Topic: Charlie Gard - right to life case

[Jake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40554462

One of the biggest pieces of news at the minute is the tale of this poor lad. Born with a genetic condition, he's deaf, blind, can't breathe or eat, has serious brain damage and a whole host of organ problems.

His parents have fought tooth and nail for the right to take their son abroad for experimentally treatment. GOSH have said it won't work and in April the parents lost a court case and the hospital were given permission to start palliative care.

GOSH brought it back to the courts attention themselves when they received correspondence from two doctors, and the case is rumbling on in the courts.

So we have the parents wish for their child to receive treatment until the last breath, vs the hospital. My opinion probably isn't a popular one so I'll stay quiet for now, but it brings up a solid debate about right to life, trust in professionals (medial and the courts) interfence from other states (Vatican and Trump have both supported the family) and its hopefully a discussion that won't end in abuse from either side.

[Crimson_Tank]

This is a terribly complicated decision and then yet, it is also a very simple one.

On one hand, as a father, I would fight every inch over and over again for my lads right to live a life, injury or illness.

On the other hand, if the given information is correct then the child is not going to be able to live any kind of real life/meaningful existence. 

I agree that the parents should have petitioned the NHS, the first time at least, but subsequent times... I am not so sure... Still, if this was in the states, where I reside, I would be seeking every insurance possibility and avenue known... Hence why it is complicated.

Regardless of the outcome a precedent will be set by these proceedings, thus there is caution and concern.

It is a moving story but I find it hard to continue to push for someone to live when they are unable/incapable of ever recovering and leading any kind of actual life.

Still if it were my lads....

[Crimson_Tank]

As Le Jake points out in the thread title, the question should revolve around the "right to life" not the "right to live."

[JerseyKloppite]

It seems to be being driven by the media as an issue of parents' rights to make decisions on behalf of their children but I think that's not really the issue. The heart of it is that the parents seem to disagree significantly with a medical diagnosis from one of the best medical teams in the world with very little basis for their point of view.

No one would argue that parents have a right to make their children suffer unnecessarily.

It's a truly horrible situation and too many of the media commentators and campaigners seem woefully uninformed. I feel very sorry for the GOSH doctors and nurses at this time who are under horrendous media and public pressure simply for doing their jobs.

[cdav]

It seems to be being driven by the media as an issue of parents' rights to make decisions on behalf of their children but I think that's not really the issue. The heart of it is that the parents seem to disagree significantly with a medical diagnosis from one of the best medical teams in the world with very little basis for their point of view.

No one would argue that parents have a right to make their children suffer unnecessarily.

It's a truly horrible situation and too many of the media commentators and campaigners seem woefully uninformed. I feel very sorry for the GOSH doctors and nurses at this time who are under horrendous media and public pressure simply for doing their jobs.

Fully agree with this.

Sadly, it seems there are a number of 'hangers on' who have tagged onto the parents case and are using them to further their interests. US Christian group, The Vatican hospital (who have zero experience of treating this), doctors in the US who are proposing treatments that have never been trialled on either humans or animals- it just goes on and on.

GOSH is world renowned and provide fantastic care for thousands of children with the worst conditions, they are experienced and base their decisions on scientific evidence. Its best that a court decides these issues- if there is zero quality of life I don't think anyone should be kept alive artificially with no hope of recovery.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Am I right in thinking that the family have raised the funds to pay for the experimental treatment? If so, why not let it happen?

I feel really sorry for the parents. They have people, professionals, telling them that there are things that could save their child. They're obviously not going to let go when that's the case.

[JerseyKloppite]

Am I right in thinking that the family have raised the funds to pay for the experimental treatment? If so, why not let it happen?

I feel really sorry for the parents. They have people, professionals, telling them that there are things that could save their child. They're obviously not going to let go when that's the case.

Because the hospital's overwhelming medical evidence is that it is cruel to prolong the life of someone they consider to be in constant pain with no justification, as there is little if anything to suggest the trial will achieve anything.

