Discussion
Anonymous story from one of the team looking after Charlie:
Charlie Gard medic decries 'soap opera' that stoked abuse of hospital
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/04/ch...
Charlie Gard medic decries 'soap opera' that stoked abuse of hospital
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/04/ch...
First, a thank you to breadvan who has shed some light on the legal side of things. I'm not a lawyer (although I suspect that was kinda obvious) but the way I saw it, they went to court in february and the verdict went against the parents, though they had the right to appeal - they then appealed to two higher courts then the european court. The case went back to the high court in light of new supposed evidence, clearly GOSH wanted all the new evidence examined.
It was painfully obvious (to me) that Charlie was going to die and that there was no hope whatsoever; what made this all the more worse was not just the lack of knowledge about the condition but the total absence of any information across the entire media. That fuelled misinformation, and coupled with the way the social media bandwagon starts rolling, propagated by misinformation and perpetuated by ignorance we started to see the s
t storm brew and take hold.
Irrespective of whatever side one took, the fact it ended with attacks, harassment and death threats against a childrens hospital demonstrated there is something fundamentally wrong in our society as a whole. In spite of my postings, swathes of the internet continued to proceed in ignorance, as though anything that people realised did not match their current beliefs was clearly wrong, fake news, misinformation. If I ever meet Michael Gove I will tell him how damaging his statement 'we've had enough of experts' has been for society as a whole. Then I'll probably punch the gormless wker.
This case has highlighted a number of aspects. The role of parents, the role of doctors and the role of experts, all bound by the law. But more disturbing is how an unstoppable behemoth like charlies army can develop, and condone the behaviour towards a childrens hospital.
The role of mainstream media played a part, as did social media. Actual factual knowledge was totally absent. Was this a deliberate part on the media, or was it as a result of a more symptomatic dumbing down of society, insofar as nobody in the media was able to provide more technical information, or even willing to provide what I provided. This begs the question, was the mainstream media negligent in providing the full picture, or did they feel unable to provide the information, or was it more to do with the media taking the decision that such information was not necessary for some reason.
The role of social media, too, must be examined. I don't hesitate to think for one minute that the case was not discussed across innumerate online platforms. Naturally, pistonheads ruled the roost
That sadly was not enough. Two PH'ers who emailed me did so out of sheer exasperation having shared my information and getting a torrent of abuse as a result. Again, symptomatic of the climate where online abuse is instigated when people are presented with factual information that contradicts their current opinion.
Has society changed, and we're now seeing the end results of a one size fits all education system?
It was painfully obvious (to me) that Charlie was going to die and that there was no hope whatsoever; what made this all the more worse was not just the lack of knowledge about the condition but the total absence of any information across the entire media. That fuelled misinformation, and coupled with the way the social media bandwagon starts rolling, propagated by misinformation and perpetuated by ignorance we started to see the s
t storm brew and take hold.Irrespective of whatever side one took, the fact it ended with attacks, harassment and death threats against a childrens hospital demonstrated there is something fundamentally wrong in our society as a whole. In spite of my postings, swathes of the internet continued to proceed in ignorance, as though anything that people realised did not match their current beliefs was clearly wrong, fake news, misinformation. If I ever meet Michael Gove I will tell him how damaging his statement 'we've had enough of experts' has been for society as a whole. Then I'll probably punch the gormless w
ker.This case has highlighted a number of aspects. The role of parents, the role of doctors and the role of experts, all bound by the law. But more disturbing is how an unstoppable behemoth like charlies army can develop, and condone the behaviour towards a childrens hospital.
The role of mainstream media played a part, as did social media. Actual factual knowledge was totally absent. Was this a deliberate part on the media, or was it as a result of a more symptomatic dumbing down of society, insofar as nobody in the media was able to provide more technical information, or even willing to provide what I provided. This begs the question, was the mainstream media negligent in providing the full picture, or did they feel unable to provide the information, or was it more to do with the media taking the decision that such information was not necessary for some reason.
The role of social media, too, must be examined. I don't hesitate to think for one minute that the case was not discussed across innumerate online platforms. Naturally, pistonheads ruled the roost
That sadly was not enough. Two PH'ers who emailed me did so out of sheer exasperation having shared my information and getting a torrent of abuse as a result. Again, symptomatic of the climate where online abuse is instigated when people are presented with factual information that contradicts their current opinion.
Has society changed, and we're now seeing the end results of a one size fits all education system?
rscott said:
Anonymous story from one of the team looking after Charlie:
Charlie Gard medic decries 'soap opera' that stoked abuse of hospital
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/04/ch...
An incredibly powerful article. I have massive sympathy for the staff at Gosh. Charlie Gard medic decries 'soap opera' that stoked abuse of hospital
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/04/ch...
