# The Charlie Gard case(terminally ill baby and parental rights) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664 "2017-07-07T02:07:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/101 "2017-07-08T03:00:38Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > Sure it would be great to leave the child in a vegetative state for years, building up all those beautiful profit- making bills, giving the very lost parents totally false hope. Er… isn’t this kid in the UK? How the hell would the doctors “profit” off treating the kid under the NHS? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/102 "2017-07-08T03:12:00Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > My apologies for assuming that people would understand that when I speak of euthanasia, I am referring to the modern euthanasia movement, and not the _fucking nazis_. Now that the well is thoroughly poisoned, would anyone like to see if they can figure out if there’s any real difference between “it should be possible to die with dignity instead of holding out for a deadly, incurable, painful disease to take its course” and “anyone who isn’t Aryan doesn’t really deserve to live”, and then hazard a guess which position I hold? The 1930’s is not some ancient age, there are people still alive today who directly experienced them. It is part of the “modern” era. > [@](#): > > I’m a little confused here. When have the principles of the modern “right to death” movement ever slipped down into the kind of genocidal euthanasia practiced by the nazis? [Jack Kevorkian.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian#Conviction_and_imprisonment) Granted, he didn’t have the death toll of the Nazis but he was just one guy working on a shoestring. > [@](#): > > The problem with old-school euthanasia was not “We started allowing people to end their lives, and ending the lives of those who could not choose to do so due to the progress of their terminal diseases in order to prevent suffering, and slowly but surely our definition of what was worth killing crept up until we were just murdering everyone who wasn’t physically and mentally fit”. The problem with old-school euthanasia was that it _started_ at “let’s kill everyone who isn’t physically and mentally fit”, and had some utterly grotesque definitions of what that might have meant. That’s not slipping down a slippery slope, that’s starting by rolling in the mud at the bottom of a hill. Nope, it actually did start with terminally ill and hopeless cases. Then, as you yourself point out, it snowballed out of control. Please go back and review the actual history. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/103 "2017-07-08T13:19:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The idea that a patient must die seems to be a rather novel interpretation of “their clinical duty”. He is dying anyway; there is no cure for his condition, which has already apparently caused irreversible brain damage. The issue at stake is how he will die, and with what form of care is now in his best interests. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/104 "2017-07-08T13:25:58Z")
And I don’t think anyone has so far added to the thread what the original court judgment actually laid out as facts in the case and the judge’s consequent reasoning: [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/972.html](http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/972.html) ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/105 "2017-07-08T14:01:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The idea that a patient must die seems to be a rather novel interpretation of “their clinical duty”. I don’t think you get it. We can’t fix everything. It’s not that anyone wants the kid to die, it’s that he’s dying and there’s nothing we can do to stop that. The experimental treatment isn’t going to save his life, it _might_ extend it slightly and allow a tiny bit more functioning but the kid is still going to spend the rest of his life in a hospital. At a certain point you need to recognize that death is inevitable. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > However, it wold seem that is the parents’ decision to make. We’re not talking about an adult with a DO NOT RESUSCITATE document one can reference. An adult does not need a DNR in advance, at least in the US - the person who is delegated to make decisions on behalf of a patient who can no make their own decisions can make that decision and sign the document. Parents, of course, can do the same for their children when circumstances are appropriate. Regrettably, I have had recent personal experience with this. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/106 "2017-07-08T14:03:42Z")
[quote=“adaher, post:30, topic:790664”] > [@Bone](#): > > Questions or comments about moderation belong in ATMB. Feel free to open a thread in ATMB if you wish to discuss further. No more in this thread. > > [/moderating] You want to hide behind this bollocks AGAIN, you sniveling little shit? If you’re not up to the job, just fuck off. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/107 "2017-07-08T14:12:25Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > He is dying anyway; there is no cure for his condition, which has already apparently caused irreversible brain damage. The issue at stake is how he will die, and with what form of care is now in his best interests. Which in civilized countries, is a decision to be made by the parents. Should the state of Florida determined what was in the best interests of Terry Schiavo? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/108 "2017-07-08T14:18:54Z")
