No one is “taking” this kid’s life. The kid is dying and there’s no treatment that will change that.
Best case is a delay in death, and even then, the kid’s current condition is almost certainly not going to change.
If there’s a “chance” here it’s probably a lot less than one in a million.
Mucho if I were Bill Gates…none of I were me. 
No. No doctor should be compelled to provide treatment that they find objectionable (including performing abortions) under any circumstances.
But luckily, there are several doctors and hospitals who have volunteered to help try to save the baby. Except that the hospital is holding the baby captive. They won’t treat the kid and they won’t let anyone else treat the infant.
Best case is always a delay in death. Immortality is not yet a thing. Death is a sideffect of birth.
My only opposition to the Court’s decision has been simply due to the very young age of the child. I think that precedents in this case, typically based on cases of elderly or at least adult terminal patients should not control this case.
Yes, a cure is a long shot. However, unlike an 85-year-old vegetative grandpa, who has already lived a full life, this is a baby who has never has a life. Give the little blighter a shot. Gramps might live a year or two at best. Charlie will die anyway if nothing is done. A 1 in a million chance of recovery is better than a zero chance, having never had a life at all. His parents have the money.
I agree Courts should decide. I feel the get the balance wrong in this case.
So the parents are going to ignore the fact that traveling will cause their child great pain(and might even kill him before they arrive) to grab a whisper of a ghost of a chance that an experimental treatment might(at best) reduce a bit of they pain they themselves just caused by moving him? So fucking what if they’ve got the money-their child isn’t going to suffer any less for it, but they get to say “At least we did something!” and people will treat them as martyrs…for doing something that would get them condemned by the same supporters if they had done the same thing to their pet.
What do you think the motivations are of the medical team in this situation?
You make it sound like they’re just going to toss the kid in a corner and ignore him. They are treating the kid - but they’re giving palliative care rather than curative because there isn’t a curative treatment for what ails him.
From what I gather the objection isn’t to him getting the treatment, it’s to moving him. He’d basically need a mobile intensive care unit for transport and there’s no guarantee he’d survive the trip. Has anyone considered bringing the treatment to the kid? Is that a possible solution?
Too fucking vague.
How much longer?
How much less pain?
Will I be aware that I lived longer?
By the way, your question is wrong. It should be"How much suffering are you willing to put another person through for a small chance that they will stay with you for an indeterminate but limited amount of time?"
It is complicated isn’t it? If only there were some way of considering all the relevant facts and come to a reasoned and objective decision eh?
Here’s what those volunteers are offering:
Doesn’t exactly sound like saving him. It sounds like 6 months of treatment so that he might be able to smile before he dies.
(Link: Charlie Gard: US doctor says therapy would be uncharted territory - BBC News )
Probably saving money and power trip. Because they have no ethical right to hold the child hostage.
A doctor’s job is
A) To do what the fuck I the patient (or my guardian) says
B) Within the doctor’s code of ethics and
C) To not kidnap people who disagree with the doctor’s code of ethics.
If I take my car to a mechanic and it’d cost more than the car is worth to fix, the mechanic has two options: do the job after informing me of the pros/cons and costs or refuse to do the job and turn the car back over to me. The third option (the one the hospital chose): decide the car isn’t worth the money/time needed to repair it and have it junked despite my objections isn’t ok.
Or more likely, better express the pain they caused him.
I see others addressed this in my absence (thank you) but I’m equally as concerned about the quality as I am the quantity. Death is way down on the list of “The worst things that could happen” to you/me/third party.
wow!
not sure I agree with your reading of the job description there Fenris
that is sort of where this case is coming unstuck. You are pretty much admitting that the medical staff have a duty to refer to their code of ethics when judging the validity of the patients or guardians request. That is what they are doing in this case.
The proscription against kidnapping isn’t expressed in the hippocratic oath but sure it is heavily implied.
I’m suspecting that this analogy did not play a major part in the case put to the High and Supreme courts in UK and Europe. Mainly because a knackered car bears no relation to a human being.
A chance. A tiny, microscopic chance. A chance that I personally wouldn’t take. But a chance. If the kid is not given the treatment, he’ll die. 100% If he is given the treatment, he has a teeny fraction of a chance.
Again, I wouldn’t choose this for my kid. But I’d rather let the parents make the choice than a doctor or a panel of judges.
Urh. You’re behaving as despicably as Trump in co-opting what is a Human Rights issue to serve your anti Obamacare agenda.
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.
Do you really want to be known for this? For God’s sake have some dignity.
Right, all those experimental drugs just desperate for a real human sacrifice, all in the name of shot-to-nothing fortune making.
You mean like the highest court in the country, and the final court of appeal in Europe - no, give the kid to some snake oil salesmen and their miracle! drugs (experimental).
Really, just when you thought the US healthcare system couldn’t be more bizarre, Trump comes up with this.