The parents aren't thinking rationally, nor should we be expecting them to. You have to trust the experts who have been doing this job for years and know what they're talking about. It's a heart breaking situation for everyone.
One set of doctors is saying it has a 10% chance of improving his life. The others are saying 0%.
If he doesn't end up getting the treatment I hope it somehow turns out the correct decision.
The latest judge ruled based on Charlie's dignity.
Dignity is defined as "the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect." Surely a baby is worthy of honour or respect by default. The parents are going above and beyond this IMO. They are doing whatever they can to let him live. They are accepting the weight of the challenges that will come with that.
I would happily live a long and fruitful life or die without dignity because I had an experimental treatment to cure myself than die without trying the treatment at all.
As Charlie is unable to make that call, the parents should decide. I as a parent can guarantee I would try everything before being forced to admit there was nothing to be done.
Forcing these parents to let their child die without an attempt at getting him a treatment that may well only have a 10% chance of keeping him alive, purely based on the fact he was born in the UK and not the USA is cruel not only to Charlie, but to the parents too.
If he doesn't end up getting treated, I could see this tipping the parents over the edge.
I don't get why you think the parents should decide ? Parents get to decide what a child has for dinner, not whether their child should live in pain and misery with no realistic hope of a cure.
I understand why the parents would fight it but I don't think they should be allowed to win.
Maybe it's the emotion tied to being a parent, where I feel sick thinking about the what if of my little girl being in that situation...
There is no cure agreed, but the family obviously believe that there is a chance the child will get better to a degree, whether that's the US selling them a dream they'll never have or whether it is a realistic possibility if I thought it were possible I'd fight. If I thought it might help to save another child in future even if it didn't save mine. It'd have been worth it.
I completely get the emotion, but that's exactly why someone who isn't as emotionally invested should be making the call - otherwise the poor kid would be on life support, suffering in perpetuity when in reality he has already suffered enough.
The parents aren't thinking rationally, nor should we be expecting them to. You have to trust the experts who have been doing this job for years and know what they're talking about. It's a heart breaking situation for everyone.
One set of doctors is saying it has a 10% chance of improving his life. The others are saying 0%.
If he doesn't end up getting the treatment I hope it somehow turns out the correct decision.
A question for me is not just whether there's a chance of improving, but how significant would that improvement be? His condition could improve and he could still end up blind, deaf, with severely restricted mobility, severely restricted cognitive ability and in constant pain. That doesn't sound like any life I'd want to live, nor any life I'd choose for my enemies, let alone my loved ones. As heartbreaking as it is, I think the courts and the doctors have got it right. As much as Charlie's parents love him, and there's no doubt of that, this sadly seems to be one of those cases where the parents do not know best, because they are too emotionally attached.
The latest judge ruled based on Charlie's dignity.
Dignity is defined as "the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect." Surely a baby is worthy of honour or respect by default. The parents are going above and beyond this IMO. They are doing whatever they can to let him live. They are accepting the weight of the challenges that will come with that.
I would happily live a long and fruitful life or die without dignity because I had an experimental treatment to cure myself than die without trying the treatment at all.
As Charlie is unable to make that call, the parents should decide. I as a parent can guarantee I would try everything before being forced to admit there was nothing to be done.
Forcing these parents to let their child die without an attempt at getting him a treatment that may well only have a 10% chance of keeping him alive, purely based on the fact he was born in the UK and not the USA is cruel not only to Charlie, but to the parents too.
If he doesn't end up getting treated, I could see this tipping the parents over the edge.
I don't get why you think the parents should decide ? Parents get to decide what a child has for dinner, not whether their child should live in pain and misery with no realistic hope of a cure.
I understand why the parents would fight it but I don't think they should be allowed to win.
When you look at parental rights in this case, you have to also look at the opposite case. If parents can decide to continue any treatment despite all the doctors agreeing it has no chance of success, can they also decide to follow some alternative treatment that will likely end in the death of a child, when a successful regular treatment is available.
This is why the courts are involved in this - to consider both sides, and decide what's best for the child.
What we can't understand is what the pain and suffering is. The doctors will know more so their opinion is more informed. An assessment does need to be made, but doctors can be wrong which makes this such a difficult case. If there is a chance of a cure, the pain and suffering is justified, but doctors are saying there is no cure and Charlie is badly brain damaged - again they undertsand the extent of this more than me.
My gut feeling is that the British doctors are probably right, but if I was one of the parents and I thought there was hope, I would fight as hard as the poor lad's parents are doing! Sometimes, love is knowing when to let go though.
I do know the Americans getting involved seem more bothered about this poor little soul than the massively high infant mortality rate in their country, linked to poor people and something they can do something about. A poor country like Cuba puts the US to shame in this respect! The Catholic church has been content to order people in Africa not to use condoms which resulted in unthinkable numbers dying of AIDS! These people fighting for life, have responsibility for too many deaths for my liking.
This is a really sad case, and it is pissing me off immensely. I can understand why the parents want to feel like they've done everything possible for him, but how much more are they prepared to put him through? Are they really going to feel better if he spends his last days being injected, having blood drawn to test, being scanned and monitored, rather than being held and cuddled? The memories of this time are going to stay with them for the rest of their lives, and "we tried everything" is not going to erase them.
And that's before we get on to the risks of any side effects of the "treatment". While it may have been used on kids with a similar genetic condition with some success, it hasn't even been tested on mice for his specific one, and we can't just blithely assume that it will work in the same way or with the same success rate. In addition, his physical condition may cause added complications - I know it's said he can't breathe unaided, so presumably he can't swallow either, which means the usual oral application isn't going to be appropriate, so they're going to have to tweak the dosage for intravenous use. There's a whole host of unknowns here, so the 10% chance thing is at best a misapplication of statistics, and at worst a number that someone's just pulled out of their arse. And what does "improving his life" mean exactly? It'll stop any further deterioration, it'll stop him having seizures, it'll somehow reverse the brain damage he's already suffered? His Mum seems to have slightly unrealistic hopes about what this treatment can do.
If Charlie had capacity to make the decision for himself to be a guinea pig for a therapy that was utterly untested for his condition as a last throw of the dice, that would be one thing. But he doesn't, so there needs to be an objective assessment of the risks and benefits of any treatment options, and obviously it's very difficult for the parents to be objective.
I understand the parents clinging to whatever hope they can, but i honestly think if it was one of my kids, I would want to let them go as peacefully as possible.
Great Ormond Street have provided below information on this case.
This. I am a parent myself & if he were my child I would not want to see his suffer anymore. He hasn't got a life at the moment & seemingly never will. (I class a life as being able to think & enjoy life). Why prolong his agony.
I understand the parents don't want to let him go, but sometimes the hard decisions have to be taken. Also, the doctors (and not just at Gt Ormond St) have said there is no prospect for a recovery & FOUR separate judgements by the courts have agreed with them.
I think the Americans are just trying to make a point & one of them ( a pro-lifer) was on C4 the other day and didn't come across well.
I do wonder sometimes what the parents are doing this for - for themselves maybe ??? (I know this may not sit well with some people & I'm not trying to be controversial) but if they really had their child's best interests at heart surely they would let him go........
@golfaddick I get the feeling they feel they are doing this in Charlie's best interests.
The more I think about it, the more depressing their predicament becomes. Sadly I think the time taken during these judgements has allowed Charlie's condition to continue deteriorating.
I hate to say this, but I am beginning to agree that maybe he should be allowed to die peacefully now.
It makes me hate myself a little to even say it, as in my heart it's the wrong thing still, but in my head, Charlie's condition will only deteriorate the longer he is kept alive without treatment.
I hope they are given the chance, I think as a parent, if you lose your child and there was one thing that you could have tried but didn't it would eat away at you forever. Knowing that someone else took that chance away from you would breed so much hate it would be hard to grieve.
I hope they are given the chance, I think as a parent, if you lose your child and there was one thing that you could have tried but didn't it would eat away at you forever. Knowing that someone else took that chance away from you would breed so much hate it would be hard to grieve.
I see it this way, personally. Which is why from an objective point of view it is a good thing that decisions like this are not made by parents, and in the best interests of the child.
Truly awful situation, that as a new parent I am really struggling to read/hear about.
@golfaddick I get the feeling they feel they are doing this in Charlie's best interests.
The more I think about it, the more depressing their predicament becomes. Sadly I think the time taken during these judgements has allowed Charlie's condition to continue deteriorating.
I hate to say this, but I am beginning to agree that maybe he should be allowed to die peacefully now.
It makes me hate myself a little to even say it, as in my heart it's the wrong thing still, but in my head, Charlie's condition will only deteriorate the longer he is kept alive without treatment.
I've no doubt that they believe it's the best thing for him. Apart from the fact that their emotional attachment makes it nigh on impossible to take a dispassionate view, they also have the trouble that they've taken an entrenched position. Supposing just one of them has doubts about the wisdom of their argument, how could they possibly broach it to the other one? This situation is made doubly difficult by well-meaning members of the public supporting their position.
It's easy to say, but obviously tremendously difficult to do, but I think they need to change tack and allow nature take its course. They should stop fighting the courts and put all of their considerable energies into ensuring that Charlie has the best possible love a palliative care for his final days/hours. The first hurdle is just beginning to think about that as an option. Even if one of them gets that far, how do they possibly begin a constructive dialogue with their partner. The whole situation is a nightmare, I hope they are strong enough to come through it.
I think the parents are seriously deluded and making it worse for themselves by not facing up to the inevitable. The social media campaign has been highly misleading and the involvement of the religious nutters from the US has just stirred up the usual ill-informed rent a mob.
Charlie is not fighting as he's been kept alive on life support and his brain damage isn't going to be reversed.
Speak to parents who have had to look after a severely disabled child for a long time and they can tell you how hard it is.
Some of the media coverage of this case has been highly exploitative and the interventions from Trump and the Pope are unforgivable.
It's an intractable and almost insoluble problem. But one for which we in the UK have the best method of mediating, ie the courts.
The patient's wishes have to be primary. And, in the case of a patient too young to make his or her decision, then the patient's parents' views are the most important.
