At the heart of the long legal battle to treat Charlie Gard or allow him to die was the figure of Dr Michio Hirano, an eminent doctor and expert in his field, but who had never seen the child he thought he could help. In the wake of the long and damaging case, ethicists say there are questions over the ability of medical experts to come to opinions without fully reviewing the evidence and seeing the patient face to face. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...on-charlie-gard-case-raises-ethical-questions
No, I've told you. It was the parents who got the courts involved, to try and overturn the advice of the medical professionals. 'The State' only got involved because of the parents It wasn't the state that 'said so' it was a panel of doctors. The state had to decide whether to overrule the panel of doctors and didn't think the parents 'evidence' was strong enough to do this.
That was back in April when they were first going to court, the Dr. went to London last week to examine him. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...o-denies-financial-interest-charlie-gard/amp/
Yes, a panel of doctors that decided that the treatment wouldn't be worth it and a court that upheld that decision, in other words, a death panel enforced by the government. So yes, the state was indeed involved.
That's not the point, have you not been paying attention? The parents should not have had to get courts involved in the first place. There shouldn't have been a panel of doctors in the first place. In a free society, they should have been able to take their kid across the pond to see any doctor they wanted without interference from the government. Period.
Let's substitute the word "group" for "panel." This is not a panel a la the Olympics or America's Got Talent. It is a group of doctors who have examined the child extensively, run tests, reexamined the child, done research, run more tests, and concluded that packing him up and flying him to the U.S. would kill him. My question would be why the American doctor waited so long to put his ass in an airline seat, examine the child in the UK, and possibly performed his "miracle cure" in situ. Very likely he didn't want to take the legal risk, but was just looking to grab the news cycle. As for the parents, if you were a parent you'd understand that when a child is ill you'll do whatever you can to try to save that child (unless, of course, Mitch McConnell kicks you off your health insurance). No parent wants to hear/may not be able to process "Your son is deaf, blind, and so severely brain-damaged that he cannot breathe on his own, all of his vital organs are breaking down, and it's only going to get worse until he dies. We can't speak to whether or not he's in pain, because he's non-reactive to stimuli." Their responses are driven by the need to try every possible avenue of cure, even when there isn't one. What happened here is the exact opposite of what you and Sarah Palin are so afraid of. A medical decision was made by a group of medical professionals with intimate knowledge of the case. All the court did was support that medical decision. What do you imagine (and I use the word "imagine" deliberately) would happen to a child with this condition born in the U.S.? Take your time.
No, the doctors decided that the treatment would likely cause unnecessary pain and suffering. That was a medical decision from some of the most senior doctors in one of the worlds best childrens hospitals. The state has the ability to step in and overrule the medical profession, of there is sufficient evidence that they are in the wrong. Anyone who thinks that, given the evidence, the doctors made the wrong decision is either a dreamer, or just massively misinformed.
In this country parents are not allowed to cause pain or suffering to a child based on incorrect medical assumptions based on belief, or hope. The same goes for your country,.... at least for now...
You're assuming that the parents didn't consult with other doctors in the UK, and that if they had, those doctors would have expressed a different opinion. Given the amount of publicity which surrounded the case, I find that hard to believe.
There are only 83 known cases - worldwide - of this particular condition. How would you go about transporting a child with an incurable condition, on life support, from one hospital to another? In the U.S. Where McConnell and Gang want to cut off insurance for children with curable conditions. And again, , why do you suppose the American doctor waited so long to examine the child? Why didn't he hop on a plane the minute he offered to "cure" him?
You want me to answer a question that you only a doctor can answer. Do you want my opinion divorced from the subject or do you want an actual Doctor's opinion?
We certainly don't share the same laws as the UK tho. We just forked their shitty code and made extensive mods to where it actually runs now.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3927954/british-soldier-drowns-isis-puddle-sbs-troops-mosul-iraq/ That one is a happy story. Well, sad for tge animal terrorists but happy for everyone else.
I want you to think of what anyone would logically do in a critical situation. This child was dying. His condition was deteriorating daily. If a doctor in another country believed he had the technique to cure or even slow the progress of his disease, he should have been on the next plane to the UK to at least examine the child hands-on, read the chart, consult with the doctors who'd been treating him for months. Instead, he made the claim without ever actually seeing the child, stirred up a controversy, then waited months before doing anything. Does this seem either rational or moral to you?
No it doesn't because the courts still didn't allow the parents to fly over here. The fact that the doctor didn't go there has no bearing on that.
Well, at least you're not arguing that the court prevented Dr. Hirano from entering the country and actually examining the child he claimed he could cure. Aside from that, you still don't comprehend the facts of the case, but keep nattering on.