This is the 'rights' point. The hospital owe their duty to the patient, not his parents, and the Court have intervened to appoint someone to represent the child to argue for his best interests which, 99.9% of information suggests, is moving him to palliative care.

It would set an awful precedent for parents to be allowed to subject their children to whatever medical treatment they liked regardless of the possibility of causing further suffering.

[Lfsea]

Am I right in thinking that the family have raised the funds to pay for the experimental treatment? If so, why not let it happen?

It's a question of whether a long flight and completely unproven treatment (which is so alpha as to have not been tested on mice) will cause any degree of unneccesary suffering to the child.

Charlie's mother (possibly her dad, but she seems to be carrying the message a little more), who is convinced that the boy is in no pain (medical reports have that he is so ill, brain damaged and unresponsive that they don't know when he is awake and asleep, so it is impossible to tell) feels that the trip to America should be allowed as a final throw of the dice. Doctors and other medical professionals are arguing that the degenerative nature of his illness, and the damage that has already been done to his brain and nervous system, means that not only is the process irreversible, but that the trip to America is, essentially, a folly to satisfy the whims of the parents, who are (understandably) grief stricken, but now lacking the necessary rationale to make a good decision about Charlie.

It's an absolutely awful situation, but I can't help but think it's a situation made more malleable through the media profile the parents have been bestowed. The parents have been allowed to take the decision back to the courts on a number of occasions now, and today were told that the evidence they claimed was new - and the reason the High Court challenge was allowed - was not new, and I believe it's because the NHS and medical teams are absolutely petrified of looking heartless, despite doing the very best for him and his welfare since he was born.

The absolute worst thing that can happen is that the poor boy would be used as a pawn in a wider battle, but it is starting to feel like that.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I agree that the parents should have petitioned the NHS, the first time at least, but subsequent times... I am not so sure... Still, if this was in the states, where I reside, I would be seeking every insurance possibility and avenue known... Hence why it is complicated.

If, you have have insurance, and if the insurers will pay. Insurance would not pay for 'experimental' treatments. Nor (pre-ACA) would Insurance pay beyond a lifetime payout limit (I expect this poor young boy would have exceeded that limit long ago).

I hold no direct criticism of the parents for doing all they can to extend their child's life (I think they are wrong, but understandably emotionally fraught) even if what they seek is unrealistic and considered against the best interests of the child by the medical profession. But that's why the courts should intervene.

What I do criticise is the Vatican and Trump for sticking their big noses into this. Both use the plight of the this poor boy and his family to further their own selfish agendas. Let the family, the hospital, and (if need be) the courts deal with this. I too am in the States, and although I know of the case, there is not a great deal of reporting about it here. I can just imagine the media circus there around this in the UK. Of course, this kind of media hysteria is common in the US too. Is there a country where it is not? If there is, I'd like to move there.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Because the hospital's overwhelming medical evidence is that it is cruel to prolong the life of someone they consider to be in constant pain with no justification, as there is little if anything to suggest the trial will achieve anything.

This is the 'rights' point. The hospital owe their duty to the patient, not his parents, and the Court have intervened to appoint someone to represent the child to argue for his best interests which, 99.9% of information suggests, is moving him to palliative care.

It would set an awful precedent for parents to be allowed to subject their children to whatever medical treatment they liked regardless of the possibility of causing further suffering.

There are great differences in the US with respect to the rights of children vs parents. In the UK (for now at least) and the EU, 'the best interests of the child' (and rightfully so) come before 'the rights of the parents'. In the US, (although not, as far as I know codified this way, but in practice) the 'rights of the parents' seem paramount. Children here are, effectively, treated as chattel.

[Red Beret]

Always seems to be arguments about this.  People have to go to court because they want to die; they go to court when they want to live.  We argued when we saw the docs had put a "DNR" sign at the bottom of me dad's bed.  I'm sure many of us here remember the hard decisions made over Tony Bland.

