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

[JCFantasy23]

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.

His body cannot survive without the ventilator unfortunately, so when they unhook that he will die.

He wasn't brain dead but the disease caused brain damage. The brain damage means he will never be able to move his arms, legs, eat or breath on his own. I think he may already have been blinded by the disease as well.

 

[Earatha]

Yeah, I got that. I think we can agree that when a person is brain dead they are dead. But what about when the brain is damaged to such an extent that the "person" is gone? If the brain is so damaged that consciousness, personality, and complex thought are all gone? If the brain is so damaged that it can no longer control involuntary functions is the person dead?

In my advanced directive I have made my wishes on this clear. If my brain is that damaged then I am dead. I do not want my body to be kept alive like that.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Yeah, I got that. I think we can agree that when a person is brain dead they are dead. But what about when the brain is damaged to such an extent that the "person" is gone? If the brain is so damaged that consciousness, personality, and complex thought are all gone? If the brain is so damaged that it can no longer control involuntary functions is the person dead?

In my advanced directive I have made my wishes on this clear. If my brain is that damaged then I am dead. I do not want my body to be kept alive like that.

I agree. Really I consider anyone technically dead or ready to die if they can only survive for the duration of their life as long as the ventilator is hooked up. It's different of course if a ventilator is only temporarily needed, but it doesn't sound like the case here.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yeah, I got that. I think we can agree that when a person is brain dead they are dead. But what about when the brain is damaged to such an extent that the "person" is gone?

It's difficult. My Nan had Alzheimer's for about 15 years, and eventually my mum and my aunt said that if she was to get pneumonia, she wasn't to have any treatment, or be resuscitated if it came to that.
The person that was my Nan, died about 8 years into the illness. She was unrecognisable, couldn't recognise her own family, and great grandchildren, couldn't feed, bath or dress herself, or even speak, towards the end. Even before she died, my mum said that she had already grieved for her.

Now my mum's in the same position. She's there in body, is reasonably happy - as far as we know - and is alive; but is certainly not the person she was years ago.

 

[David Brider]

An informative article on the case here:

https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/

 

[EpiscipalMe]

An informative article on the case here:

https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/

Great article - thanks for sharing.

 

[Goonie]

An informative article on the case here:

https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/

Bingo!

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

With so many prayers offered, I wonder why God didn't intervene...healing this child would have made for a powerful witness in a time where it could really matter in addition to saving a life.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

His body cannot survive without the ventilator unfortunately, so when they unhook that he will die.

He wasn't brain dead but the disease caused brain damage. The brain damage means he will never be able to move his arms, legs, eat or breath on his own. I think he may already have been blinded by the disease as well.

He wasn't able to move his arms or legs. Or breath on his own. But some people rather keep a corpse around. Then to admit he's brain dead. But they don't really care for the living, that has a chance. They can pretend. since they fought for this brain dead baby. they care. But they don't. If they did. They would help the living baby, children and adults that has a chance. RIP peace to Charlie, that died around Christmas time.

 

[Dave RP]

An informative article on the case here:

https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/

The politicisation of the case by some on here made me very angry, excellent article.

 

[Strong in Him]

He wasn't able to move his arms or legs. Or breath on his own. But some people rather keep a corpse around. Then to admit he's brain dead. But they don't really care for the living, that has a chance. They can pretend. since they fought for this brain dead baby. they care. But they don't. If they did. They would help the living baby, children and adults that has a chance. RIP peace to Charlie, that died around Christmas time.

Not that it matters now, but if Charlie had been brain dead, his muscles could not have continued to deteriorate, the scan would not have shown that he was worse than he had been in February and the doctors would not have said that he could probably feel pain. If the parents had claimed that he was getting stronger, that would have been refuted in a second; they would have had no evidence to contradict the doctors and the judge would not have had to consider their evidence in court.

The controversy was that the doctors claimed no more could be done, and he might well have been in pain; the parents claimed this was not the case, that Charlie was able to respond to them and deserved a chance of treatment, which might have improved the quality of his life for a while. Though even the parents knew that this would not cure him.
The doctors wanted to switch off life support in Feb/March; because the parents disagreed, they had to ask the courts for permission. I don't believe the parents would have asked the hospital to keep a corpse alive. They fought so hard, with everything they had, because they believed Charlie was responding to them, was still alive and deserved any chance of treatment he could get.

To imply that they were fighting for a brain dead baby and only pretending to care, is a pretty monstrous thing to say. What would you have done if Charlie were yours?

 

[Dave RP]

With so many prayers offered, I wonder why God didn't intervene...healing this child would have made for a powerful witness in a time where it could really matter in addition to saving a life.

As an atheist this is a question i ask my Christian friend all the time, not just relating to this tragic story but to the prayers every week in churches all around the world for the war in Syria, war in Iraq, drought in Africa, floods in Bangladesh etc etc etc, I ask what is the benefit in praying when God seemingly allows the most horrendous things to continue on a world wide scale. Of course there is no answer other than, God will do what he wants and we can't explain his mysteries.