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?

On 28/07/2017 13:49, JNugent wrote:
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?

What about cases where the evidence shows that even if the disease will
be halted, the child will never have a comfortable life?

On 28/07/2017 13:55, Incubus wrote:
On 28/07/2017 13:49, JNugent wrote:
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?

What about cases where the evidence shows that even if the disease will
be halted, the child will never have a comfortable life?

That could have been argued in the cases of many disabling diseases in
the past.

I repeat: this power (which I suspect most of us did not know about
until this case) is horrific. The state must not be allowed to exercise
a right to decide that an ill or disabled child must die. I'm sure I
don't need to point out the historical parallel(s).

"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???





--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 28/07/2017 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2017 13:55, Incubus wrote:
On 28/07/2017 13:49, JNugent wrote:
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?

What about cases where the evidence shows that even if the disease
will be halted, the child will never have a comfortable life?

That could have been argued in the cases of many disabling diseases in
the past.

I repeat: this power (which I suspect most of us did not know about
until this case) is horrific. The state must not be allowed to exercise
a right to decide that an ill or disabled child must die. I'm sure I
don't need to point out the historical parallel(s).

The overriding consideration of the courts is the welfare of the child.

Parents are often too emotionally involved to be rational about
decisions. Victims of crime should never be allowed to choose the
punishment of those who have wronged them. Nor should parents
necessarily decide what is best for their child. They're too closely
involved and very often can't see the wood for the trees.

What would your view be about parents wanting to deny their ill child an
undoubtedly life-saving treatment? Should their wishes be obeyed to the
letter meaning their child will die when he could be saved?

What's the difference between the two cases?

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.

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-4, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2017 13:55, Incubus wrote:
On 28/07/2017 13:49, JNugent wrote:
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?

What about cases where the evidence shows that even if the disease will
be halted, the child will never have a comfortable life?

That could have been argued in the cases of many disabling diseases in
the past.



It's not just that the child would never have any quality of life.
One factor is that this child is suffering. Would you want to go
on living when you need a machine to breath, are fed via a tube,
having seizures, with no experts, not even the Dr who offered the
totally experimental treatment, saying that anything more than
marginal improvement was possible? You are always going to find
some Dr somewhere who will say that they have some experiment that
might improve some disease that 99.9% of the experts say isn't so.
This treatment, IMO, was nothing more than a cruel experiment.
In the end, even that one Dr agreed that the child is already
severely brain damaged, something that his experiment can't
reverse.


I repeat: this power (which I suspect most of us did not know about
until this case) is horrific. The state must not be allowed to exercise
a right to decide that an ill or disabled child must die. I'm sure I
don't need to point out the historical parallel(s).

I'm in the USA, so I don't know your laws there. But at some point,
if a baby is suffering, with no chance of recovery, isn't it child
abuse to let this continue, instead of letting the inevitable happen
now?

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:20:16 AM UTC-4, 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???





--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

The specialist in the US, after actually examining the child and
the test results, essentially agreed that the child is advanced,
has suffered irreversible brain damage and that his totally
unproven experiment at best might offer some marginal improvement.

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.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message news
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.

==

They have mentioned being crowd funded.

Ah yes, look he

https://www.gofundme.com/please-help...-charlies-life


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:49:20 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

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 fits perfectly the cult collective mind set...

--
www.abelard.org

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:33:33 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

That has nothing to do with the
child the British government is going to murder!


on to stop striving to keep alive...

the outrage is that they are in a position to stop others acting

--
www.abelard.org

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:55:40 +0100, Incubus
wrote:


What about cases where the evidence shows that even if the disease will
be halted, the child will never have a comfortable life?

1)what does 'comfortable' mean to an allegedly brain ded human?

2)many people live 'uncomfortable lives and still choose to live...
(even those with progressive 'diseases')

--
www.abelard.org

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:14:14 -0000, "Phi" wrote:


"abelard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:49:20 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

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 fits perfectly the cult collective mind set...

There are probably millions of other parents with children who die every day
without medical support, why has this one any more importance.

because the parent chose to campaign and the fossil
media decided to promote 'the story'

and because it has fundamental 'philosophical' relevance

who owns the child?

is the collective to over-ride the freedom of individuals?

socialism puts the ant's nest before individual freedoms...
thus they 'feel' justified in killing millions for the cult
theories/beliefs

in the cult some animals are more 'equal' than others...

get in line and obey your masters


--
www.abelard.org

"abelard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:49:20 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

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 fits perfectly the cult collective mind set...

--
www.abelard.org



There are probably millions of other parents with children who die every day
without medical support, why has this one any more importance.

On 7/29/2017 5:49 AM, abelard wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:55:40 +0100, Incubus
wrote:


What about cases where the evidence shows that even if the disease will
be halted, the child will never have a comfortable life?

1)what does 'comfortable' mean to an allegedly brain ded human?

No pain?



2)many people live 'uncomfortable lives and still choose to live...
(even those with progressive 'diseases')


Any many don't, choosing to end their own lives. They have a choice, a
baby does not.

On 7/29/2017 7:14 AM, Phi wrote:


There are probably millions of other parents with children who die every
day without medical support, why has this one any more importance.

They got good publicity. No different than so called celebrities.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message ...

On 7/29/2017 5:49 AM, abelard wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:55:40 +0100, Incubus
wrote:


What about cases where the evidence shows that even if the disease will
be halted, the child will never have a comfortable life?

1)what does 'comfortable' mean to an allegedly brain ded human?

No pain?



2)many people live 'uncomfortable lives and still choose to live...
(even those with progressive 'diseases')


Any many don't, choosing to end their own lives. They have a choice, a
baby does not.

==

Quite!



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 10:02:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/29/2017 5:49 AM, abelard wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:55:40 +0100, Incubus
wrote:


What about cases where the evidence shows that even if the disease will
be halted, the child will never have a comfortable life?

1)what does 'comfortable' mean to an allegedly brain ded human?

No pain?

how do you know that the brain ded have any concept of pain/

2)many people live 'uncomfortable lives and still choose to live...
(even those with progressive 'diseases')

Any many don't, choosing to end their own lives. They have a choice, a
baby does not.

a baby cannot feed itself...it never has meaningful choices

either way

--
www.abelard.org

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 12:46:42 PM UTC-5, abelard wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 10:02:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/29/2017 5:49 AM, abelard wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:55:40 +0100, Incubus
wrote:


What about cases where the evidence shows that even if the disease will
be halted, the child will never have a comfortable life?

1)what does 'comfortable' mean to an allegedly brain ded human?

No pain?

how do you know that the brain ded have any concept of pain/

2)many people live 'uncomfortable lives and still choose to live...
(even those with progressive 'diseases')

Any many don't, choosing to end their own lives. They have a choice, a
baby does not.

a baby cannot feed itself...it never has meaningful choices

either way
--


It's a moot point since the infant has died. (~_~

[8~{} Uncle Sad Monster