55palfers said:
fks sake. fking unbelievable. Still maintaining their stance, and the mail still failing to report full details.I'm not sure where the law stands regarding the ability to take Charlie back home for 3 days, either. But that discussion is for later. The reports came through at 6pm on the friday, only 3 hours after his passing.I really don't think the rest of the information in that article should have been revealed, these were their last moments. Some things are private and sacrasanct and should remain so.
The most disturbing thing I found about that article, beyond the inaccurate claims and melodramatic writing, was the photos of the parents by the hospice bedside and in the hospice park - someone else, presumably hospice staff they had only just met, took those photos, which essentially makes them staged. We have a young baby and there is no way we would be having someone else take photos in those circumstances, let alone publishing them, taking your own photos and videos is part of the closeness of you and your child.
And it's incredibly sad that, after all I've read about the case over the weeks, that article has finally made me think of this sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Hu6J3pEwQ
And it's incredibly sad that, after all I've read about the case over the weeks, that article has finally made me think of this sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Hu6J3pEwQ
Wiccan of Darkness said:
55palfers said:
fks sake. fking unbelievable. Still maintaining their stance, and the mail still failing to report full details.I'm not sure where the law stands regarding the ability to take Charlie back home for 3 days, either. But that discussion is for later. The reports came through at 6pm on the friday, only 3 hours after his passing.I really don't think the rest of the information in that article should have been revealed, these were their last moments. Some things are private and sacrasanct and should remain so.
Henners said:
Wiccan of Darkness said:
55palfers said:
fks sake. fking unbelievable. Still maintaining their stance, and the mail still failing to report full details.I'm not sure where the law stands regarding the ability to take Charlie back home for 3 days, either. But that discussion is for later. The reports came through at 6pm on the friday, only 3 hours after his passing.I really don't think the rest of the information in that article should have been revealed, these were their last moments. Some things are private and sacrasanct and should remain so.
From a previous post and The Eye:
rscott said:
From Private Eye - explains why the Mail has been so vocal on this case.
Wiccan of Darkness said:
First, a thank you to breadvan who has shed some light on the legal side of thing......
The role of mainstream media played a part, as did social media. Actual factual knowledge was totally absent. Was this a deliberate part on the media, or was it as a result of a more symptomatic dumbing down of society, insofar as nobody in the media was able to provide more technical information, or even willing to provide what I provided. This begs the question, was the mainstream media negligent in providing the full picture, or did they feel unable to provide the information, or was it more to do with the media taking the decision that such information was not necessary for some reason.
The role of social media, too, must be examined. I don't hesitate to think for one minute that the case was not discussed across innumerate online platforms. Naturally, pistonheads ruled the roost
I have on several occasions had something that was in my field of knowledge heavily discussed in the media. On one occasion, I was actually part of it - news stories about a situation I was involved in were front page news in print and on TV. It is fascinating reading about events that you were present for and thinking "er, that didn't happen", and even with the most generous interpretation of events you can't understand how such a story was constructed. Based on these experiences, my view is that media stories are 20% true at best. The role of mainstream media played a part, as did social media. Actual factual knowledge was totally absent. Was this a deliberate part on the media, or was it as a result of a more symptomatic dumbing down of society, insofar as nobody in the media was able to provide more technical information, or even willing to provide what I provided. This begs the question, was the mainstream media negligent in providing the full picture, or did they feel unable to provide the information, or was it more to do with the media taking the decision that such information was not necessary for some reason.
The role of social media, too, must be examined. I don't hesitate to think for one minute that the case was not discussed across innumerate online platforms. Naturally, pistonheads ruled the roost
My field (technology) is totally different, but has the same characteristics as medicine. Firstly, every man, woman and dog thinks they are an expert. Secondly, it can be reduced to a series of simple, and utterly wrong soundbites. Combine that with social media, which gives a platform to those in the community who might not think before typing .... and you have a potent mix that allows these sort of disasters to happen.
The net in general, which contains all of human knowledge and wonderfulness, also contains and nurtures all of human stupidity and hateyness. The net tends to encourage the idea that all opinions are equal, regardless of whether an opinion has any foundation in evidence or is supported by or can stand up to reasoned argument.
I am just as entitled to have an opinion on a particular matter as a world expert. However, I am not stupid enough to think that my opinion should carry as much weight. Not all opinions are equal.
Unfortunately, most on social media don't have that awareness, and seem to think that as a stay at home mum who used to work the till in Asda, their opinion of Charlie's condition is equal to that of a consultant neurologist who has examined him.
Unfortunately, most on social media don't have that awareness, and seem to think that as a stay at home mum who used to work the till in Asda, their opinion of Charlie's condition is equal to that of a consultant neurologist who has examined him.
Breadvan72 said:
I echo the point made above about the idiot Gove and his "enough of experts". From this case, to Brexit, to Climate Change and beyond, everywhere we see experts derided and idiocracy rampant. Harrumph!
While I would agree with regard to the medical diagnose of the child in this case.There are experts and (well) experts.
Have not heard of the replication crisis?
How about there are lies, dammed lies and statistics?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff