a medical service. You can tell that by the fact it stands for "National Health Service". The NHS is made up of doctors, nurses, consultants, specialists and other medical professionals. And The Hospital For Sick Children on Great Ormand Street has some of the best paediatricians in the country, if not the world. What happens is they provide a medical opinion (which in this case is considered expert, if not better) and if that differs with the parents' opinion, then it is handed over to a specialist court to decide.

Thirdly - it was the courts that made the decision you are so put out about. Only the courts in Britain are empowered to do this. A fully independent judiciary that is not guided by money, by the government, by anything other than one single, guiding principle - what is best for the child. They act in the best interests of the child, based on the wishes of the parents and the advice from the medical professionals involved in the case. But in the end it is the courts that decide, not The NHS.

So if you are going to rant about stuff, at least have the decency to rant about the CORRECT stuff and not about things you clearly do NOT understand. Because when you start ranting about the NHS and about other shit that is clearly lies and bollocks, you make yourself look like a fool.

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect. Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail. Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table. The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

And who gave the courts the suggestion that the child should die? Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

Well first - "all other circumstances being equal" (your words, not mine) suggest you haven't actually read any of the case files, because if you had you would know that all other circumstances were anything but equal. They were not even close.

Secondly - the NHS didn't do anything. The NHS is not legally empowered to do anything of the sort. The NHS is a medical service. You can tell that by the fact it stands for "National Health Service". The NHS is made up of doctors, nurses, consultants, specialists and other medical professionals. And The Hospital For Sick Children on Great Ormand Street has some of the best paediatricians in the country, if not the world. What happens is they provide a medical opinion (which in this case is considered expert, if not better) and if that differs with the parents' opinion, then it is handed over to a specialist court to decide.

Thirdly - it was the courts that made the decision you are so put out about. Only the courts in Britain are empowered to do this. A fully independent judiciary that is not guided by money, by the government, by anything other than one single, guiding principle - what is best for the child. They act in the best interests of the child, based on the wishes of the parents and the advice from the medical professionals involved in the case. But in the end it is the courts that decide, not The NHS.

So if you are going to rant about stuff, at least have the decency to rant about the CORRECT stuff and not about things you clearly do NOT understand. Because when you start ranting about the NHS and about other shit that is clearly lies and bollocks, you make yourself look like a fool.

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect. Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail. Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table. The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

And who gave the courts the suggestion that the child should die? Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

"Let's torture a heavily brain-damaged baby to death, because a for-profit biotech company wants to use him as a guinea pig."

[New Grestin]

-snip-

It's not murder if a human being is suffering. That's not condoning mercy killing, of course. That's a different circumstance entirely. If the parents had made the decision to euthanize the child, had that been legal, it would have prevented needless suffering. If the person in question or those representing them as their power of attorney, as is the case in the United States, consent to euthanasia or hospice care, then that decision should be honored by the provider and the state.

Forcing the sick and/or dying to undergo experimental treatments, even if it's for the greater good, is a monstrous proposition and strips those affected of any semblance of dignity in death.

The parents made their decision, and while I don't agree with how the whole affair played out, I think everyone involved was trying to do what they thought was best for the child. It's odd to say that faceless government bureaucracy was trying to help, but it legitimately seems like the doctors didn't want him to suffer any more than he needed to. The parents wanted to at least try, which is admirable, even if it's quite possible the experimental treatment might not have worked.

It's a morally gray situation at the end of the day, but what you're proposing would've tipped it from gray straight into the black.

[Costa Fierro]

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect.

May. Prolonging someone's life so they can receive treatment that is more like to do nothing and, and by it's very nature is experimental, isn't something that you should force on most people, let alone a child that can't even swallow without assistance.

Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

A shred of chance is not a good enough reason to prolong someone's suffering.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail.

So a person should suffer because of someone else's selfishness? Your own personal opinion does not mean anything if medical experts and doctors conclude that nothing can be done and that a person should die. In this instance, it is not about you, your feelings or anyone else's feelings but about the person who is essentially in a state where they can no longer function. That person no longer has a quality of life that is worth living and should be allowed to die.

Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table.

No one said anything about nice or convenient. But prolonging someone else's suffering because you're not willing to accept their death is selfish. Your feelings do not trump someone else's quality of life, and that's one of those facts that you need to grow up and accept.