At the end of the day each case is unique and has to be decided on by its individual merits.

[thejbs]

It seems to be being driven by the media as an issue of parents' rights to make decisions on behalf of their children but I think that's not really the issue. The heart of it is that the parents seem to disagree significantly with a medical diagnosis from one of the best medical teams in the world with very little basis for their point of view.

No one would argue that parents have a right to make their children suffer unnecessarily.

It's a truly horrible situation and too many of the media commentators and campaigners seem woefully uninformed. I feel very sorry for the GOSH doctors and nurses at this time who are under horrendous media and public pressure simply for doing their jobs.

This is where my feelings are. 

Heartbreaking scenario, but the medical experts have to put the interests of the child above the interests of the parents. Prolonged suffering of the child is an awful thought.

[reddebs]

Medical science is both amazing and an absolute bastard. 

Without it that poor child wouldn't have survived but now he has there's a legal battle raging over whether he should be allowed to live or die anyway.

What a heart breaking mess 😢

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Not happy with those American tossers flying over and sticking their beaks in,especially that twat of a Reverand.

I don't blame the parents though,as a parent they will obviously grasping at any straw no matter what.

[Trada]

The story is so heartbreaking.

Horrible things like the judge wants the measurements of Charlies head, because the doctors are saying his body is growing but his head isn't, but the parents are saying thats not true.

Hate the fact the pro life people have got involved.

Just have a feeling its not going to end well, But I hope I'm wrong.

 

[thejbs]

The biggest mess will come when the boy, sadly and seemingly inevitably, succumbs to his illness.  Should it happen in palliative care without the US experimental treatment, the medical experts will be pilloried by an overly emotional public, fed by the media.  If the court ruling is overturned and he flies to the states for unsuccessful treatment, it'll be surely said that had he got there earlier he'd have lived. 

The second scenario is the most worrying as it will lead to both an outcry against the judiciary (at the highest levels) and doctors (again, at the highest levels). Even posing the question of the timeliness of treatment, as the media surely would, is dangerous. The current campaign has seen slogans such as 'Save Charlie Gard' which implies that the hospital and judiciary are willfully withholding treatment that would certainly save him.

The parent's most recent public statement is hitting emotional nerves across the country (and it is heartbreaking), but it dangerously undermines health professionals: "I think parents know when their children are ready to go and they've given up, and Charlie is still fighting."

The sad and simple truth is that parents don't know this with any certainty at all - the health-care professionals have a greater degree of certainty.  Charlie's mother said she 'believes' Charlie is not in pain, contrary to what medical professionals are saying.  Charlie's 'fighting' is down to machines feeding him and breathing for him. He can't "see, hear, touch, cry or swallow" according to doctors, and has "irrepairable brain damage and suffers fits." His parents refuse this expert opinion and are convinced that Charlie is responding to their voices and touch.

There's no 100% right or wrong answer to this case, it's not black and white as the media portray it, but the balance of the argument must be swayed towards expert opinion. It's very dangerous for us to undermine them.

And the Pope and Donald Trump can both fuck off. Millions of children are dying in the world as a direct result of the actions and inactions of both of these men.  Get your own house in order before you start meddling in issues that have nothing to do with you.

[Lfsea]

There's no 100% right or wrong answer to this case, it's not black and white as the media portray it, but the balance of the argument must be swayed towards expert opinion. It's very dangerous for us to undermine them.

One of my biggest issues with the case - and I feel that I can say this on here in a grown up discussion - is that the parents themselves are, consciously or not - undermining the medical profession with their emotional statements based entirely on their own will and feeling and not the findings of years of academic and medical research.

This case will almost certainly set a precendent for future instances of the treatment of incredibly sick, terminally ill young children so achieving an outcome which is fair, but also not financially crippling for the the NHS (cases like this simply can't happen every time a child has a degenerative illness with no hope of recovery, based on the whims of parents who refuse to give up hope) is absolutely critical one would imagine.


