Charlie Gard

[amusingduck]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Charlie Gard`s parents, have been fantastic in all of this, and no one can blame them for doing everything they could, to keep him going, (even if from an objective view it was unlikely to be successful) but the saying where there is life, there is hope, must have been so very strong for them,

Personally, when I read that the GOSH position was:

GOSH said:

At the first hearing in Charlie’s case in March, GOSH’s position was that every day that passed was a day that was not in his best interests. That remains its view of his welfare. Even now, Charlie shows physical responses to stressors that some of those treating him interpret as pain and when two international experts assessed him last week, they believed that they elicited a pain response. In GOSH’s view there has been no real change in Charlie’s responsiveness since January. Its fear that his continued existence has been painful to him has been compounded by the Judge’s finding, in April, that since his brain became affected by RRM2B, Charlie’s has been an existence devoid of all benefit and pleasure. If Charlie has had a relationship with the world around him since his best interests were determined, it has been one of suffering.

Then yes, I do blame the parents. I blame them for prolonging the poor buggers suffering. I blame them for smearing the GOSH, who seem to have done absolutely everything in their power to do what is right by the child.

I wouldn't put my dog through that.

[poo at Paul's]

PurpleTurtle said:

Lots of bandwagon-jumpers have chucked in a tenner under what now appear to be false pretences.

It was heartening to hear that they plan to use the money raised to help other children. One hopes that is by way of established, proven medicine.

Edited by PurpleTurtle on Tuesday 25th July 10:43

Are they not going to give it back then? Surely that's the answer based on the point you make in the prior sentence!

Is it possible they will give all the money back and he will go back to his job as a postman?

[FN2TypeR]

lmao, no

[XCP]

amusingduck said:

Then yes, I do blame the parents. I blame them for prolonging the poor buggers suffering. I blame them for smearing the GOSH, who seem to have done absolutely everything in their power to do what is right by the child.

I wouldn't put my dog through that.

If you did you would be prosecuted for cruelty. It's bizarre that animals are better treated than humans in such situations.

[Tom Logan]

XCP said:

amusingduck said:

Then yes, I do blame the parents. I blame them for prolonging the poor buggers suffering. I blame them for smearing the GOSH, who seem to have done absolutely everything in their power to do what is right by the child.

I wouldn't put my dog through that.

If you did you would be prosecuted for cruelty. It's bizarre that animals are better treated than humans in such situations.

This sums up the whole sad saga for me.

[louiechevy]

Tom Logan said:

XCP said:

amusingduck said:

Then yes, I do blame the parents. I blame them for prolonging the poor buggers suffering. I blame them for smearing the GOSH, who seem to have done absolutely everything in their power to do what is right by the child.

I wouldn't put my dog through that.

If you did you would be prosecuted for cruelty. It's bizarre that animals are better treated than humans in such situations.

This sums up the whole sad saga for me.

All you need to know is the rspca was founded in 1824 and the nspcc in 1884 sixty years before children were protected! Kind of sums this case up to be honest.

[Mr2Mike]

scrubchub said:

Anyway, having gone through a few pages I am actually pretty surprised by how sensible most of the posts are!

That surprised me as well, in a good way.

[Zigster]

I haven't ploughed through the thousands of posts on the mumsnet threads, but I get the feeling there has been something of a change of tone over the last day or so. Perhaps spurred by Wiccy's reasoned posts? Who knows?

It sounds as if the tone has now turned against the parents after the latest "give us what we want" comments whereas the comments were more sympathetic to the parents before that.

[PurpleTurtle]

poo at Paul's said:

PurpleTurtle said:

Lots of bandwagon-jumpers have chucked in a tenner under what now appear to be false pretences.

It was heartening to hear that they plan to use the money raised to help other children. One hopes that is by way of established, proven medicine.

Edited by PurpleTurtle on Tuesday 25th July 10:43

Are they not going to give it back then? Surely that's the answer based on the point you make in the prior sentence!

Is it possible they will give all the money back and he will go back to his job as a postman?

Dunno. From Chris Gard's statement, " it is now unfortunately too late for him but it’s not too late for others with this horrible disease and other diseases. We will continue to help and support families of ill children and try and make Charlie live on in the lives of others. We owe it to him to not let his life be in vain."

I took that to mean some sort of charity with what's left over.

[poo at Paul's]

PurpleTurtle said:

poo at Paul's said:

PurpleTurtle said:

Lots of bandwagon-jumpers have chucked in a tenner under what now appear to be false pretences.

It was heartening to hear that they plan to use the money raised to help other children. One hopes that is by way of established, proven medicine.

Edited by PurpleTurtle on Tuesday 25th July 10:43

Are they not going to give it back then? Surely that's the answer based on the point you make in the prior sentence!

Is it possible they will give all the money back and he will go back to his job as a postman?

Dunno. From Chris Gard's statement, " it is now unfortunately too late for him but it’s not too late for others with this horrible disease and other diseases. We will continue to help and support families of ill children and try and make Charlie live on in the lives of others. We owe it to him to not let his life be in vain."

I took that to mean some sort of charity with what's left over.

I wonder if they will take an income from this charity?

[PorkInsider]

poo at Paul's said:

I wonder if they will take an income from this charity?

Call me cynical but I think they will decide that it's only right that they should do.

[PorkInsider]

scrubchub said:

I read some of the linked thread from Mumsnet and I couldn't see where Wiccan's posts were "comprehensively debunked". Would be interested to read it as they seem pretty watertight to me.