The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

It's not murder. Accepting that the best thing for someone else is for them to die is not murder, because it would mean that you would ignore medical advice or any methods the doctors might have and want that person to die.

And who gave the courts the suggestion that the child should die? Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

The doctors are the medical professionals, the parents are not. The parents do not understand what is happening, and are letting their own feelings cloud their judgement. The parents should be the ones that should be condemned for letting their child suffer as long as it has, not the doctors. The doctors wanted the only humane thing for the child, which is for it to die.

[Kostemetsia]

They should have given him the experimental treatment, because:

1) He couldn't be any worse off than he was.

2) It could have generated data that might have saved more lives in future.

3) It was the parents' decision.

[Nazbol Pudding Club]

The kid had a degenerative genetic condition that reduced it to the physical and mental capacity of a digestive biscuit. The NHS had no duty to spend thousands keeping the crumbs breathing, let alone funding an experimental and unproven treatment for a miniscule chance of improving it's condition to a Jaffa cake.

Even if the parents funded it themselves through charity, eventually they'd run out and the state has to take back the burden of looking after little zero life quality McVitie. UK courts got it spot on.

[Myrensis]

Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

I agree, terminally ill babies should be used for medical experimentation until they finally drop dead, just in case we learn something neat!

Or not.

[Risottia]

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect.

There was not. Says the very physician who's working on building that treatment after visiting the kid himself.
Do you think you know better than him?

Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it.

A-ha.
Translation: "who cares about the patient's suffering as long as I can extract data by using them as a guinea pig".
Doktor Mengele, I suppose?

You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table.

*Doktor Mengele intensifies*

You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

"NEIN NEIN NEIN! It is verboten to die, you Untermensch! You vill stay alive für ze Führer und Nazi superscience! Ve have so many experiments to make on you, so be good guinea Schwein and stop dyink!"

Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

Parents' wishes do not supersede doctors' evaluations. If the wishful thinking of two medically incompetent people who are desperate because their child is dying were more valid than the professional opinion of trained specialists, Britons would watch Parent Who.

[Thyerata]

Well first - "all other circumstances being equal" (your words, not mine) suggest you haven't actually read any of the case files, because if you had you would know that all other circumstances were anything but equal. They were not even close.

Secondly - the NHS didn't do anything. The NHS is not legally empowered to do anything of the sort. The NHS is a medical service. You can tell that by the fact it stands for "National Health Service". The NHS is made up of doctors, nurses, consultants, specialists and other medical professionals. And The Hospital For Sick Children on Great Ormand Street has some of the best paediatricians in the country, if not the world. What happens is they provide a medical opinion (which in this case is considered expert, if not better) and if that differs with the parents' opinion, then it is handed over to a specialist court to decide.

Thirdly - it was the courts that made the decision you are so put out about. Only the courts in Britain are empowered to do this. A fully independent judiciary that is not guided by money, by the government, by anything other than one single, guiding principle - what is best for the child. They act in the best interests of the child, based on the wishes of the parents and the advice from the medical professionals involved in the case. But in the end it is the courts that decide, not The NHS.

So if you are going to rant about stuff, at least have the decency to rant about the CORRECT stuff and not about things you clearly do NOT understand. Because when you start ranting about the NHS and about other shit that is clearly lies and bollocks, you make yourself look like a fool.

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect. Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail. Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table. The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

And who gave the courts the suggestion that the child should die? Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

*sigh* this disgusting comment shows that the American right definitely are twats. Your "opinion" about torturing a child to death is totally irrelevant. This is especially so given that there are many of us in this thread who do understand the issues. Indeed, if you look back a page or two I do give quite a comprehensive explanation of the law. Go and read it.

[Calladan]

Well first - "all other circumstances being equal" (your words, not mine) suggest you haven't actually read any of the case files, because if you had you would know that all other circumstances were anything but equal. They were not even close.

Secondly - the NHS didn't do anything. The NHS is not legally empowered to do anything of the sort. The NHS is a medical service. You can tell that by the fact it stands for "National Health Service". The NHS is made up of doctors, nurses, consultants, specialists and other medical professionals. And The Hospital For Sick Children on Great Ormand Street has some of the best paediatricians in the country, if not the world. What happens is they provide a medical opinion (which in this case is considered expert, if not better) and if that differs with the parents' opinion, then it is handed over to a specialist court to decide.