Edit:


Good example of the media angle of the case and the undermining of the two sacrosanct professions:

[thejbs]

That's disappointing from the Mirror.  I had seen an opinion piece shared from it that was critical of the pope's intervention.

[thelinnen]

Anti-intellectualism is getting out of control. The doctors have presented the parents with information on Charlie's condition and a judge has made the rational decision on it. He'd have no quality of life even if this treatment miraculously helped and would most likely be a vegetative patient for the rest of his life. Not to mention he's probably suffering in his current condition.

So obviously this is a chance for politicians and public figures to chip in and push their own agenda and turn it into a pro life argument and for idiots to declare that trained medical professionals are wrong with their ridiculous tinfoil hat theories. It's insane, we're heading towards idiocracy.

[stewil007]

. It's insane, we're heading towards idiocracy.

Heading for?  we're are slap bang in the middle of it.

These sort of things are just awful to contemplate - trying to be rational, you say that the kindest thing would be to let him go.  But as a parent, if i was in that predicament, and there was a one in a million chance of doing something, I would be doing everything i could to give him that chance.

It feels that there are no winners here, regardless of the outcome

[thelinnen]

Heading for?  we're are slap bang in the middle of it.

These sort of things are just awful to contemplate - trying to be rational, you say that the kindest thing would be to let him go.  But as a parent, if i was in that predicament, and there was a one in a million chance of doing something, I would be doing everything i could to give him that chance.

It feels that there are no winners here, regardless of the outcome

If I knew he was in pain, I'd pull the plug. No question.

[Alan_X]

As a counterpoint to the idea that parents somehow know what's best for their children:

Thirty-five people have died in the past year from measles outbreaks across Europe, the World Health Organization has warned.

It described the deaths - which can be prevented with vaccination - as an "unacceptable tragedy".

A six-year-old boy in Italy was the latest to die from the infection. More than 3,300 measles cases have been recorded in the country.

The most fatalities - 31 - have been in Romania.

But there have also been deaths in Germany and Portugal since June 2016.

Dr Zsuzsanna Jakab, the WHO regional director for Europe, said: "Every death or disability caused by this vaccine-preventable disease is an unacceptable tragedy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40568017

Front page headlines for Charlie Gard but a six year old dies from measles and no one gives a fuck. Measles for fucks sake. Because 'parents know best'.

[stewil007]

If I knew he was in pain, I'd pull the plug. No question.

i only hope that its something i never have to cross

[Bob Sacamano]

Because the hospital's overwhelming medical evidence is that it is cruel to prolong the life of someone they consider to be in constant pain with no justification, as there is little if anything to suggest the trial will achieve anything.

This is the 'rights' point. The hospital owe their duty to the patient, not his parents, and the Court have intervened to appoint someone to represent the child to argue for his best interests which, 99.9% of information suggests, is moving him to palliative care.

It would set an awful precedent for parents to be allowed to subject their children to whatever medical treatment they liked regardless of the possibility of causing further suffering.

While that may be a bad precedent, I think allowing the state to determine such things has the potential to be far, far worse. Obviously there are scenarios in which the state should intervene to protect a child from neglectful/abusive parents. But seeking experimental treatment that has a chance to help (according to other medical professionals, if I've understood the story correctly?), even if that chance is very low, seems a far cry from neglectful and abusive. It's just the opposite, in fact.

[JerseyKloppite]

While that may be a bad precedent, I think allowing the state to determine such things has the potential to be far, far worse. Obviously there are scenarios in which the state should intervene to protect a child from neglectful/abusive parents. But seeking experimental treatment that has a chance to help (according to other medical professionals, if I've understood the story correctly?), even if that chance is very low, seems a far cry from neglectful and abusive. It's just the opposite, in fact.