> [@Bert\_Nobbins](#): > > I assume you don’t live in the UK. You should know that here, if there’s one institution that we cherish and trust in, it is the NHS, and comments like this would be considered not only offensive but irrational. > > Yesterday I brought my partner back from a minor operation at an NHS hospital. > It wasn’t perfect for her- there was a bit too much waiting around- but there is no doubt she got 1st-class care for free. She’s a senior nurse herself so she knows. > > Perhaps you have some sort of bad feelings for UHC. Here we would be terrified of living without it. We don’t have the term ‘medical bankruptcy’ in the UK. What do you think this boy’s parents think? Or the relatives of the thousands who have been dehydrated to death by British hospitals? How in the world is the NHS not bankrupted from all the lawsuits? > **[Thousands dying of thirst on NHS: Watchdog forced to issue guidelines on...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403501/Thousands-dying-thirst-NHS-Watchdog-forced-issue-guidelines-giving-patients-water.html)** > > NHS officials have calculated up to 42,000 deaths a year would be avoided if staff ensured patients had enough to drink and carried out simple tests. NHS is sacred to most Brits, I get it. But just because it’s basically replaced the Church of England as the source of faith of the British people doesn’t mean us outsiders have to worship at its altar. Only in a state hospital would a person be essentially taken prisoner, and that’s only possible because the taxpayers are paying the bill. A private hospital would never hold a child against the parents’ will for months. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/109 "2017-07-08T14:24:49Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The 1930’s is not some ancient age, there are people still alive today who directly experienced them. It is part of the “modern” era. I don’t think my distinction is unreasonable or hard to understand. > [@](#): > > [Jack Kevorkian.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian#Conviction_and_imprisonment) Granted, he didn’t have the death toll of the Nazis but he was just one guy working on a shoestring. And how many people did he kill who didn’t want to die and who weren’t suffering from terminal illnesses? I can’t see any listed on his wikipedia page. > [@](#): > > Nope, it actually did start with terminally ill and hopeless cases. Then, as you yourself point out, it snowballed out of control. > > Please go back and review the actual history. Looking through the wikipedia entry on Aktion T-4, I find: The term “Aktion T4” came into use after the war, before that German terminology included Euthanasie (euthanasia) and Gnadentod (merciful death).[7] The T4 programme stemmed from the Nazi Party policy of “racial hygiene”, a belief that the German people needed to be cleansed of racial enemies, which included people with disabilities as well as anyone who was confined to a mental health facility.[20] The euthanasia programme was part of the evolution of the policy of administrative murder that culminated in the extermination of Jews of Europe during the Nazi genocides. In his book Mein Kampf (1924), Hitler wrote that one day racial hygiene: “will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era”.[21][22] The idea of sterilising those carrying hereditary defects or exhibiting what was thought to be hereditary “antisocial” behaviour was widely accepted. Canada, Denmark, Switzerland and the US had passed laws for the coerced sterilisation of people before Germany. Studies conducted in the 1920s ranked Germany as a country that was unusually reluctant to introduce sterilisation legislation.[23] The policy and research agenda of racial hygiene and eugenics were promoted by Emil Kraepelin.[24] The eugenic sterilization of persons diagnosed with (and viewed as predisposed to) schizophrenia was advocated by Eugene Bleuler, who presumed racial deterioration because of mental and physical cripples in his Textbook of Psychiatry.[25][26][27] No, that really doesn’t sound much like the modern euthanasia movement. It sounds like people thought that certain humans were “defective” and unworthy of life, and that those people should be sterilized or killed. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/110 "2017-07-08T14:59:22Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > You want to hide behind this bollocks AGAIN, you sniveling little shit? > > If you’re not up to the job, just fuck off. This is a warning for failing to follow moderator instructions. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/111 "2017-07-08T15:07:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What do you think this boy’s parents think? Or the relatives of the thousands who have been dehydrated to death by British hospitals? How in the world is the NHS not bankrupted from all the lawsuits? > > [Thousands dying of thirst on NHS: Watchdog forced to issue guidelines on giving patients water | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403501/Thousands-dying-thirst-NHS-Watchdog-forced-issue-guidelines-giving-patients-water.html) Before I even bother reading that link, do you have a source that isn’t a garbage tabloid whose trustworthiness is akin to Breitbart’s? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/112 "2017-07-08T15:30:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What do you think this boy’s parents think? Or the relatives of the thousands who have been dehydrated to death by British hospitals? The link is to people with acute injury or illness who, in fact, neglected. It is NOT about terminal patients. If such neglect it occurring it should be corrected but from what I read it’s not relevant to discontinuing life support at end of life. There comes a point where many, if not most, terminal people _cease to feel thirst_. Or hunger. As the body shuts down those urges cease. If you force water and food at that point the body won’t utilize it and you run a real risk of making the person more uncomfortable. Forcing food and hydration is justifiable when there’s hope of recovery. When there is no longer hope of recovery and the body has started to shut down it is kinder to let things happen without intervention. But why listen to me? I’ve only sat at the deathbeds of a half dozen relatives, occasionally signed DNR’s, and had to make very hard decisions about people I love and care for. > [@](#): > > How in the world is the NHS not bankrupted from all the lawsuits? Most places are not as sue-happy as the US, and most people understand the concept that at a certain point death is going to happen and doctors are not in a conspiracy to torture their patients. > [@](#): > > Only in a state hospital would a person be essentially taken prisoner, and that’s only possible because the taxpayers are paying the bill. A private hospital would never hold a child against the parents’ will for months. Sure it would, if it argue that the parent(s) could not adequately care for the child at home and sending the child home would endanger it, and get a judge to agree. You have this quaint notion the parents are always right and money trumps everything, both assumptions being wrong. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And how many people did he kill who didn’t want to die and who weren’t suffering from terminal illnesses? I can’t see any listed on his wikipedia page. As a matter of fact, I was working as a long term disability analyst during Kevorkian’s active phase when he killed one of the people on my caseload. Privacy laws prevent me from giving any personal details, but it was completely impossible for the woman to communicate any form of consent to anything and Dr. Death’s statement that she had is a flat-out lie. He killed murdered her, plain and simple, but because so may people would have found her state of existence horrific he got a pass on it. If he had stuck to people who actually WERE able to think and communicate I wouldn’t get so pissed off about it. If there had been enough honesty to say “her husband gave consent on her behalf” I’d still think it wrong but I wouldn’t be quite so pissed off about it but no, Kevorkian had to flat out lie and say an incommunicado patient had given her consent. He killed and he lied about it. What a pieces of human filth. In actual fact, he WAS convicted of second-degree murder in regards to a later killing so it’s not just me who thinks he was a serial killer. Wikipedia is a START. It is not my job to force-feed you facts. Since you don’t get that, use the further references at the bottom of the wiki entry to extend your knowledge. But please note: > [@](#): > > The euthanasia programme was part of the **evolution** of the policy of administrative murder This cesspit didn’t start with Aktion T4, Aktion T4 was but one step among many and not the start of the path down the slippery slope. > [@](#): > > No, that really doesn’t sound much like the modern euthanasia movement. It sounds like people thought that certain humans were “defective” and unworthy of life, and that those people should be sterilized or killed. Yes, and we have people here advocating doctors killing patients. It’s one link in the chain. That’s what you’re not grasping - it doesn’t _start_ with something like Aktion T4, it starts with allowing the active killing of patients who ask for it or give consent, then moves to a committee (or Jack Kevorkian) deciding it’s OK to deliberately cause the death of a people who can’t communicate, then killing patients out of “mercy” without consulting the people who are actually affected i.e. the patients, after which you move to killing people without their consent for the “greater good” or some such. Studies have revealed time and time again that doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, not to mention the general public, typically rate the quality of life of someone disabled or with a severe illness as significantly worse than the actual affected person does. We should be ultra-cautious in those cases where we are deciding on behalf of someone else and err on the side of “do no harm”. Deliberately killing ill people should be forbidden. Right now in this world we have examples of “let ill people kill themselves” and even “have someone kill the ill person based on consent by someone”, with Kevorkian (thank Og) still be an outlier. That’s as actually farther than I want to go on that slope, and certainly no farther. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/113 "2017-07-08T15:34:21Z")
