On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:15:56 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/28/2017 9:19 AM, Ophelia wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ...

On 24/07/2017 11:46, The Todal wrote:
On 24/07/2017 00:19, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 12:23:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

The death panel has spoken!

After US Neurosurgeon Says He Can Treat Charlie Gard, the Baby's UK
Doctors
Still Think He Should Die

Earlier this week, an American neurosurgeon flew to the U.K. to
evaluate
terminally ill baby Charlie Gard after a so-called E.U. "High Court"
ruled
the infant should be allowed to die.

Dr. Michio Hirano spent hours with Charlie and determined his
experimental
therapy could potentially help treat the baby. Charlie suffers from
a rare
genetic condition called mitochondrial depletion syndrome and has
apparently
suffered brain damage.

Dr. Hirano disagrees with British doctors that Charlie has suffered
"irreversible brain damage."

'brain damage' is very vague

and

'irreversible brain damage' is under increasing questioning
especially in the very young...


And every ****wit on the internet, including you, believes that they
can second-guess the decisions of doctors who specialise in these rare
disorders.

Including the one in the USA?

To me, it is absolutely incredible - and quite unacceptable - that the
NHS can decide that a child is going to die and that that is simply that.

The decision - whether via the NHS or the courts, or a combination of
both - that his parents are not to be allowed to seek last-chance or
emergent experimental treatment for him outside the UK (financed
charitable and privately) is a horror story.

Was this in anyone's mind when the NHS was set up?

==

Yes! It is a horror story! How dare anyone fight against parents'
wishes in a case like this.

A few weeks ago I had begun to think that those doctors were more
concerned with their own image and determined that no one, not even a
highly regarded Specialist gainsay them! I mean, what if the specialist
was correct and they were left with egg on their faces???


I can understand if the NHS was expected to pay. It would have been a
very expensive visit for no cure. OTOH, if the parents were going to
pay either directly or from donations, the NHS should have no say in
what they do.

The child was suffering, having seizures, on a breathing machine,
fed via tube, severly brain damaged. At what point does further
totally unproven experimental treatment that even the doc offering
it says at best might offer some marginal improvement, become child abuse?
Also, while the parents had some money to pay for the experiment and
care now, it's reasonable to expect that the result could be a child
that continues to suffer and that the UK winds up with the cost of
years of care when the money the parents raised runs out. If you're
ever going to control the cost of healthcare, this is an example of
where rational decisions need to be made.