I don't think the state should arbitrarily intervene either but that's not what's happening. There's no suggestion that the GOSH experts aren't amongst the best in the world, or that the judges at every level, including the Supreme Court and the ECHR, have been anything other than considered and impartial. The NHS and the Courts don't take these decisions lightly.

I don't think you have a fair understanding of the story in all honesty. The US treatment provider suggested initially that, at best, it might halt the further spread of the symptoms of the condition, not cure it. But it's an experimental treatment that hasn't even been tried on mice, let alone humans. You might as well say that homeopathy might be effective. The enormous, overwhelming weight of evidence is that it will not assist, and even if it could assist more generally it will not exist given the development of the condition. And, if there's a tiny, miniscule chance it does, no one is saying it will give the child any quality of life given that he has already suffered significant brain damage etc.

The only reason the parents think it will work is that they don't agree with the diagnosis, which seems to be nothing more than blind faith and a refusal to accept facts as presented to them by those far more qualified.

I wouldn't describe their actions as neglectful or abusive, but I would say that they were misguided and that due to the tragic nature of the situation they can no longer make informed, objective decisions based on the evidence available to them, and that this seems likely to be causing suffering to the child.

[Jake]

Whilst I sympathise with the parents and their child, I do feel what they are doing is inadvertently neglectful and abusive.

The child is so brain damaged and generally unwell that he has nothing in his life. He's not had the opportunity to experience so he's not even able to develop thought. There are no dreams, there are no emotions other than pain. The possibility of treatment isn't going to cure him, it's going to level him out in this permanent pain life with no experience or thought. It's horrific and I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy

[whiteboots]

One of the most measured, balanced, sane, collection of posts I have seen on a controversial subject on RAWK.


I do not blame the parents, I back the Doctors and judge, I am dismayed at the bandwagon jumpers.

[Rhi]

If, you have have insurance, and if the insurers will pay. Insurance would not pay for 'experimental' treatments. Nor (pre-ACA) would Insurance pay beyond a lifetime payout limit (I expect this poor young boy would have exceeded that limit long ago).

I hold no direct criticism of the parents for doing all they can to extend their child's life (I think they are wrong, but understandably emotionally fraught) even if what they seek is unrealistic and considered against the best interests of the child by the medical profession. But that's why the courts should intervene.

What I do criticise is the Vatican and Trump for sticking their big noses into this. Both use the plight of the this poor boy and his family to further their own selfish agendas. Let the family, the hospital, and (if need be) the courts deal with this. I too am in the States, and although I know of the case, there is not a great deal of reporting about it here. I can just imagine the media circus there around this in the UK. Of course, this kind of media hysteria is common in the US too. Is there a country where it is not? If there is, I'd like to move there.

I agree with all of this. The added strand to your first paragraph is that they are actually seeking to have the FDA in the US rush through an approval on a treatment never before tested on humans. And that's what they want to put that poor child through. Because they think that something that has never been tried before might miraculously give that poor child another few months of that "life" he's living now. And if it doesn't work? What happens then? Can they afford to continue his palliative care in the US? Who gets Charlie back to the UK? What then? Shame on all those groups pushing that agenda. Like others above, it's hard to blame the parents, but you can blame those around them who are pushing this stuff.

A friend works at GOSH and there have been groups outside for weeks now. Last week she sent me an image of someone holding a poster that said "God formed the family". As if it wasn't entirely down to medical science that the poor kid is alive.

[thejbs]

I've argued with Catholic cousins who follow the Church line that couples can't have IVF to conceive but are then OK to avail of medical treatment for illnesses. That sort of religious cherry-picking is done by those camped outside the hospital.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

For me there is a significant inconsistency in the law where adults who are acknowledged to have full capacity are not trusted to make the decision to end their own lives in the face of degenerative health conditions but in the case of a child with no voice of his own it is fine for a best interests guardian/doctors to make that choice on their behalf.

