In article ,
sweetheart writes:


My prime concern is possibly somewhat wider than just financial decisions, =
but that would be one of them. This isnt really the place to have the discu=
ssion in bits and pieces. Its fragmented.=20

My concerns are also ethical and cultural and political to some extent - an=
d even philosophical ( as they are all involved) in the wider senses. DIY =
is not the place to expand that I am afraid.

I think cases like Charlie and his parents highlight issues that are not fu=
lly thought through or discussed properly. They do set precedents for treat=
ment of others and that is a back door way of changing rules. That concerns=

No.
No precedents are set.
The existing rules were applied.
I explained what they are a couple of times earlier in the thread,
but basically, the court has to decide what is in Charlie's best
interests when the doctors and parents can't agree. The process is
a well trodden path, but fortunately such disagreements are rare
in the context of the number of cases where a patient can't make
the decisions for themself.

GOSH have to go to court if the parents don't accept the views of
the medical experts - it's not something GOSH has any choice over.

me. It moves toward the wider debate of euthanasia (and in that respect =
it also imvolves eugenics as well - but thats another taboo)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 05/08/2017 00:39, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
sweetheart writes:


My prime concern is possibly somewhat wider than just financial decisions, =
but that would be one of them. This isnt really the place to have the discu=
ssion in bits and pieces. Its fragmented.=20

My concerns are also ethical and cultural and political to some extent - an=
d even philosophical ( as they are all involved) in the wider senses. DIY =
is not the place to expand that I am afraid.

I think cases like Charlie and his parents highlight issues that are not fu=
lly thought through or discussed properly. They do set precedents for treat=
ment of others and that is a back door way of changing rules. That concerns=

No.
No precedents are set.
The existing rules were applied.
I explained what they are a couple of times earlier in the thread,
but basically, the court has to decide what is in Charlie's best
interests when the doctors and parents can't agree. The process is
a well trodden path, but fortunately such disagreements are rare
in the context of the number of cases where a patient can't make
the decisions for themself.

GOSH have to go to court if the parents don't accept the views of
the medical experts - it's not something GOSH has any choice over.


However, s/he did have robust sources and some knowledge that GOSH did
not offer or provide feasible treatment - particularly at an early stage
(which is not really relevant), and very recently. IOW, the judgement
was made in error - at least on medical grounds.

To sweetheart - you told the group that the author of the peer reviewed
sources you used was the NHS. I could be wrong, but I don't think the
NHS publishes - at least, from a quick journal search, nothing comes up.
Are you able to remember any of the sources at all?

--
Cheers, Rob

On 07/08/2017 22:39, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-07, RJH wrote:
On 05/08/2017 00:39, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
sweetheart writes:


My prime concern is possibly somewhat wider than just financial decisions, =
but that would be one of them. This isnt really the place to have the discu=
ssion in bits and pieces. Its fragmented.=20

My concerns are also ethical and cultural and political to some extent - an=
d even philosophical ( as they are all involved) in the wider senses. DIY =
is not the place to expand that I am afraid.

I think cases like Charlie and his parents highlight issues that are not fu=
lly thought through or discussed properly. They do set precedents for treat=
ment of others and that is a back door way of changing rules. That concerns=

No.
No precedents are set.
The existing rules were applied.
I explained what they are a couple of times earlier in the thread,
but basically, the court has to decide what is in Charlie's best
interests when the doctors and parents can't agree. The process is
a well trodden path, but fortunately such disagreements are rare
in the context of the number of cases where a patient can't make
the decisions for themself.

GOSH have to go to court if the parents don't accept the views of
the medical experts - it's not something GOSH has any choice over.


However, s/he did have robust sources and some knowledge that GOSH did
not offer or provide feasible treatment - particularly at an early stage
(which is not really relevant), and very recently. IOW, the judgement
was made in error -

Wrong.


Well, yes, wrong as I read it. But sweetheart claimed to have some
counter evidence - NHS peer reviewed research. I'm wondering if that's true.

--
Cheers, Rob