I can't find the "debunking" either but the first reference I've found to that is at 23:41 in this thread. https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2982113-i...

[WinstonWolf]

PorkInsider said:

scrubchub said:

I read some of the linked thread from Mumsnet and I couldn't see where Wiccan's posts were "comprehensively debunked". Would be interested to read it as they seem pretty watertight to me.

I can't find the "debunking" either but the first reference I've found to that is at 23:41 in this thread. https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2982113-i...

It's as if they know better

Keep the informative posts coming Wiccan, it's good to have an understanding of the problem...

[Mark Benson]

amusingduck said:

GOSH said:

At the first hearing in Charlie’s case in March, GOSH’s position was that every day that passed was a day that was not in his best interests. That remains its view of his welfare. Even now, Charlie shows physical responses to stressors that some of those treating him interpret as pain and when two international experts assessed him last week, they believed that they elicited a pain response. In GOSH’s view there has been no real change in Charlie’s responsiveness since January. Its fear that his continued existence has been painful to him has been compounded by the Judge’s finding, in April, that since his brain became affected by RRM2B, Charlie’s has been an existence devoid of all benefit and pleasure. If Charlie has had a relationship with the world around him since his best interests were determined, it has been one of suffering.

Then yes, I do blame the parents. I blame them for prolonging the poor buggers suffering. I blame them for smearing the GOSH, who seem to have done absolutely everything in their power to do what is right by the child.

I wouldn't put my dog through that.

I've been in a similar position, my daughter was born 10 weeks early, she had lung problems from the start (later diagnosed as Cystic Fibrosis), a hole in the heart and an immune deficiency among other things. In the first week of her life we were prepared by the doctors for the worst, her chances were given as 20% in the first few days and we were asked if we wanted to have her christened.

I can't help feeling guilty about this but I feel that the Gards are being incredibly selfish. The money spent keeping Charlie alive and the cost of dragging GOSH through the courts, then this revelation that they now demand the NHS pays even more to allow him to die at home leaves a very bitter taste. All that money could have been used for people who do have a chance of survival; to treat children who have a chance of recovery.

I know how heartbreaking in is to be told your child may well not survive and you hope more than anything that yours will be the lucky one, but the doctors do all they can and if they say there's no treatment then you can guarantee they've considered every option. We signed 3 consent forms for surgical procedures, each one of which could easily have killed a 1lb prem baby, but we did it because the doctors talked us through the process and their reasoning behind it and he forced ourselves to be pragmatic. The notion of allowing parents, in the emotional state they're in during a time like this decide what treatment should be administered appalls me. You're numb and desperate and despairing and angry, none of those things make for rational decisions.

I had a lot of sympathy for the Gards in the beginning, I've been there. Now, with this revelation that they want to have Charlie taken home (my daughter was transferred from Oxford to Newcastle in intensive care, it will need a fully equipped ambulance, incubator and life-support, a nurse and a registrar) then have him on palliative care in the home (again a nurse 24x7, regular doctor's visits and all the equipment necessary) has eroded my sympathy to almost nothing - maybe they could donate the £1.3m to GOSH to pay for it - but I have a feeling they wont.

[FN2TypeR]

WinstonWolf said:

It's as if they know better

Keep the informative posts coming Wiccan, it's good to have an understanding of the problem...

Loving yet more accusations of mansplaining,

[PorkInsider]

FN2TypeR said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's as if they know better

Keep the informative posts coming Wiccan, it's good to have an understanding of the problem...

Loving yet more accusations of mansplaining,

I've had second thoughts about it being a waste time Wiccan trying to help them understand.

I now think he should go over and tackle them head-on regarding 'debunking' the science as they need knocking down a peg if they dispute the science, preferring what they've decided is fact.

Actually, they'll probably tear him limb-from-limb if he does. It seems pretty aggressive over there for anyone who's fallen into the viper pit unwittingly.

[Byker28i]

PorkInsider said:

FN2TypeR said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's as if they know better

Keep the informative posts coming Wiccan, it's good to have an understanding of the problem...

Loving yet more accusations of mansplaining,

I've had second thoughts about it being a waste time Wiccan trying to help them understand.

I now think he should go over and tackle them head-on regarding 'debunking' the science as they need knocking down a peg if they dispute the science, preferring what they've decided is fact.

Actually, they'll probably tear him limb-from-limb if he does. It seems pretty aggressive over there for anyone who's fallen into the viper pit unwittingly.

The mods there are quite quick with the ban hammer if you appear to be outside the 'norm', where the norm is a ranty woman...

[prand]

Byker28i said:

The mods there are quite quick with the ban hammer if you appear to be outside the 'norm', where the norm is a ranty woman...

I'd disagree - Mumsnet seems pretty rational where posters will call out the nutcases or extreme posters, who are generally known. Just like on most forums.

I'm pleased that people are now able to say that the parents have been needlessly prolonging this little lad's fate. From the first headline in the news I felt this, but was not brave enough to say so.

[KTF]

Looking at v17 of the thread on Mumsnet, there seems to be reasonable discussion about the impracticalities of him being allowed home.

The Charlies Army page on facebook is an utter trainwreck though. The parents post in it from time to time which probably doesnt help calm things down either.

[andymadmak]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/265101867249571/

Apparently GOSH won't let Charlie go home because, there will be an autopsy after his death which will reveal how GOSH have tortured him.....
If he dies in GOSH they can cover it up.

Apparently



I despair of people sometimes, I really do