That's just a general observation - in this particular situation it seems that even the 'new' evidence is saying that there might be a 10% chance of prolonging his life somewhat but with no prospect of reversing what by all accounts is already irreversible and significant brain damage. It's obviously horrendous for his parents but it feels like it is at a point where they need to let the poor little lad go peacefully.   

[thelinnen]

For me there is a significant inconsistency in the law where adults who are acknowledged to have full capacity are not trusted to make the decision to end their own lives in the face of degenerative health conditions but in the case of a child with no voice of his own it is fine for a best interests guardian/doctors to make that choice on their behalf.

That's just a general observation - in this particular situation it seems that even the 'new' evidence is saying that there might be a 10% chance of prolonging his life somewhat but with no prospect of reversing what by all accounts is already irreversible and significant brain damage. It's obviously horrendous for his parents but it feels like it is at a point where they need to let the poor little lad go peacefully.

I see what you mean but this isn't euthanasia. He's on life support so has already suffered from that health condition, it's a different debate. Doesn't stop the pro life wackos from getting involved though.

[Golden_Child]

I totally sympathise with the parents as this must be agonising for them but really the US should be looked at as a warning of the potential pitfalls of what could happen in the future if parents are given the arbitrary right to overrule medical professionals.

There have been countless occasions where parents have refused treatment for their kids (usually along religious lines) and the children have suffered unnecessarily. The mental anti vax movement has already begun having an impact on herd immunity and I hope that the judge upholds the original decision for the sake of future children.

Also, I feel very sorry for the medical staff who are receiving so much grief for doing what they feel is best for the poor boy.

Hopefully the parents can come to terms with it all in time and move past this awful situation.

[So… Howard Philips]

There are protesters outside Great Ormond Street leading to complaints from the parents of other sick children.

Some of these so called supporters have jumped on a bandwagon and are now upsetting other parents and abusing medical staff on social media.

[Trada]

Statement from Chairman of Great Ormond Street Hospital, 22 July 2017

22 July 2017

Statement from Mary MacLeod, Chairman of Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Mary MacLeod, Chairman of Great Ormond Street Hospital said:

"Great Ormond Street Hospital cares for many thousands of seriously unwell children every year, providing outstanding treatment for those who need it most.

Charlie Gard's case is a heart-breaking one. We fully understand that there is intense public interest, and that emotions run high.

We recognise the tireless advocacy of Charlie's loving parents and the natural sympathy people feel with his situation.

However, in recent weeks the GOSH community has been subjected to a shocking and disgraceful tide of hostility and disturbance. Staff have received abuse both in the street and online. Thousands of abusive messages have been sent to doctors and nurses whose life's work is to care for sick children. Many of these messages are menacing, including death threats. Families have been harassed and discomforted while visiting their children, and we have received complaints of unacceptable behaviour even within the hospital itself.

Whatever the strong emotions raised by this case, there can be no excuse for patients and families to have their privacy and peace disturbed as they deal with their own often very stressful situations or for dedicated doctors and nurses to suffer this kind of abuse.

Great Ormond Street Hospital is in close contact with the Metropolitan Police and we will do everything possible to hold to account anybody who involved in this kind of deplorable behaviour.”

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/statement-chairman-great-ormond-street-hospital-22-july-2017

[cdav]

Statement from Chairman of Great Ormond Street Hospital, 22 July 2017

22 July 2017

Statement from Mary MacLeod, Chairman of Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Mary MacLeod, Chairman of Great Ormond Street Hospital said:

"Great Ormond Street Hospital cares for many thousands of seriously unwell children every year, providing outstanding treatment for those who need it most.

Charlie Gard's case is a heart-breaking one. We fully understand that there is intense public interest, and that emotions run high.

We recognise the tireless advocacy of Charlie's loving parents and the natural sympathy people feel with his situation.

