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

[I Push Buttons]

You have no way of knowing that.

It is objective fact.

The treatment would make his muscle decay and brain death that are otherwise occurring acutely, take slightly more time.

Especially given the fact that, according to the article, the kid is already on life support and literal days from death.

[Endus]

Which can later be used to save lives. Hurray! Sorry this is one of the ways medical science advances, and it continues to work.

You realize you're literally advocating for monstrous and torturous medical experimentation on living human beings for the possibility of treatments that might help others in the future?

Do I need to start running down the list of fictional villains who used exactly that argument as the basis for their actions? Or should I just stick with the real ones, like Mengele?

[Nerdgasm]

There is no talk about euthanasia here not sure why you bring that up.

"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."
That's what's called in the medical field as passive euthanasia.

Declining further treatment is also considered passive euthanasia. Although not everyone agrees that not seeking experimental treatment when possible is any kind of euthanasia.

Also some people where talking about it on the first page, that's why I felt I should bring my position about it.

[Endus]

All he did was parrot the courts ruling and present it as his own. If that's your idea of a superior argument then well, that says more about you than anything else.

Thanks for implicitly admitting your prior post was wrong, I guess. After all, I can't be the "supreme arbiter" of anything if I'm just "parroting the courts ruling".

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You have no way of knowing that.

Yes I do. The treatment isn't a cure. There is no cure.

[Noomz]

All he did was parrot the courts ruling and present it as his own. If that's your idea of a superior argument then well, that says more about you than anything else.

Is he wrong?
Yes, it's a superior argument when your own is either lacking or completely abscent and you resort to throwing a fit about his person.

- - - Updated - - -

except that this is choice being forcibly removed.

Huh? What? Are you so completely stumped and unable to respond that THIS is what you say?

[Mehrunes]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40423371

Trip to the USA for possible treatment denied because reasons. The EU can now decide who lives and who dies.

Before you make a thread to whine about the evil EU, Google what ECHR is and what organization governs it. Because you just made a fool out of yourself. A dishonest fool at that. "Because reasons" my ass.

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.

Probably because the child wasn't said to be brain dead in the entire article. And Brexit has nothing to do with ECHR. Even if it had, UK courts already ruled against the parents. You once against lost the fight against the concept of having a clue.

You need to read your source. All the EU states are members of council of Europe and therefore they have signed the human rights convention so yes it is absolutely an extension of Europe's meddling.

All EU member states are also members of UN and signed its charter. In your brilliant mind does it mean UN meddled to kill this child as well?

Do I need say more?

You already said too much. In this case you could have ended at quoting the user name and it would have been sufficient.

[Deleted]

Because they procreated? That isn't a rational position at all. The medical experts the government talked to are the ones who are qualified to make these decisions. The parents have essentially no qualifications in this regard, and in this case, their choices were going to cause the child additional needless harm.

Actually yes, since they're the closest relatives. And were not talking about abuse here, the child is going to die 100% if they do what the government wants. If theres a 0.0000001% chance he might live, it's still better. Also if I was terminally ill, Id rather suffer and live than be dead.

What I mean to say is this is a personal decision, there is no right or wrong here and it should be up to the person in question even if you disagree with it.. and since the child is too young to make it himself, it should be up to the parents cause they know him the best and want whats best for him, those experts do not.

[Endus]

Actually yes, since they're the closest relatives. And were not talking about abuse here, the child is going to die 100% if they do what the government wants.

Extending suffering needlessly is abuse.

What I mean to say is this is a personal decision, there is no right or wrong here and it should be up to the person in question even if you disagree with it.. and since the child is too young to make it himself, it should be up to the parents cause they know him the best and want whats best for him, those experts do not.

In the case of making that decision for yourself, I'd agree.

Not so when it comes to parents making those decisions for their children. We don't allow Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions for their children here, for the same reason.

[DarkTZeratul]

Actually yes, since they're the closest relatives. And were not talking about abuse here, the child is going to die 100% if they do what the government wants. If theres a 0.0000001% chance he might live, it's still better.

This treatment isn't a 0.0000001% chance he might live. It's not even a 0.0000001% chance he might improve. He's still 100% going to die, the treatment just might make it take slightly longer, during which time he will have no ability to see, speak, hear, or move and requires large expensive machines to breathe for him.

[luckydevours]

Trip to the USA for possible treatment denied because reasons. The EU can now decide who lives and who dies.

The ECHR is not the EU!! How about you even try to understand the issue before you start rambling?

[Shadowmelded]

Actually yes, since they're the closest relatives. And were not talking about abuse here, the child is going to die 100% if they do what the government wants. If theres a 0.0000001% chance he might live, it's still better. Also if I was terminally ill, Id rather suffer and live than be dead.

Shared blood doesn't give them free reign to do whatever they want. They're supposed to act in their child's best interests and prolonging his suffering with 0% of improvement isn't that.

