Stevo985 Posted July 25, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted July 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, Jon said: If there was a chance of saving my sick child not available on the NHS or in this country, I'd take it. I don't think there is though, is there? As I understood it, the treatment MIGHT prolong the baby's life. It won't save him. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chindie Posted July 25, 2017 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted July 25, 2017 I have sympathy for the parents. It's a horrible situation. Of course a parent will want to do whatever to save their child. It was clear in this case out was futile but I can appreciate that's difficult to understand in that situation. The treatment if it worked to an unprecedented degree would have not been a cure and would not have reversed the damage done. Their approach seemed to be to attack and undermine the hospital and that was wrong. Even when staff were getting death threats and other parents getting grief from protestors they used that to make a statement that tried to manipulate that situation into sympathy for themselves. They went about it in the wrong way. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 21 minutes ago, mjmooney said: It's not a case of judging them. I totally understand how they feel. I just think they've taken the wrong course. You want to be a bit more picky about the posts you agree with then. Calling the parents selfish and accusing them of lying through their teeth is judging them, no? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 25, 2017 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, Risso said: You want to be a bit more picky about the posts you agree with then. Calling the parents selfish and accusing them of lying through their teeth is judging them, no? You missed the 'disgust' and 'disgusting' comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 25, 2017 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2017 22 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: I don't think there is though, is there? As I understood it, the treatment MIGHT prolong the baby's life. It won't save him. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? No not now. That is why they've ended their fight, they maintain that there was a chance he could have saved him had he had the treatment earlier. I think they had the right to try and all their legal fight has been about is trying to excerise that right. As I showed earlier, sometimes the experts I the UK aren't right. I think they should have been allowed to try and save their son. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 25, 2017 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2017 20 minutes ago, Chindie said: I have sympathy for the parents. It's a horrible situation. Of course a parent will want to do whatever to save their child. It was clear in this case out was futile but I can appreciate that's difficult to understand in that situation. The treatment if it worked to an unprecedented degree would have not been a cure and would not have reversed the damage done. Their approach seemed to be to attack and undermine the hospital and that was wrong. Even when staff were getting death threats and other parents getting grief from protestors they used that to make a statement that tried to manipulate that situation into sympathy for themselves. They went about it in the wrong way. You say it was futile but that was the medical opinion in this country, in Italy and the US people thought differently. I've already given an example of parents who were put in jail for skipping the UK to get treatment for their child which seems to have been successful. Treatment may have been futile, it may not, as the parents I think they should have been allowed to try and had a right to fight to do so. I don't agree that their approach was to attack the hospital and they shouldn't be held responsible for the idiotic actions of others which they themselves condemend. Once again you are judging them saying they went about it the wrong way. That just doesn't sit well with me. They did everything and anything they could to try and save their child, I respect and admire them for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 25, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted July 25, 2017 I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 25, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted July 25, 2017 37 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: No not now. That is why they've ended their fight, they maintain that there was a chance he could have saved him had he had the treatment earlier. I think they had the right to try and all their legal fight has been about is trying to excerise that right. As I showed earlier, sometimes the experts I the UK aren't right. I think they should have been allowed to try and save their son. I don't know enough about the story to really comment, but it does seem like the parents have gone about it in the wrong way. I totally get why you'd do everything you can in that situation though, so I can't say how I'd react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HanoiVillan Posted July 25, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 25, 2017 I dislike this idea that it's not possible to have an opinion on the topic unless you're a parent, and then if you're a parent, you have to have one particular opinion. If I were a doctor at this hospital who had been receiving death threats from the ironically named 'pro-life' trolls who've turned this case into a cause celebre, you'd better believe I'd have an opinion, and it wouldn't be the same. There's more than one side to the story. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StefanAVFC Posted July 25, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) There was no chance of 'saving' him. Even the ONE doctor who was trying to get Charlie to the States said the treatment had a 10% chance of prolonging his life, not saving him. The ONE doctor from the states has a financial interest in the drug that would have been used on Charlie. The whole thing was hijacked by the American right who used it as an attack on 'socialised healthcare' and the parents did nothing to condemn it. Now the fight is over, the parents are going down the route that GOSH wasted time and it's their fault that he got to the stage he is now, which is why I'm pissed off at them. During the fight, they helped fuel a total shitstorm which resulted in death threats, reduced donations to GOSH and negative reviews on Google. It's very easy to stand there and say 'I'm guessing you've never had kids' or 'you couldn't possibly understand' but IMO, they were cruel parents. They kept him alive, whilst being told by world class experts (the woman who was treating him has treated 3/13 of the known cases of his disease) being told of his suffering and zero chance of recovery, all while lying about his chances. (he watches TV, reacts to them, could have been a normal boy) They refused MIRs over and over again because they knew it would show their lies up. The American doctor refused to treat Charlie in January when GOSH invited him to in January. Why? Because he knew if he went then, it would show Charlie had no chance and he couldn't fuel this desperate hope months down the line? I don't know. I've actually done a fair bit if research on this. 