The parents’ final heart-rendering message

UPDATE 03.08.2017

The original post “The tragic tale of little mite ‘Charlie Gard’ – a story of unknown pygmy ‘dedicated’ parents facing-up against a famous giant ‘compassionless’ hospital?”   was published here last Tuesday.

Published now below is the dialogue with one of the blog’s readers, who has a much different opinion about the issue, and that may be of interest to other readers?

Appended also, is another little story where doctors and hospitals DIDNT know BEST it seems?

Cake-Queen

I read your article, whilst I obviously agree with what your reports of PARENTS really knowing BEST says, I just think this particular case is so unique in terms of Charlie’s condition and I really don’t agree that Great Ormond Street should be condemned, they are not arrogant and didn’t screw up.

What happened to Charlie was absolutely awful but I do believe they were genuine and only ever wanted what was best for him, and for him not to endure suffering.

I read this article which focuses on the judgment itself as a lot of information has been misrepresented.

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

Prof Hirano strung out the court and especially the parents for more than six month since January when Gt Ormond St invited him to come and examine Charlie, an invitation which he never took up.

I do agree the lack of legal aid and the announcement of the scan result in court was awful, it says the judge had strong words about the legal aid.

Dadman007

I have now read this link information, but still stand by my opinion. Oh yes, GOS had the ‘high ground’ in medical terms but the ‘low ground’ morally and they can’t justify not letting him die at home when they had participated in him living for the past 7 months.

Nevertheless, yours is an important alternative view.

Also have you seen any MEDICAL evidence from GOS that supports their OPINION that Charlie was suffering and in pain? If so do you have a link?

Another aside – the court QC representing the State appointed Guardian for Charlie is chair of a ‘right to die’ organisation. Is that insensitive, or not?

[Surely, the parents should have represented their son in court, and NOT a State appointed guardian’s barrister, supposedly acting in the interests of Charlie – when she is the chair person of Compassion in Dying, the sister body of Dignity in Dying, formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society?]

Cake-Queen

I know they stated it was hard for anyone to know if he was in pain but they know he could not hear, see, make a noise or move. So, he may or may not have felt pain, some drs believe it was ‘likely’ and potentially at a ‘significant’ level but its only opinions on both sides I believe. The medical staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital were the reason Charlie was alive and there’s no reason for them to wish ill intent towards any patient. It was them that contacted the international experts to see if nbt was an option.

They believed he was in pain; quote: “Even now, Charlie shows physical responses to stressors that some of those treating him interpret as pain and when two international experts assessed him last week, they believed that they elicited a pain response” said the Gosh statement.

Dadman007

OK but that was the case 7-8 MONTHS ago, so surely humanity says another 7-8 DAYS & letting Chalie home for his last hours would have been the right thing to do!

Cake-Queen

I don’t know. I guess that would have been right for the parents. I haven’t read why the hospital felt that wasn’t right for charlie but there must have been a valid reason according to their code of practice.

Dadman007

You’re so trusting of hospitals!

Cake-Queen

This case was so public there is no way they would want to cause further anguish to the poor parents. I just don’t believe gosh intentions were anything but honest and putting him first.

Dadman007

Their honest intention was for the baby to die forthwith and were determined to see that through and sod the parents’ anguish, don’t you think?

Cake-Queen

Not at all!

End of dialogue

-000-

The further story then:

A fit female pensioner, who regularly enjoyed walking miles in the forest and at the seashore, had suddenly been struck-down with a severe lower leg pain that essentially curtailed all activity, with pain even in bed overnight, which was hardly hit by strong morphine based painkillers.

A GP arranged just physiotherapy as the suggested cure. The next GP seen some weeks later, was told by the husband that he suspected a possible back problem, as his wife had had to have a serious back operation about 20 years before and asked him for an MIR scan of her back – that was brusquely & briskly refused as he diagnosed, without examination, a severe knee arthritis condition, exacerbated by a fall, but he swore it would be OK in a couple of weeks. With no improvement a long while later, the lady saw yet ‘another’ GP who understood her plight, said she would arrange a MRI scan and prescribed her medication – bleeding depressant tablets! The scan turned-up to be NOT on her back or even leg at all, but on her blessed knee (which she already had known was arthritic).

At the hospital clinic, the surgeon seen there, confirmed that she needed a knee replacement operation and promised to add her to the hospital waiting list. Didn’t happen of course, but instead she was called many weeks later to ANOTHER clinic appointment to see a more senior consultant surgeon. At that consultation, he confirmed the requirement for a knee replacement, but nevertheless postponed her going on the list for that because in HIS examination he suspected that she had another problem as well – you guessed it? A back problem! That needed to be investigated FIRST – with you guessed it, eh? A MIR scan on her back, as asked for 6 months previously, eh?

You can bet your bottom dollar that the lady won’t get her medical problem resolved until a year is up at least, will she?

 

[Sometimes ordinary, non-medically knowledgeable, people’s instincts are more correct than the bleeding doctors they rely on, aren’t they?]