Charlie Gard RIP ..

[RubyToogood]

I work in the disability sector and some of my colleagues have very much taken the view that this was the medical profession trying to kill disabled people again. The same people are also very anti screening for disability during pregnancy and anti euthanasia.

I don't share their views but it's an interesting perspective, that the medical profession fail to recognise the value of life with a disability and are too keen to put an end to it because it would be "kinder".

 

[weltweit]

RubyToogood I don't see how they can equate a child with brain death with a disability really?

 

[bluescreen]

RubyToogood I don't see how they can equate a child with brain death with a disability really?

They don't. Everyone seems to view it through their own campaigning lens.

 

[planetgeli]

I work in the disability sector and some of my colleagues have very much taken the view that this was the medical profession trying to kill disabled people again.

A perfectly rational argument free of emotive language then.

To counter this isn't it about time the medical profession started doing things like, I dunno, transplanting organs, fixing broken bones etc instead of just putting people to sleep all the time?

 

[SpookyFrank]

I work in the disability sector and some of my colleagues have very much taken the view that this was the medical profession trying to kill disabled people again. The same people are also very anti screening for disability during pregnancy and anti euthanasia.

I don't share their views but it's an interesting perspective, that the medical profession fail to recognise the value of life with a disability and are too keen to put an end to it because it would be "kinder".

To me it seems in rather poor taste to conflate disability with non-viability. Nobody killed Charlie Gard, his death was inevitable. I'm sure the medical staff and parents both would have prefferred an outcome where the child survived, regardless of any potential future disabilities, but that option just wasn't on the table. The only person who thought it was was some clown who had never seen the patient and who had a vested interest in prescribing an untried treatment regardless of its chances of success.

 

[Red Cat]

They don't. Everyone seems to view it through their own campaigning lens.

I hadn't been following the story very closely until recently and I must admit to feeling really shocked at how this child has been used as a vessel for all sorts of fantasies.

 

[trashpony]

I work in the disability sector and some of my colleagues have very much taken the view that this was the medical profession trying to kill disabled people again. The same people are also very anti screening for disability during pregnancy and anti euthanasia.

I don't share their views but it's an interesting perspective, that the medical profession fail to recognise the value of life with a disability and are too keen to put an end to it because it would be "kinder".

Hmm - in this particular case, that's a bit of a nonsensical argument as the only reason he lived as long as he did was because he was being artificially kept alive.

 

[Thora]

Hmm - in this particular case, that's a bit of a nonsensical argument as the only reason he lived as long as he did was because he was being artificially kept alive.

There is a wider question about though when a life is worth living, and who decides that, especially as the whole concept of a quality of life is so subjective. And in this case it came down to medics saying he felt no pleasure and probably suffered, vs parents saying he gained some enjoyment from life and was in no pain.

 

[RubyToogood]

A perfectly rational argument free of emotive language then.

To counter this isn't it about time the medical profession started doing things like, I dunno, transplanting organs, fixing broken bones etc instead of just putting people to sleep all the time?

The language is mine, I was summarising.

 

[1927]

In English law parental rights don't trump the welfare of the child and some people have enormous difficulty getting their heads round that.

Don't think there is such a thing as parental rights. Children have rights, parents have responsibilities.

 

[scifisam]

Don't think there is such a thing as parental rights. Children have rights, parents have responsibilities.

Parents have all sorts of rights - to choose schools, choose where they live, choose to take their children out of the country (or even move to a different country), to see the child after divorce, and to make medical decisions. None of those rights are limitless but most people will never reach the limits.

 

[FiFi]

Don't think there is such a thing as parental rights. Children have rights, parents have responsibilities.

Yes.this is the assumption underpinning the Children Act 1989. That's where the legal term Parental Responsibility comes into force

 

[bluescreen]

.

 

[RubyToogood]

There is a wider question about though when a life is worth living, and who decides that, especially as the whole concept of a quality of life is so subjective. And in this case it came down to medics saying he felt no pleasure and probably suffered, vs parents saying he gained some enjoyment from life and was in no pain.

And there's also an argument that medics, whose lives are dedicated to preventing and treating disability, are not best placed to understand or advise on the potential quality of a life lived with disability, including extreme disability.

There's also the concept of the least dangerous assumption, ie is it more dangerous to assume a person has no awareness or that they have some awareness.

Anyway, I'm sticking to having no opinion on this case due to the complexity and individuality of the facts.

 

[RubyToogood]

Hmm - in this particular case, that's a bit of a nonsensical argument as the only reason he lived as long as he did was because he was being artificially kept alive.

Hmmm also... Lots of us are being kept artificially alive, eg I probably wouldn't be around if I didn't take a pill every day.

 

[8den]

Good thread on the reporting of his medical condition.

 

[likesfish]

the parents may have been unable to cope with the fact that charlie was dead or dying and their was nothing they could do fair one
the woo salesmen not so much though some of them are so genuinely misguided they believe in the woo they are selling.

the protestors and the pope no excuse trumps a fuckwit so he gets off and if he was worrying about charlie he wasnt starting a nuclear war

 

[bluescreen]

if he was worrying about charlie he wasnt starting a nuclear war

Possibly true that PoTUS can carry only one idea in his head at a time, but query whether there wasn't more to Charlie Gard's life than stopping nuclear war.
erm.

 

[trashpony]

Hmmm also... Lots of us are being kept artificially alive, eg I probably wouldn't be around if I didn't take a pill every day.

Apologies - that was poorly phrased. Charlie had a terminal illness. His body was shutting down and he would not have lived very long, even if he had remained attached to his ventilator.

 

[gosub]

Possibly true that PoTUS can carry only one idea in his head at a time, but query whether there wasn't more to Charlie Gard's life than stopping nuclear war.
erm.

'Isn't socialist medicine bad! let's repeal Obamacare '