Thirdly - it was the courts that made the decision you are so put out about. Only the courts in Britain are empowered to do this. A fully independent judiciary that is not guided by money, by the government, by anything other than one single, guiding principle - what is best for the child. They act in the best interests of the child, based on the wishes of the parents and the advice from the medical professionals involved in the case. But in the end it is the courts that decide, not The NHS.

So if you are going to rant about stuff, at least have the decency to rant about the CORRECT stuff and not about things you clearly do NOT understand. Because when you start ranting about the NHS and about other shit that is clearly lies and bollocks, you make yourself look like a fool.

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect. Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail. Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table. The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

And who gave the courts the suggestion that the child should die? Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

When I was born, I had a very serious congenital heart disease. At the age of two days (not two, but two days), I was having so much trouble breathing that my parents were forced to simply put me in an ambulance and send me off, hoping for the best, because the GP and the local hospital were unable to help me. I can still remember my Dad telling me this story, with tears in his eyes as he did.

Happily, I got shipped to Great Ormand Street (although, back then, it was just called The Hospital For Sick Children, and it was on Great Ormand Street - that's why I sometimes still refer to it as that).

Given I was two days old, I clearly do not remember a lot of this. I actually don't remember much until I was five, and recovering from major heart surgery (yes - I had open heart surgery at the age of five. It was done at Great Ormand Street). The reason I can remember the recovery period was because I was a little bastard of a kid, and because of the stitches and pins in my chest (when you have open heart surgery they crack your chest open - always fun - and then pin it back together with what was in those days metal pins. Made going through metal detectors a lot of fun, by the way. But I digress) I was not allowed to bend over, so when I was feeling extra pissy and annoyed, I used to drop things on purpose because I knew I wouldn't have to bend down to pick them up.

Wasn't I cute?

Anyway - even though it was a fairly serous condition, the doctors knew how to treat it, and even then Great Ormand Street was one of the world's best hospitals.

But imagine if it wasn't. Imagine I was in the position that the child we are discussing was in now. Do you realise you would be sentencing me to a lifetime of torture, of pain, of misery, of suffering out of which I would get no benefit?

The UK abolished the death penalty decades ago. It abolished torture during investigations and interrogations years ago. We do not allow convicted mass murderers and child rapists to be tortured, but you would have the doctors do that to me just because you think scientific progress is more important than my well being and my best interests?

Don't get me wrong, the recovery from the heart surgery fucking hurt - a lot - but the doctors (and my parents) knew what they were doing going in, what the outcome would be, and that it would have the outcome desired. There were risks (presumably - remember, I was not really being consulted at this point because I was five years old and didn't understand what they were talking about and besides there was a stuffed toy of Rolf from the Muppets and a toy BatBoat and how could any boring doctor talk compare to that??) but it was a known quantity from start to finish with an expected outcome that would work.

I have been giving a lot of thought to one question over the past few months. If my parents had been in the same situation - being asked to try experimental treatments that had no chance of success - what would I (the child in question) wanted them to have done? But the truth is the situation would never have been the same, because four decades ago there was one big difference - there was no internet (at least not as we know it today). It might have made one or two newspapers, but for the most part, the entire case would have remained private. The only ones involved would have been my parents, close family and close friends. None of them would have gone to the press about this because we are just not that sort of family. And while, as I have said in other posts, my parents were (and still are) active in their church, it is not the sort of church that would have brought protesters onto the street or had mass letter writing campaigns to try to change my parents' minds.

I cannot imagine that if I had been in the same situation, it would have turned into anything like the horrifying nightmare that we have seen over this. And I think that my parents, quite honestly, would have let me go. If the only hope to save me would have meant endless suffering for something that wouldn't have worked, I can't see them doing that. Which is a somewhat sobering thing to type, but also a somewhat heartening thing to type. I like knowing (or thinking I know) my parents are nice, kind people (and please do not take this as any sort of judgement of the parents in this case, because I promise you that is NOT what it is meant to be. I can't comment on people I have never, and will never meet. I am simply speaking about my parents and what I think they would have done 40 years or so ago. So again - not judging the parents in this case now, just saying something about a hypothetical situation in the past. I want to make that clear!)