'You've never had kids' is such a shallow response to a complicated situation. I retract that I don't have sympathy for them. I sympathise how they've been totally used by the media, the American right, this American doctor and I sympathise with Charlie more than anything, but how they've acted towards GOSH, the judiciary has been nothing short of a disgrace. Hundreds/thousands of parents face tragedy daily and they don't create the shitstorm these parents have. Edited July 25, 2017 by StefanAVFC 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 I can't see what the hospital hoped to gain from all of this. In all the months that the court cases have been dragging on, he could have been trying the experimental treatment in the US. It probably would have failed, but at he would have had a chance, however remote, and his parents would have had the slither of comfort from knowing they'd done all they could. I just don't see the logic in not letting him try because it prolongs his suffering, but then fighting court cases, which prolong his suffering. I bet the GOSH fund raising has taken an absolute battering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 25, 2017 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I dislike this idea that it's not possible to have an opinion on the topic unless you're a parent, and then if you're a parent, you have to have one particular opinion. Well you seem to have imagined it because nowhere is that posted or implied. In fact I was at pains to say that not being a patient didn't preclude anyone from holding or expressing an opinion. So if you don't like this idea just forget about it because nobody is saying it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Risso said: I can't see what the hospital hoped to gain from all of this. In all the months that the court cases have been dragging on, he could have been trying the experimental treatment in the US. It probably would have failed, but at he would have had a chance, however remote, and his parents would have had the slither of comfort from knowing they'd done all they could. I just don't see the logic in not letting him try because it prolongs his suffering, but then fighting court cases, which prolong his suffering. I bet the GOSH fund raising has taken an absolute battering. The human rights courts (and both the high court and supreme court agreed) that it would be cruel to move him as his quality of life would be drastically reduced by moving him. It wasn't a case of 'this treatment won't work so we aren't moving him'. They stated that he had no chance either way, and to move him would create more stress and suffering on the poor kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: Well you seem to have imagined it because nowhere is that posted or implied. In fact I was at pains to say that not being a patient didn't preclude anyone from holding or expressing an opinion. So if you don't like this idea just forget about it because nobody is saying it I wasn't really meaning you, as you say, you specifically stated otherwise. I should have been clearer; it was more a comment about the ambient attitude I've been picking up from numerous sources this morning, rather than anything said on here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Not being a parent doesn't preclude anybody from having an opinion. What it does mean though, is that you can't understand what lengths as a parent some people will go to, to protect their children. The parents in this case haven't done anything to be selfish, they've acted because they thought there was a small chance that their baby son might get better. I don't agree with everything they've said and done, but then I'm not in their position and I hope I never will be, same as I hope nobody here ever is either. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 25, 2017 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2017 25 minutes ago, Risso said: Not being a parent doesn't preclude anybody from having an opinion. What it does mean though, is that you can't understand what lengths as a parent some people will go to, to protect their children..... You've met Andrea Leadsom, I presume? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 5 hours ago, TrentVilla said: ... your post suggest that's that the perceived medical experts view is always correct. It isn't. Do you recall the below story? Quote The parents of five-year-old Ashya King, who were detained after taking him abroad for brain tumour treatment, say their son is now free of cancer. In that BBC story, it also quotes Dr Nick Plowman, senior clinical oncologist at Great Ormond Street children's hospital : Quote It is very gratifying to hear that he is in remission, and if time goes on and he holds that remission, hopefully that equates with cure. I do not agree that he could not have been in a similar situation had he had orthodox X-ray radiotherapy, which is going on to a very high standard in all the departments in this country. That's not to say there are no advantages of protons, but I think we could have achieved the remission he is in now with standard radiotherapy. And goes on to comment about what the hospital viewed of the child's chances if he had received 'regular treatment': Quote It previously said Ashya's chances of recovery with regular treatment had been "very good" and there would have been "no benefit to him of proton radiotherapy over standard radiotherapy". I'm not sure that the King case is the best one to use in the circumstances, as a BBC story on the report in to it six months after the above article says: Quote A boy with a brain tumour taken from Southampton Hospital by his parents without telling staff was put at risk by their actions, a report has found. Portsmouth Safeguarding Children Board has studied how the authorities reacted to the case of Ashya King. The report also said the hospital should have acted sooner to get a second opinion about different treatment plans for the five year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 The sad thing about it all is that the nipper at the centre of all this does not know of words, courts, placards or preached statements to the press. All he knew were tubes, needles and the love of everyone around him. He gave this world a go and he just could not quite do it. I don't think anyone including the judges of this world truly knew the right answer but I hope everyone involved can learn from this in a good way that could help parents like them in the future. It could have been that he was in constant pain but did not have the method to show it for example, I doubt anyone with a medical background would put their life on a measurement of his pain and discomfort in his current state with or without medication changes or possible travel. The thought that he can slip away to a nice warm painless sleep in a nice controlled way with everyone having the opportunity to say goodbye is the best we could have hoped for. Hope the arguments between those involved stops now for sake of the nipper. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 2 hours ago, blandy said: You've met Andrea Leadsom, I presume? Of course not all parents have the same feelings, and people with children don't have a monopoly on empathy and a desire to protect their families and some parents don't have any maternal or paternal feelings at all. However, I maintain that until somebody has kids they can't understand how some parents feel towards their kids. That for me is no more controversial than saying that if you're a bloke, you can't really understand what it's like to be a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 The complete lack of acknowledgement that other people may have expertise in areas that you do not. What in the actual fook is wrong with people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts