Charlie Gard

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Frankly, I don't think either this American Professor of Great Ormond street come out of this looking good.

On the one hand the case has certainly damaged the reputation of the Hospital, the moment you set yourself against Pope Francis on any moral question you have taken a losing ticket. On the other hand, the American Professor clearly has vested professional and financial interests in the case.

Take a look at this time line: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...le-to-save-him

Charlie Gard has been argued over in the Courts for five months. In analysing the case from a moral standpoint we have to consider what his chances might have been five months ago had he been treated then. Not what his chances would have been last month.

Five months ago the American treatment would, perhaps, have arrested his decline and allowed him some quality of life. At that point the argument was that he "wasn't learning to see" because he couldn't open his eyes (his father posted a pic on Twitter with his eyes open) and not that he had massive brain damage.

It was a forgone conclusion that if Great Ormond Street could hold the parents off long enough then nature would "prove them right" and looking back to March this looks to me like the Hospital refusing a challenge to its authority and denying the parents the right to a Hail Mary which might have left their son with some quality of life.

So, in conclusion, I would say that all the medics involved are morally compromised.

[Strike For The South]

Sad story, but life is trade offs.

[Montmorency]

Frankly, I don't think either this American Professor of Great Ormond street come out of this looking good.

On the one hand the case has certainly damaged the reputation of the Hospital, the moment you set yourself against Pope Francis on any moral question you have taken a losing ticket. On the other hand, the American Professor clearly has vested professional and financial interests in the case.

Take a look at this time line: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...le-to-save-him

Charlie Gard has been argued over in the Courts for five months. In analysing the case from a moral standpoint we have to consider what his chances might have been five months ago had he been treated then. Not what his chances would have been last month.

Five months ago the American treatment would, perhaps, have arrested his decline and allowed him some quality of life. At that point the argument was that he "wasn't learning to see" because he couldn't open his eyes (his father posted a pic on Twitter with his eyes open) and not that he had massive brain damage.

It was a forgone conclusion that if Great Ormond Street could hold the parents off long enough then nature would "prove them right" and looking back to March this looks to me like the Hospital refusing a challenge to its authority and denying the parents the right to a Hail Mary which might have left their son with some quality of life.

So, in conclusion, I would say that all the medics involved are morally compromised.

The timeline between you and Pannonian doesn't mention what exactly happened with Dr. Hirano (the experimental treatment purveyor) in January and after. Did he decline to visit and evaluate the patient because the treatment would have been expensive, the NHS would not fund it out of hand, and the parents had not yet raised a sufficient amount on their own? Other than pecuniary matters, I figured scientists promulgating experimental treatments take great interest in potential test cases, and this seemed sufficient for me to explain why he was speaking out of turn from the US recently. So is it on record why Dr. Hirano didn't take up the case in the beginning of the year?