On a final note - lookup "Voyager : Nothing Human" and "Babylon 5:Deathwalker". I think they would be your type of shows. Except, not.

[Ifreann]

Well first - "all other circumstances being equal" (your words, not mine) suggest you haven't actually read any of the case files, because if you had you would know that all other circumstances were anything but equal. They were not even close.

Secondly - the NHS didn't do anything. The NHS is not legally empowered to do anything of the sort. The NHS is a medical service. You can tell that by the fact it stands for "National Health Service". The NHS is made up of doctors, nurses, consultants, specialists and other medical professionals. And The Hospital For Sick Children on Great Ormand Street has some of the best paediatricians in the country, if not the world. What happens is they provide a medical opinion (which in this case is considered expert, if not better) and if that differs with the parents' opinion, then it is handed over to a specialist court to decide.

Thirdly - it was the courts that made the decision you are so put out about. Only the courts in Britain are empowered to do this. A fully independent judiciary that is not guided by money, by the government, by anything other than one single, guiding principle - what is best for the child. They act in the best interests of the child, based on the wishes of the parents and the advice from the medical professionals involved in the case. But in the end it is the courts that decide, not The NHS.

So if you are going to rant about stuff, at least have the decency to rant about the CORRECT stuff and not about things you clearly do NOT understand. Because when you start ranting about the NHS and about other shit that is clearly lies and bollocks, you make yourself look like a fool.

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect. Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail. Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table. The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

Fascinating concept. So, how many deaths are you responsible for? Here you sit, not being experimented on, nothing is being learned from you that might lead to some new or improved medical treatment. How many people are you killing right now?

---

The kid had a degenerative genetic condition that reduced it to the physical and mental capacity of a digestive biscuit. The NHS had no duty to spend thousands keeping the crumbs breathing, let alone funding an experimental and unproven treatment for a miniscule chance of improving it's condition to a Jaffa cake.

Even if the parents funded it themselves through charity, eventually they'd run out and the state has to take back the burden of looking after little zero life quality McVitie. UK courts got it spot on.

NHS Death Panels could be just the thing the economy needs. Free up housing stock, cut pension costs, get savings out from under mattresses and back into the economy, not to mention the savings to the NHS. Might be some negative press, but I'm sure people would come around when they saw all the economic benefits in action.

[Blitzkeig]

Well first - "all other circumstances being equal" (your words, not mine) suggest you haven't actually read any of the case files, because if you had you would know that all other circumstances were anything but equal. They were not even close.

Secondly - the NHS didn't do anything. The NHS is not legally empowered to do anything of the sort. The NHS is a medical service. You can tell that by the fact it stands for "National Health Service". The NHS is made up of doctors, nurses, consultants, specialists and other medical professionals. And The Hospital For Sick Children on Great Ormand Street has some of the best paediatricians in the country, if not the world. What happens is they provide a medical opinion (which in this case is considered expert, if not better) and if that differs with the parents' opinion, then it is handed over to a specialist court to decide.

Thirdly - it was the courts that made the decision you are so put out about. Only the courts in Britain are empowered to do this. A fully independent judiciary that is not guided by money, by the government, by anything other than one single, guiding principle - what is best for the child. They act in the best interests of the child, based on the wishes of the parents and the advice from the medical professionals involved in the case. But in the end it is the courts that decide, not The NHS.

So if you are going to rant about stuff, at least have the decency to rant about the CORRECT stuff and not about things you clearly do NOT understand. Because when you start ranting about the NHS and about other shit that is clearly lies and bollocks, you make yourself look like a fool.

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect. Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail. Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table. The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

And who gave the courts the suggestion that the child should die? Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

I agree with this statement. When it's almost impossible that the child will live a normal life he/she should contribute to medical science.

[Ifreann]

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect. Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail. Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table. The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

And who gave the courts the suggestion that the child should die? Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

I agree with this statement. When it's almost impossible that the child will live a normal life he/she should contribute to medical science.

Why aren't you contributing to medical science? How many people are dying because you won't let doctors experiment on you?

[Greater Cesnica]

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect. Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail. Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table. The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

And who gave the courts the suggestion that the child should die? Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

*sigh* this disgusting comment shows that the American right definitely are twats. Your "opinion" about torturing a child to death is totally irrelevant. This is especially so given that there are many of us in this thread who do understand the issues. Indeed, if you look back a page or two I do give quite a comprehensive explanation of the law. Go and read it.