We have plenty of examples in the western world alone of individuals in hospitals deciding that they need to be the Angel of Death for the suffering and becoming mass murderers. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/114 "2017-07-08T15:49:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m not familiar with the former case, but in the Schiavo case there was never any question of the government having a say in her treatment. That was an interfamilial dispute. Really? Then let me refresh your memory with this article called “[Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case)”, which begins by stating that “the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, of both the United States federal government and the State of Florida, were involved in the case of Terri Schiavo”. The thing became a circus of blundering government interventionism; for instance: … on October 15, Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed for the second time. On October 21, the Florida Legislature, in emergency session, passed “Terri’s Law”.This gave Florida Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Gov. Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted. On May 19, 2004, Florida Judge W. Douglas Baird overturned the law saying that it “summarily deprived Florida citizens of their right to privacy.” Bush appealed the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court … the Florida Supreme Court, on September 23, 2004, reached a unanimous decision, ruling that the legislative and executive branches of government unconstitutionally intervened in a judicial matter … … Nineteen different Florida state court judges, at various times, considered the Schindlers’ requests on appeal in six state appellate courts. … On March 21, Congress passed a bill, S.686, that allowed Schiavo’s case to be moved into a federal court. The controversial law is colloquially known as the Palm Sunday Compromise. It passed the Senate on Sunday afternoon unanimously, 3-0, with 97 of 100 Senators not present. Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, deliberation ran from 9pm EST to just past midnight during an unusual Sunday session. The bill was passed 203-58 (156 Republicans and 47 Democrats in favor, 5 Republicans and 53 Democrats against), with 174 Representatives (74 Republicans and 100 Democrats) not present on the floor at the time of the vote at 12:41 a.m. EST. President Bush returned from vacation in Crawford, Texas to sign the bill into law at 1:11 that morning. … Several members of the United States Congress who are also physicians, including Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) on March 17, 2005 offered medical opinions about her medical condition without having conducted their own examinations. > [@adaher](#): > > And please, don’t try to tell me that the NHS has nothing to do with this. The fact that the government pays for it is everything in this case. If the Gards were paying for his care they’d have control over whether he stayed in the hospital or not. The NHS – and specifically, public health care funding – has nothing to do with this. As in the Schiavo case noted above, and as played out in numerous court cases in countries with universal public health care, the rights of the terminally ill are a completely separate legal and ethical issue. It’s about law and medical ethics, not who pays for health care. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/115 "2017-07-08T16:43:55Z")
To me, the issue is just getting him to a hospital that is willing to treat him. The parents need to pay for that, too. And they need to find doctors who are willing to do it–even if they have to import them. They are not entitled to make anyone do this, nor to make someone else pay for it. I don’t find the suffering argument too compelling, because I agree he is probably not yet conscious, both because of age and the disease. You can’t suffer if you aren’t aware. You would need to show me that the child is suffering before I could accept that argument. I don’t find **adaher** ’s argument about death panels too compelling either, due to this being decided by doctors, not insurance (public or private) that doesn’t want to pay. I do actually somewhat agree with **Fenris** that doctors work for the patient or whoever has the power of attorney\*, which, in the case of a minor, is their legal guardian. When my grandpa was put in the hospital, they thought he had no chance, but Mom overrode that. And he survived for another couple of years, and was not in pain until the very end. \*There’s a different word I want, but I can’t think of it. I mean the person that is entitled to make medical decisions on the person’s behalf. In the case of an adult, this is usually decided by a living will or next of kin in absence of that. In the case of a minor, this is usually the guardian. It is never the doctor. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/116 "2017-07-08T16:50:23Z")
The [FAQ](http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case) at GOSH is worth reading. Some relevant quotes: "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. " … "One of the factors that influenced this decision was that _ **Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred.** _ The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and _ **the consultant instructed by the parents** _ all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit." ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/117 "2017-07-08T17:07:35Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > The [FAQ](http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case) at GOSH is worth reading. > > Some relevant quotes: > > "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. " > > … > > "One of the factors that influenced this decision was that _ **Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred.** _ > > The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and _ **the consultant instructed by the parents** _ all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit." Yeah, I’ve brought it up about 3 or 4 times now that the neurologist who was to perform the experimental treatment did not suggest this would save Charlie’s life. Most seem to be somehow missing or ignoring this point. His argument seemed to be it was compassionate to try to give the boy some semblance of conciousness before he dies. I am dubious as to how compassionate that really is. There is one rational reason for trying. This is a rare disorder and finding test subjects doesn’t happen every day. He could be doing future children a real service by letting us study the results of this therapy. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/118 "2017-07-08T18:34:14Z")
