Hospital To Kill 10-Month-Old Baby Rather Than Let His Parents Send Him To The US For Treatment

[LinguaIgnota]

I think it's sad how some people come up with all manner of strange and completely unrelated pseudo-arguments to deflect from the fact that they're wrong and that their positions are untenable. But that's neither here nor there.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

After how long? He may have but it was far too late now. This fight has been going on and had something been done sooner it may have helped. But thanks to government healthcare it drug on until it was too late.

From what I got out of the article. It was to late. Around Christmas time.He was brain dead, and never was going to get better. But some Christians fight for kids and adults, that are completely brain dead. I'm surprised people aren't fighting to keep him on life support. The doctor never even looked at his MRI or info on him. Just have false hope.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I think it's sad how some people come up with all manner of strange and completely unrelated pseudo-arguments to deflect from the fact that they're wrong and that their positions are untenable. But that's neither here nor there.

True, it is neither here nor there.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Sorry, but the sum total of Europeans worshiping 'health departments' is zero. Now the number of Americans who worship their guns on the other hand...

Seriously, you are making scarecrows.

Oh, that's right. Europeans also want their infallible gun laws applied to America. More crusading -they just can't help themselves... But only when it comes to Western nations.

All the while, their theocratic neighbors to the Southeast of them have some of the worst healthcare on earth. But not a peep about those governments. ...They're 'special'.

 

[Landon Caeli]

From what I got out of the article. It was to late. Around Christmas time.He was brain dead, and never was going to get better. But some Christians fight for kids and adults, that are completely brain dead. I'm surprised people aren't fighting to keep him on life support. The doctor never even looked at his MRI or info on him. Just have false hope.

The parents have reportedly given up the fight. So I give up the fight... That's how that works.

 

[rjs330]

Yep it's a done deal now. Charlie's gone and that's that.

 

[rambot]

Wasn't there something about him not being able to make the flight to the US alive?

 

[JCFantasy23]

Wasn't there something about him not being able to make the flight to the US alive?

Yes, that was the main original objection the hospital was making I think.

 

[Strong in Him]

From what I got out of the article. It was to late. Around Christmas time.He was brain dead, and never was going to get better.

He was never brain dead, or there wouldn't even have been discussions about treatment.
The parents are saying that he wasn't even brain damaged back in April. Sadly though, he is now.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

He was never brain dead, or there wouldn't even have been discussions about treatment.
The parents are saying that he wasn't even brain damaged back in April. Sadly though, he is now.

Brain dead on life support.There should have never been a fight. The person,that claimed Charley had a chance. Didn't even look at the MRI. Or read anything his doctors wrote.So he lied and promised his parents a lie.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The parents have reportedly given up the fight. So I give up the fight... That's how that works.

They gave up the fight because Charley didn't have chance.In America. This poor child could be brain dead. And still remain on life support for years.And people will fight that.

 

[Strong in Him]

Brain dead on life support.There should have never been a fight. The person,that claimed Charley had a chance. Didn't even look at the MRI. Or read anything his doctors wrote.So he lied and promised his parents a lie.

Yes he did.
But if Charlie had been brain dead, there would have been no point in suggesting treatment. The doctors would not have suggested that he might be feeling pain, the parents would not have said that he could open his eyes, grasp their fingers etc, which is why they claimed he was growing stronger.
If he had been brain dead, the muscles would not have continued to deteriorate, and the scan would not have shown greater deterioration. He would have had oxygen going into him, via the ventilator, but the brain controls the nerves, muscles etc, and it wouldn't do this if it were dead.

 

[Dave RP]

Hmmm... interesting response. Are we losing all self control all of a sudden?

Yes I got angry and I apologise for doing so, it was wrong. However you made provocative statements about the health care this child received, which I can assure you was second to none, and showed an astonishing lack of knowledge about how the health care system in the UK works. You allowed your own prejudices cloud you judgement, I allowed my anger to cloud my response and for that I am sorry.

 

[Dave RP]

Wow. You got me there Dave. I'm a stupid, bile filled apology for a Christian. Your words.

...You're so pious.

I apologise for my angry response. Next time I will be more measured but I will once again point out that the outcome in this case had NOTHING to do with the universal health care available in the UK, and for you to say so is just plain wrong. I felt you were attempting to make a political point out of the sad death of a child, and that you should not have done so. I would again inform you that the UK has both universal AND private health care and that we do not live in a socialist country, it would just help discussion if you got your facts correct and put away your prejudices. Again and for the last time I apologise for my anger.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

The amount of misinformation on this thread is astounding. No wonder we can't have an honest debate about healthcare in this country.

First off, the medical side as we know it:
1) This child had a rare incurable disease. He was not going to live. The one doctor who offered "hope" did so without fully evaluating the situation. In addition, he had a significant financial conflict of interest bringing his judgement into doubt.

2) GOSH is a world class facility. Despite their differences, even the parents acknowledge that the care was top notch.

