Originally Posted by Boiler

I would agree with very few?

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl

For goodness sake...stop this petty argument...this poor little boy's life is about to end.

Originally Posted by yellowroom

I think it's brave of the parents to withdraw at this stage, credit to them. hopefully they will find some peace and the circus will disappear and they can let Charlie go privately.

Originally Posted by Oakvillian

Why?
This instinct actually troubles me, and speaks to a much broader issue - not entirely unrelated to the domestic politics (with a small P - not necessarily the current partisan nonsense) of the US.

The medical staff at GOSH are some of the most highly qualified paediatric clinicians and specialists in the world. Their medical-legal and ethics teams are consummately professional, and as a matter of law are obliged to represent what they consider the best interests of the patient regardless of their own philosophical or egotistical opinions.

The parents, on the other hand, have no medical training, no grounding in ethics or law, and - from the sound of it - a painfully shallow grasp of the implications of their decisions on an already hugely delicate situation.

It all smacks of the same "we've had enough of experts," anti-science agenda that is being peddled on both sides of the Atlantic. Experts are experts for a reason... because, more often than not, they have devoted a large part of their life to the study of the subject and know more about it than the rest of the population. Evidence-based medicine - which the NHS as a whole and GOSH in particular thrives on practicing - does not work if you don't have the interpretive skills to made decisions based upon that evidence.

Of course the parents are troubled. Of course they want to do everything within their power to fight for their child. But to take on the entire medical establishment through three successive court battles, to grasp at the meanest of straws offered up by a doctor who has not actually examined th patient - that is verging on the irresponsible.

Originally Posted by morpeth

And experts can be wrong. There were doctors who initially wouldn't recommend penicillin - maybe professionally it wasn't proven yet, but certainly in retrospect some may have died because of not taking a chance on new procedures or medicine. And experts can also disagree with other experts. I agree that the parents may not have had the expertise to make judgement about medical issues ( though they do seem to have enough ability to find out what treatments were available), but they wanted the best for their child.

.

Originally Posted by Nutmegger

The whole situation is a disgrace -- they make a big exhibition of all this compassion for a British child, but show none for their own citizens as they try to rip away any semblance of healthcare.

Originally Posted by mikelincs

Google would have been their friend, but the US 'expert' who came over to give his opinion didn't even see the child, just took a look at the reports and stated that he felt HIS treatment COULD offer some sort of improvement, The fact that he was a major shareholder in the company that made the drug wouldn't affect his judgement, would it? The courts are the protectors of the children in these cases, they take on the defence of the child's position and have to work in the best interests of the child, which is why GOSH would have gone to the court in the first place, they would need some legal opinion of something which was causing problems.

Originally Posted by morpeth

I have no way at of judging the experimental treatment, in particular from newspaper reports.

Frankly I question why GOSH and the courts are assumed necessarly to be completely in the child's best interests without their own agenda, and the idea that they "have" to work in child's best interests- there are many laws and guidelines, doesnt mean they are always followed.

All I said I lean towards the parents having the final decision, and am leery of the idea the state and experts automatically know best as that can lead to a lot of issues the more that logic is followed.

Originally Posted by Twinkle0927

It does sound like they are gearing up for a medical negligence claim against GOSH. I have very mixed feelings in people suing the NHS as ultimately they are suing the taxpayer, who has done no wrong. Any compensation or reward will be paid from hospital funds, not the pockets of the individuals, and those hospital funds are provided by the taxpayer to treat children. How ironic it would be if they won substantial damages and the resulting payout meant a delay in purchasing new equipment or procedures that could have benefitted another child. And I question how anyone could put a price on their child's life. Suing GOSH won't cure him or bring him back from the head so I hope they don't pursue this route.

It was on,y yesterday that I read that the doctor in New York had not examined him or even read his medical reports before making his claim that he could offer some form of treatment. I had assumed that he studied his brain scans and other notes in great detail. I can see the parents clung to his words of hope like a rock in a storm but any outsider can now see that this doctor really didn't know what he was dealing with.

Originally Posted by Pollyana

That last paragraph really is such an eye-opener isn't it. Everyone, including GOSH thought he had at least read Charlie's case details, but it turns out he was putting forward a treatment in which he had a financial interest, without proper knowledge of the boy's condition. Unbelievable. Offering the parents hope when he had no real idea whether any chance of hope existed.