**Wolfpup** , thanks for posting the info about Schiavo. I knew **Adaher** was glossing over the government involvelement, but having been on the Boards during the Great Schiavo Upheaval, I wasn’t inclined to go looking looking for rebuttal info. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/119 "2017-07-08T18:41:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Really? Then let me refresh your memory with this article called “[Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case)”, which begins by stating that “the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, of both the United States federal government and the State of Florida, were involved in the case of Terri Schiavo”. The thing became a circus of blundering government interventionism; for instance: > … on October 15, Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed for the second time. On October 21, the Florida Legislature, in emergency session, passed “Terri’s Law”.This gave Florida Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Gov. Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted. On May 19, 2004, Florida Judge W. Douglas Baird overturned the law saying that it “summarily deprived Florida citizens of their right to privacy.” Bush appealed the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court … the Florida Supreme Court, on September 23, 2004, reached a unanimous decision, ruling that the legislative and executive branches of government unconstitutionally intervened in a judicial matter … > > … Nineteen different Florida state court judges, at various times, considered the Schindlers’ requests on appeal in six state appellate courts. > > … On March 21, Congress passed a bill, S.686, that allowed Schiavo’s case to be moved into a federal court. The controversial law is colloquially known as the Palm Sunday Compromise. It passed the Senate on Sunday afternoon unanimously, 3-0, with 97 of 100 Senators not present. Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, deliberation ran from 9pm EST to just past midnight during an unusual Sunday session. The bill was passed 203-58 (156 Republicans and 47 Democrats in favor, 5 Republicans and 53 Democrats against), with 174 Representatives (74 Republicans and 100 Democrats) not present on the floor at the time of the vote at 12:41 a.m. EST. President Bush returned from vacation in Crawford, Texas to sign the bill into law at 1:11 that morning. > > … Several members of the United States Congress who are also physicians, including Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) on March 17, 2005 offered medical opinions about her medical condition without having conducted their own examinations. > > The NHS – and specifically, public health care funding – has nothing to do with this. As in the Schiavo case noted above, and as played out in numerous court cases in countries with universal public health care, the rights of the terminally ill are a completely separate legal and ethical issue. It’s about law and medical ethics, not who pays for health care. Except none of that would have transpired had there not been an intra-family dispute. The husband wanted to pull the plug, but the parents didn’t want to. The parents took it to court and appealed to the legislature. That’s quite different from the government stepping in of its own accord contrary to the wishes of the family. Life support is disconnected from patients every day in the US without incident as long as there isn’t some dispute among the family. In the Schiavo case, not parental dispute, no government intervention. Now, I don’t for minute think that there was not a whole lot of grandstanding at all levels of government. But the cases are not similar. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2017, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664/120 "2017-07-08T18:47:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Except none of that would have transpired had there not been an intra-family dispute. The husband wanted to pull the plug, but the parents didn’t want to. The parents took it to court and appealed to the legislature. That’s quite different from the government stepping in of its own accord contrary to the wishes of the family. Life support is disconnected from patients every day in the US without incident as long as there isn’t some dispute among the family. In the Schiavo case, not parental dispute, no government intervention. What adaher said was “but in the Schiavo case there was never any question of the government having a say in her treatment” which is patently false. The Florida legislature and the Governor picked a side in the familial dispute and enacted legislation and executive orders to choose the outcome. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-charlie-gard-case-terminally-ill-baby-and-parental-rights/790664.md?page=7)