[Holofernes]

Every parent should have the rights to choose their child's care. The rights as a parent have completely been abolished in this case it's disgusting!

This case reeks of classism. Had the parents been wealthy and the connections to fight this all the way they would have had a better chance of winning this case.

Had the parents gone private health care initially instead of a standard NHS hospital there are a lot of people saying that Charlie would have been flying to America to get the treatment months ago.

HELL NO. those parents of a terminally ill child should stop their child from suffering longer.
Your argument is stupid as fuck.
If parents beat, abuse, prostitute their child, are u ok with it because its their right, as you clame? Are children slaves of their parents in your fucked up world?

Those parents are abusing their own child.
All courts rouled the same way. The ultimate instance of court ruled the same way.

[Lahis]

Well if a random person on the internet says it so. Also spare me their medical experts said it, because obviously medical experts who were going to treat him thought otherwise or they wouldn't even said they would accept him.

It's the US. They would have gotten huge amount of moolah for what is a futile attempt.

[sarahtasher]

Should I make a list of once experimental treatments used today in everyday medicine? Because honestly I don't have that kind of time.

Should I make a list of snake oil cures sold to desperate parents ?

[Blood Raven]

I feel sorry for the child, but the right call was made. Living hooked up to machines with no hope of real improvement is no life at all.

[Logwyn]

Should I make a list of once experimental treatments used today in everyday medicine? Because honestly I don't have that kind of time.

If you really want to be technical about it everything a doctor does is an experiment. There's a reason why they call what a doctor does a "practice". Yes there are tried and true methods that work a high percentage of the time. But there are also "experiments" done to find out what works. You get a condition their are 5 drugs to treat it. Which do we use? Generally the less impact on the body. But what dosage? Lets go with Xmg as the patient is x pounds in weight. Its kinda working but increase the does. Doesn't work. Try drug 3 etc. and so forth.

Medicine isn't an exact science. It might could be one day but now its now.

In this case would it have worked? According to the experts no. The question is who has the power to decide to go forth with it? Parents? Doctors? The State?

Hell right now its floating around face book that this is an example of socialized medicine go bad. Which sadly its not. At some point the professionals need to step in and take the butchers knife away from the family.....

[lucred]

But even the hospital that was going to provide the procedure said it would not improve the child's health, just (possibly) prevent it from getting worse...

This means he will NEVER have sight, hearing, speech, actual cognitive thought, ability to move his limbs, etc. even if it works at the BEST level the hospital can predict...

[Logwyn]

A medical facility in the US who is doing an experimental treatment isn't some random person selling vials of cure all in the back of his car. So I'm not sure why your mind would go there. There is a long history of experiment treatments that go on to being standard practice, or are you willfully ignorant of that fact?

- - - Updated - - -



According to some experts, obviously the experts who would attempt the treatment thought there was a chance at some success. Otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to treat them at all. Sorry i'm not buying this, they'd doing it for the money thing. As we have no idea what it would cost or if an how they would be charged. The payment could have been getting data that the experiment would have provided good or bad. It's an unfortunate side of medic, but you already pointed out it's not an exact science.

I think you bring up the point of. "Who gets to decide to pull the plug?" That's the more important point here!

[oxymoronic]

"Reasons" given by qualified doctors at one of the top 5 childrens hospitals in the world...

And you know what that reason is?

It's not a cure, the wording is important here because 'treatment' is not 'cure' because there is no cure, and there's no reversing what's already happened to him, which is:

"Charlie’s brain, muscle and ability to breathe are all severely affected. In addition, Charlie has congenital deafness and a severe epilepsy disorder. Charlie's heart, liver and kidneys are also affected.1

Charlie has severe progressive muscle weakness and cannot move his arms or legs or breathe unaided.

Charlie's eyelids cannot stay open and his eyes point in different directions because of muscular weakness. Charlie’s retina would struggle to develop and his brainwaves suggest that he is not going to be able to lay down normal visual patterns that should be learned at an early age. Eyesight is not something you’re born with, it develops over time"

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-as...ard-court-case

What's also interesting from that page:

Why is there no treatment available at GOSH?

There is no cure for Charlie’s condition which is terminal. GOSH explored various treatment options, including nucleoside therapy, the experimental treatment that one hospital in the US has agreed to offer now that the parents have the funds to cover the cost of such treatment. GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

And from the look of things the European Court of Human Rights agreed with GOSH.

On one had I can see why a parent would do anything to try and help their child, I believe it's misplaced and has done more harm than good but I can understand it from their point of view.

You on the other hand seem to have tried to use a terminally ill child as some sort of stick to beat the EU with (which is nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights by the way) showing your both heartless and ignorant, nice play.

europe doesnt even have a childrens hospital in the top 5

shows how much you know