Hey buddy. Stop attacking other people's opinions if you have a biased viewpoint.

[Blitzkeig]

I agree with this statement. When it's almost impossible that the child will live a normal life he/she should contribute to medical science.

Why aren't you contributing to medical science? How many people are dying because you won't let doctors experiment on you?

Any doctors wrote papers about any rare conditions you have? In my case, yes they have; I think it's your turn.

[Pasong Tirad]

He's with God now. He and many millions of suffering children are in my prayers.

[Ifreann]

Why aren't you contributing to medical science? How many people are dying because you won't let doctors experiment on you?

Any doctors wrote papers about any rare conditions you have? In my case, yes they have; I think it's your turn.

I'm not the one advocating that people be made guinea pigs for medical science against their will. You are, so please, after you.

[Greater Cesnica]

Any doctors wrote papers about any rare conditions you have? In my case, yes they have; I think it's your turn.

I'm not the one advocating that people be made guinea pigs for medical science against their will. You are, so please, after you.

Human Rights 101.

Also, I like how I wrote 101 in my 1001th post.

[Blitzkeig]

Any doctors wrote papers about any rare conditions you have? In my case, yes they have; I think it's your turn.

I'm not the one advocating that people be made guinea pigs for medical science against their will. You are, so please, after you.

If their was an experimental medical treatment that could improve this condition, I would volunteer for it. As I have done in the past.

[Great Nepal]

Bullshit. There was a treatment that may have had an effect. Chances may have been slim. But if there was even a SHRED of a chance we might have caused even a slight improvement. Or even simply LEARNED something about the condition that would have improved future attempts to treat it. Then it should have been taken. By choosing not to take it, they have condemned further children to the same fate.

In my personal opinion, no one has a 'right to die' in medical situations until all attempts at treatment fail. Not 'all convenient and nice' treatments. You should literally have to go through treatment until either the condition is fixed, or you die on the table. The concept that anything else is acceptable is, in my opinion, murder. You are deliberately preventing attempts to learn how to save lives, and so are responsible for those deaths caused by the condition.

And who gave the courts the suggestion that the child should die? Saying it was the courts doesn't matter when the courts act on the Doctors suggestion, and clearly valued that much more highly than the parents wishes.

I agree with this statement. When it's almost impossible that the child will live a normal life he/she should contribute to medical science.

Medical research ethics 101: subject must give informed consent or a surrogate acting in subject's best interest when subject can't consent, and research should generally have benefit for the subject.
Charlie wouldn't benefit from the procedure, and as courts determined the procedure wasn't in his best interests so no.

[Ifreann]

I'm not the one advocating that people be made guinea pigs for medical science against their will. You are, so please, after you.

If their was an experimental medical treatment that could improve this condition, I would volunteer for it. As I have done in the past.

Volunteer? Sorry, no, you don't understand. Charlie Gard didn't volunteer to be experimented on. His parents didn't agree to that. They wanted him to be treated. But what you have called for is Charlie being experimented on until he died in the hopes of medical science learning something useful.

Your consent, as you yourself have set out, is not required.

[Thyerata]

Why aren't you contributing to medical science? How many people are dying because you won't let doctors experiment on you?

Any doctors wrote papers about any rare conditions you have? In my case, yes they have; I think it's your turn.

Why yes, in my case too - nystagmus and Asperger syndrome. Does that mean I have to submit to medical experiments ala Josef Mengele? No.

[Vassenor]

I'm confused about this entire situation. It honestly strikes me as the parents constantly trying to go against the advice of competent medical professionals and then going in for sympathy.

[Risottia]

If their was an experimental medical treatment that could improve this condition, I would volunteer for it. As I have done in the past.

Volunteer? Sorry, no, you don't understand. Charlie Gard didn't volunteer to be experimented on. His parents didn't agree to that. They wanted him to be treated. But what you have called for is Charlie being experimented on until he died in the hopes of medical science learning something useful.

Your consent, as you yourself have set out, is not required.

Maybe mr.Blitzkeig is volunteering himself to be used as testbed for the late Charlie's possible treatment?

[Risottia]

Also, I like how I wrote 101 in my 1001th post.

Well done, young Padawan.