However, in recent weeks the GOSH community has been subjected to a shocking and disgraceful tide of hostility and disturbance. Staff have received abuse both in the street and online. Thousands of abusive messages have been sent to doctors and nurses whose life's work is to care for sick children. Many of these messages are menacing, including death threats. Families have been harassed and discomforted while visiting their children, and we have received complaints of unacceptable behaviour even within the hospital itself.

Whatever the strong emotions raised by this case, there can be no excuse for patients and families to have their privacy and peace disturbed as they deal with their own often very stressful situations or for dedicated doctors and nurses to suffer this kind of abuse.

Great Ormond Street Hospital is in close contact with the Metropolitan Police and we will do everything possible to hold to account anybody who involved in this kind of deplorable behaviour.”

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/statement-chairman-great-ormond-street-hospital-22-july-2017

What is wrong with these people that you would abuse medical professionals who care for some of the sickest children? Absoutely disgraceful, hope the police find those responsible and an example is made of them.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Statement from Chairman of Great Ormond Street Hospital, 22 July 2017

22 July 2017

Statement from Mary MacLeod, Chairman of Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Mary MacLeod, Chairman of Great Ormond Street Hospital said:

"Great Ormond Street Hospital cares for many thousands of seriously unwell children every year, providing outstanding treatment for those who need it most.

Charlie Gard's case is a heart-breaking one. We fully understand that there is intense public interest, and that emotions run high.

We recognise the tireless advocacy of Charlie's loving parents and the natural sympathy people feel with his situation.

However, in recent weeks the GOSH community has been subjected to a shocking and disgraceful tide of hostility and disturbance. Staff have received abuse both in the street and online. Thousands of abusive messages have been sent to doctors and nurses whose life's work is to care for sick children. Many of these messages are menacing, including death threats. Families have been harassed and discomforted while visiting their children, and we have received complaints of unacceptable behaviour even within the hospital itself.

Whatever the strong emotions raised by this case, there can be no excuse for patients and families to have their privacy and peace disturbed as they deal with their own often very stressful situations or for dedicated doctors and nurses to suffer this kind of abuse.

Great Ormond Street Hospital is in close contact with the Metropolitan Police and we will do everything possible to hold to account anybody who involved in this kind of deplorable behaviour.”

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/statement-chairman-great-ormond-street-hospital-22-july-2017

Didn't need saying,we all know the great work that the world leading GOSH does for children from all around the world.

The Yanks that decided that this was a fight worth having can get to fuck,sort your own house out before you neb into ours,bastard vultures.I hope that people go to jail over this and the pro-life twats from outside of our borders are given life bans from ever entering our island again.

[Red-Soldier]

I personally find the whole thing disgusting and immoral.

I can sympathise with the parents, however, their child is in such a poorly state, the best thing for him is to be left to die.  The doctors act in the best interests of their patients, not against them.

As for the people who are abusing the medical staff, I don't really need to say what I what think of them.

[Something Else]

This story is just so incredibly sad. those who have jumped on the bandwagon, some for political, social, economic gain, others through support to family, misplaced or fair, have made this a terrible situation.

I can't begin to think what the parents are going through, but I can't fathom that all this is actually helping other than creating a distraction from what must be a hell experience.

Those threatening staff or visitors to the hospital are disgusting. I wonder how many of those jumping on the bandwagon understand the full story and the reason for the hospitals decision?

[thejbs]

People who are 'pro-life' giving death threats. 

[PaulF]

I am surprised GOSH are intervening to prevent treatment. They must be very confident nothing can be done for the poor child. I do feel terribly sorry for the poor parents too. I think there's an element of not being able to U-turn too. When you've fought so hard for something you can't give up, nor be seen to give up. It's easy for us to sit and say, 'time to let him go' , but I can understand while they believe there's hope they'll try anything.  What I struggle to understand is why Gosh are opposed to an attempt to help him. I guess they figure there is only a tiny, tiny chance of help, and in the meantime the poor lad is suffering.

The politics\media\etc, I can't get my head around.

(If in any way this post sounds critical of GOSH, I assure, that's not my intention).