3) The child was not brain dead. We know this because he was reported to feel pain. However, pain sensation is a very primitively reflex. He could not breath on his own. It also seems likely that his higher order functions, such as conscious awareness, were irreversibly damaged.

4) The doctors were not working from a profit motive, they were doing what they felt was in the child's best interest - minimizing suffering. This is what they are supposed to do when a child has an incurable, untreatable disease.

Now the payment side:
1) People who think this child's outcome would be different in the US are fooling themselves. Neither the government nor private insurers would have approved paying for this "treatment." Payment decisions are made based on medical evidence, for which there was none. When doctors and payers disagree, there is an appeals process. However, in this situation, no appeal would have been successful.

2) The money the parents raised, as much as it was, would not have been sufficient to pay out of pocket for this care.

3) If this was a true experimental treatment, then it should have been provided to the child free of charge. The fact that the family was being asked to pay is a red flag.

4) In the US, the outcome would have been the same medically. However, depending on their insurance, the family could very well have been left financially destitute. It is horrible enough that they lost a child. In the U.K. they won't be confronted by bill collectors, at least.

As for disputes between doctors and families:
1) In the US, doctors and families don't always agree. However, honest discussion and second opinions typically fixes this.

2) When disagreement persists, there are hospital ethics committees that get involved and facilitate discussions.

3) Rarely, in the US as in the UK, conflict continues. In these situations, the case is brought to court just as it was in this case.

This situation is tragic. However, the outcome was inevitable and has nothing to do worth government funded healthcare. People who try to make this a referendum on the National Health Service either misunderstand the situation or are being disingenuous.

 

[Dave RP]

The amount of misinformation on this thread is astounding. No wonder we can't have an honest debate about healthcare in this country.

First off, the medical side as we know it:
1) This child had a rare incurable disease. He was not going to live. The one doctor who offered "hope" did so without fully evaluating the situation. In addition, he had a significant financial conflict of interest bringing his judgement into doubt.

2) GOSH is a world class facility. Despite their differences, even the parents acknowledge that the care was top notch.

3) The child was not brain dead. We know this because he was reported to feel pain. However, pain sensation is a very primitively reflex. He could not breath on his own. It also seems likely that his higher order functions, such as conscious awareness, were irreversibly damaged.

4) The doctors were not working from a profit motive, they were doing what they felt was in the child's best interest - minimizing suffering. This is what they are supposed to do when a child has an incurable, untreatable disease.

Now the payment side:
1) People who think this child's outcome would be different in the US are fooling themselves. Neither the government nor private insurers would have approved paying for this "treatment." Payment decisions are made based on medical evidence, for which there was none. When doctors and payers disagree, there is an appeals process. However, in this situation, no appeal would have been successful.

2) The money the parents raised, as much as it was, would not have been sufficient to pay out of pocket for this care.

3) If this was a true experimental treatment, then it should have been provided to the child free of charge. The fact that the family was being asked to pay is a red flag.

4) In the US, the outcome would have been the same medically. However, depending on their insurance, the family could very well have been left financially destitute. It is horrible enough that they lost a child. In the U.K. they won't be confronted by bill collectors, at least.

As for disputes between doctors and families:
1) In the US, doctors and families don't always agree. However, honest discussion and second opinions typically fixes this.

2) When disagreement persists, there are hospital ethics committees that get involved and facilitate discussions.

3) Rarely, in the US as in the UK, conflict continues. In these situations, the case is brought to court just as it was in this case.

This situation is tragic. However, the outcome was inevitable and has nothing to do worth government funded healthcare. People who try to make this a referendum on the National Health Service either misunderstand the situation or are being disingenuous.

This is the best post of this entire thread.

 

[JCFantasy23]

This is the best post of this entire thread.

Agreed

 

[Earatha]

This thread made me check on my advance directive. It was that depressing.

But the poll seems a bit misleading. The question is a bit more complex, and there are several questions at hand. Are people who have no higher brain functions dead? And how far do parental/family rights extend when it comes to health care? When should their concerns and wishes be ignored in favor of the wishes or best interest of the individual? It's further complicated by this patient being an infant and not having the ability to make a decision about their own care.

The whole situation is sad. I'm glad the child is no longer suffering.

 

[Goonie]

This thread made me check on my advance directive. It was that depressing.

But the poll seems a bit misleading. The question is a bit more complex, and there are several questions at hand. Are people who have no higher brain functions dead? And how far do parental/family rights extend when it comes to health care? When should their concerns and wishes be ignored in favor of the wishes or best interest of the individual? It's further complicated by this patient being an infant and not having the ability to make a decision about their own care.

The whole situation is sad. I'm glad the child is no longer suffering.

The poll is definitely a pair of loaded questions. It is a sad story that with advanced medicine is likely to only be repeated.

 

[Goonie]

The poll is definitely a pair of loaded questions. It is a sad story that with advanced medicine is likely to only be repeated.

That's not a criticism of advanced medicine.