European Court of "Human Rights" rules against parents of a terminally ill child

[Gorgodeus]

You were told already that the illnes of that kid is different in scope/stage than of the one regarding this thread. But you still blatantly ignore that

The child in the link I posted began treatment over 5 years ago. It is possible there have been advancements since then. Extremely rare cases such as this have very few cases to work with and advance knowledge of the disease. Many parents know that while it may not ultimately save their children, but it may be the only way to for a cure to found in the future.

[Garnier Fructis]

[url]https://globalgenes.org/raredaily/small-improvements-for-boy-with-tk2-related-mitochondrial-dna-depletion-syndrome

You managed to give the same reply in 3 different contexts and be wrong in all of them.

1) The article says nothing about a medical breakthrough.
2) The treatment did not save him in a meaningful sense. It saves him the same way that treatment saves an anencephalic baby: it's life extension that does not address or fix the actual problem.
3) The kid in the OP's article not only has a more aggressive version of this disease, but his condition is much worse off. The treatment does not reverse brain damage already done.

[Thanatoss]

The doctor is doing what's best for the child not the fucking parents. The kid is terminally ill. Allowing the kid to stay alive is only gonna prolong the suffering until everything in the body is dead. This is a doctor not wanting to see a child suffer.

So I'm curious why the doctors put the kid on all the machines keeping him alive then if the diagnosis was terminal in the first place? Shouldn't they have stopped all treatments as soon as it was confirmed what he had to "stop the suffering"?

[Thepersona]

The child in the link I posted began treatment over 5 years ago. It is possible there have been advancements since then. Extremely rare cases such as this have very few cases to work with and advance knowledge of the disease. Many parents know that while it may not ultimately save their children, but it may be the only way to for a cure to found in the future.

No. Its not. The cases are different. The child in the link you provided was in a far better condition when he started the treatment than the one in this thread. Doing this may prolong his life... for a few months at least, meanwhile he will be suffering all the time

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So I'm curious why the doctors put the kid on all the machines keeping him alive then if the diagnosis was terminal in the first place? Shouldn't they have stopped all treatments as soon as it was confirmed what he had to "stop the suffering"?

They had to leave the machines on while the decision was being appealed. They expect that the machines will be turned off soon. It's all in the OP

The court "also considered that it was appropriate to lift the interim measure" which had required doctors to continue providing life support treatment to Charlie.

BBC health correspondent Fergus Walsh said it is likely Charlie's life support machine will be turned off within a few days following discussions between the hospital and his family.

[Garnier Fructis]

So I'm curious why the doctors put the kid on all the machines keeping him alive then if the diagnosis was terminal in the first place? Shouldn't they have stopped all treatments as soon as it was confirmed what he had to "stop the suffering"?

The doctors want to, but can't, because the parents have been dragging this through the courts for a while.

[Endus]

So I'm curious why the doctors put the kid on all the machines keeping him alive then if the diagnosis was terminal in the first place? Shouldn't they have stopped all treatments as soon as it was confirmed what he had to "stop the suffering"?

For like the third time in this thread, he was on life support as they tried everything they could to halt or slow the progress of his disease. Now that they're out of options, they would have already turned the life support off, except his parents have been filing legal appeals which have blocked them doing so until now.

You're trying to blame the doctors for not doing this, when it's the parents and their legal strategy that have forced them to maintain the child this long in the first place.

[Deleted]

https://globalgenes.org/raredaily/sm...tion-syndrome/

You do know the odds of the kid ever moving again is near zero?
I'm not sure i would want to be kept alive in such a scenario.

[JohnBrown1917]

If there is an experimental treatment that might help, it is not abuse. It is nothing more than a governmental entity overstepping its' bounds.

But it won't help, that is the whole point.

[Lahis]

Many hospitals do experimental treatment it at no cost to the patient at all. Hell We don't even know which hospital was going to do treatment or what they would or wouldn't charge.

They had raised over 1 million pounds for the treatment.

That doesn't sound like free treatment.

[Lex Icon]

if anything the parents should be tried for prolonging the suffering for selfish reasons.

[Shinra1]

So I've had a chance to calm down after posting here for the best part of an hour and I've tried my best to understand the other view point.

But look at him. Look at him and tell me you want to put him down like a deranged dog.

[Lollis]

So I've had a chance to calm down after posting here for the best part of an hour and I've tried my best to understand the other view point.

But look at him. Look at him and tell me you want to put him down like a deranged dog.

Yes, take the most emotive picture you can find. What is that phrase again? "Seems legit"

[Quibble]

But look at him. Look at him and tell me you want to put him down like a deranged dog.

How cute, or how much you "love" someone. IT DOES NOT MATTER.
If someone is actually terminal ill and in constant pain, if you cared you would let them die, not prolong their suffering for personal gain.

If someone is terminally ill, in constant pain, is effectively braindead and will never be able to move, let alone live without machines. Then they should be put to death humanly..

I simply can not understand your twisted world view, where it is more human to keep someone artificially alive and in constant pain (this is just plain torture) than to let them die from their terminal illness.

I sure hope I don't have any family that think so little of me, that they would keep me in constant pain for their own flawed reasons, if I became terminally ill (and was in constant pain)

[almaderp]

Euthanasia is wrong. The parents should get to decide how long their child remains on life support. And if the child is supposedly brain dead how is it that he is feeling pain from being kept alive? The specialist doesn't know what he's talking about. The church needs to get involved.
Glad I voted Brexit.

so if your parents decided to torture you for 10+ years just cause that'd be ok and you wouldn't have anything wrong with it?

[Shadowmelded]

So I've had a chance to calm down after posting here for the best part of an hour and I've tried my best to understand the other view point.

But look at him. Look at him and tell me you want to put him down like a deranged dog.

[IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/27/19/3DE3620C00000578-4644268-Charlie_suffers_from_a_rare_genetic_disease-a-45_1498586576054.jpg[IMG]

If his wellbeing is your primary concern, why are you willing to let him suffer for the rest of his short life? We don't subject animals to that kind of treatment, why should a child be?

[Lollis]

The child in the link I posted began treatment over 5 years ago. It is possible there have been advancements since then. Extremely rare cases such as this have very few cases to work with and advance knowledge of the disease. Many parents know that while it may not ultimately save their children, but it may be the only way to for a cure to found in the future.

So instead of being allowed to die, he is kept alive without the ability to have even a basic life, suffering from being completely unable to communicate or move, and you say that is a better existence? It's a severe genetic disorder, keeping a child alive to suffer through it with the microscopic chance at a cure being found is awful.

[Thepersona]

So I've had a chance to calm down after posting here for the best part of an hour and I've tried my best to understand the other view point.

But look at him. Look at him and tell me you want to put him down like a deranged dog.

Appeal to emotion eh?
Its nice to know when posters stopped caring about giving a decent argument.
The kid is cute, but its dying. No treatment will save him. The human thing to do is to stop his suffering and give him a calm death

[sarahtasher]

I hate to repeat myself, but do you really think that in the good old US of A, many insurance companies would have forked 3 million dollars for a procedure that might give six months more of ''life'' to a toddler ?

We are not in Star Trek, folks. Healthcare cost money, and there are limits. In the USA, it's when your bank account and your entire family ones are empty. In other countries, doctors not accountants have the final word.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That's generally not how crowd funding works, and the parents have already said if they lose the case all the funding will go toward research. So at least some good has come of this horrible scenario.

The point was they wouldn't need crowdfunding if the procedure were free. And, speaking pragmatically, that money going to research is a better use for it. It wouldn't save their child...but maybe it can help pave the way so that, someday, it will help to save someone else's.