Charlie Gard

[Husar]

The baby boy, who suffers from brain damage, cannot breathe without a ventilator and doctors say that he is able to hear, see or move.

You/they probably mean unable, right?

And as much as I'm usually in favor of giving disabled people as much life as they can get, this one sounds like he was more or less born a lost cause. As for testing a new treatment on him, I would say testing on terminally ill humans sounds like you can't do much wrong other than cause them some extra pain. Which still seems evil unless the only alternative is a good chance to kill a person who is not terminally ill by testing it on them.

I'm not sure whether there is a right or wrong, perhaps there is just a grey aka hard and controversial decision.

[Beskar]

You/they probably mean unable, right?

Mistake in the quoted article, not mine. Edited it though.

I don't think the baby would qualify for euthanisia here which would be the most humane thing to do

It is not actually euthanisia, as there would be no need for any intervention to bring about an early death. It is only ceasing the artifical means of support to allow it to die naturally. Such things happen in the Netherlands and every country in the world (including the USA). What makes this particular case different is media sensationalism by the parents playing the "Underdog" card.

It kind of seems to me that the people wanting Charlie put down are doing so for their own convenience.

Going to myth-bust this. There is no parallels between Charlie's case and putting down a puppy.

1) Charlie is completely unable to support his basic functions. He requires life-support 24/7.
2) He is pretty much brain-dead and in a complete vegatable state which no treatment or invention can reverse or 'cure'.
3) What little there is, Charlie is reported to be in constant pain and nothing else. (see Monty's post).
4) The use of the machines are prolonging his natural death.

All this is completely different to euthanasia and 'putting down' and those parallels should not be used. There are clear distinct differences. In Euthanasia and 'Putting down', it is assisted suicide or accelerating a death. In this case, the death is being artificially prolonged and being prevented.

It is not "convenient" for anyone involved.

The parents should act as the decision-makers for their child, as children are not legally allowed to make most decisions for themselves. They want to allow further treatment, have respected doctors willing to do it, and have the financial means to provide for it. Why is this even a discussion?

Half of me simply says they should greenlight it, so the problem transfers to the United States so we can move on and put an end to the matter. However, there is an actual ethnical side involved because said American doctors don't actually care for Charlie Gard, just the publicity and the money involved. They can use it to help fund pet research projects or experiment with treatments which apparently "only work in theory" exploiting the parents with even more "false hope".

Overall, this is a very unfortunate case of a child being prevented from their natural death by use of technology and zealous parents doing their most, detrimental to Charlie himself, in refusing to let him go.

[Xiahou]

Half of me simply says they should greenlight it, so the problem transfers to the United States so we can move on and put an end to the matter. However, there is an actual ethnical side involved because said American doctors don't actually care for Charlie Gard, just the publicity and the money involved. They can use it to help fund pet research projects or experiment with treatments which apparently "only work in theory".

Overall, this is a very unfortunate case of a child being prevented from their natural death by use of technology and zealous parents doing their most, detrimental to Charlie himself, in refusing to let him go.

It's just all rather surreal to me that his parents and legal guardians have the means to try further treatment, well-respected doctors who think that it's worth trying and yet their government is telling them that they have to let their child die.

I don't think anyone would fault the parents if they decided his case was hopeless and decided to end life support. Nor would anyone blame the NHS for denying payment for expensive long-shot treatment. But again, they have the means to provide the care on their own. So what if it's only a 10% chance? Let them try it. If it works, and Charlie is able to have any meaningful improvment- that's wonderful. If not, he can still be allowed to die.

It seems to me that all the dragging ass on this is only making any possible treatment less likely to succeed as his muscles further deteriorate and prolonging his suffering if there is any. Why not just let them attempt the treatment and then have the issue behind us?

[Pannonian]

It's just all rather surreal to me that his parents and legal guardians have the means to try further treatment, well-respected doctors who think that it's worth trying and yet their government is telling them that they have to let their child die.

I don't think anyone would fault the parents if they decided his case was hopeless and decided to end life support. Nor would anyone blame the NHS for denying payment for expensive long-shot treatment. But again, they have the means to provide the care on their own. So what if it's only a 10% chance? Let them try it. If it works, and Charlie is able to have any meaningful improvment- that's wonderful. If not, he can still be allowed to die.

It seems to me that all the dragging ass on this is only making any possible treatment less likely to succeed as his muscles further deteriorate and prolonging his suffering if there is any. Why not just let them attempt the treatment and then have the issue behind us?

Thus transferring the blame on those denying the efficacy of the treatment rather than those charging an arm and leg for quackery. "The homeopathy would have totally worked if doctors hadn't delayed it by insisting there is no scientific proof of it working."

[Fragony]

If the treatment works that kid will never have a nice life. It may look nice but I see it as selfish to want it, there isn't anything Disney about it. How long do you want someone to be barily alive. I feel for the parents it must be horrible, but don't go all Frankenstein on it it's just mercy to just let it die