The medical team's role is to help the patients (or parents) make the decisions that best serve the patient's interest. That might be choosing from a range of options, or it might be helping them understand that there is only one viable course of action.
The issue comes only when there is a conflict between what the medical team decides are the range of viable options and what the parents' wishes are. That's the case with Charly.
When this happens, it's the courts that get to mediate and/or decide. Note, it's not the state, but the courts - that's an important distinction.
The courts play a crucial role, testing the evidence and, when necessary (as in the current case) requesting more evidence is sought and presented.
The only good thing that will come out of this terrible situation, is that we will know the determination will have been made using the right process.
I don't know enough about the detail of the case to be able to say which way it should go. But I think the treatment he's getting and which is being considered will not "cure" him, will not improve his quality of life and will serve only to prolong it. And, as there is no proof that he is not currently suffering, extending his life is, in my opinion, going to cause him harm, as it will extend the suffering he's already experiencing.
The most important rule of medicine (often referred to as the Hypocratic oath) is that first, a doctor must do no harm. I think Charly being given more treatment would break that rule. For that reason I don't think his treatment should continue.
It's an intractable and almost insoluble problem. But one for which we in the UK have the best method of mediating, ie the courts.
The patient's wishes have to be primary. And, in the case of a patient too young to make his or her decision, then the patient's parents' views are the most important.
The medical team's role is to help the patients (or parents) make the decisions that best serve the patient's interest. That might be choosing from a range of options, or it might be helping them understand that there is only one viable course of action.
The issue comes only when there is a conflict between what the medical team decides are the range of viable options and what the parents' wishes are. That's the case with Charly.
When this happens, it's the courts that get to mediate and/or decide. Note, it's not the state, but the courts - that's an important distinction.
The courts play a crucial role, testing the evidence and, when necessary (as in the current case) requesting more evidence is sought and presented.
The only good thing that will come out of this terrible situation, is that we will know the determination will have been made using the right process.
I don't know enough about the detail of the case to be able to say which way it should go. But I think the treatment he's getting and which is being considered will not "cure" him, will not improve his quality of life and will serve only to prolong it. And, as there is no proof that he is not currently suffering, extending his life is, in my opinion, going to cause him harm, as it will extend the suffering he's already experiencing.
The most important rule of medicine (often referred to as the Hypocratic oath) is that first, a doctor must do no harm. I think Charly being given more treatment would break that rule. For that reason I don't think his treatment should continue.
I hope they are given the chance, I think as a parent, if you lose your child and there was one thing that you could have tried but didn't it would eat away at you forever. Knowing that someone else took that chance away from you would breed so much hate it would be hard to grieve.
I see it this way, personally. Which is why from an objective point of view it is a good thing that decisions like this are not made by parents, and in the best interests of the child.
Truly awful situation, that as a new parent I am really struggling to read/hear about.
I think their decision is plaguing me so much for this very reason and I just can't figure out what I'd do...
It's an intractable and almost insoluble problem. But one for which we in the UK have the best method of mediating, ie the courts.
The patient's wishes have to be primary. And, in the case of a patient too young to make his or her decision, then the patient's parents' views are the most important.
The medical team's role is to help the patients (or parents) make the decisions that best serve the patient's interest. That might be choosing from a range of options, or it might be helping them understand that there is only one viable course of action.
The issue comes only when there is a conflict between what the medical team decides are the range of viable options and what the parents' wishes are. That's the case with Charly.
When this happens, it's the courts that get to mediate and/or decide. Note, it's not the state, but the courts - that's an important distinction.
The courts play a crucial role, testing the evidence and, when necessary (as in the current case) requesting more evidence is sought and presented.
The only good thing that will come out of this terrible situation, is that we will know the determination will have been made using the right process.
I don't know enough about the detail of the case to be able to say which way it should go. But I think the treatment he's getting and which is being considered will not "cure" him, will not improve his quality of life and will serve only to prolong it. And, as there is no proof that he is not currently suffering, extending his life is, in my opinion, going to cause him harm, as it will extend the suffering he's already experiencing.
The most important rule of medicine (often referred to as the Hypocratic oath) is that first, a doctor must do no harm. I think Charly being given more treatment would break that rule. For that reason I don't think his treatment should continue.
I don't believe "the parents views are the most important" - the paramount consideration is this child's best interests which is not necessarily the same thing as the parents views, as illustrated by this case.
It's an intractable and almost insoluble problem. But one for which we in the UK have the best method of mediating, ie the courts.
The patient's wishes have to be primary. And, in the case of a patient too young to make his or her decision, then the patient's parents' views are the most important.
The medical team's role is to help the patients (or parents) make the decisions that best serve the patient's interest. That might be choosing from a range of options, or it might be helping them understand that there is only one viable course of action.
The issue comes only when there is a conflict between what the medical team decides are the range of viable options and what the parents' wishes are. That's the case with Charly.
When this happens, it's the courts that get to mediate and/or decide. Note, it's not the state, but the courts - that's an important distinction.
The courts play a crucial role, testing the evidence and, when necessary (as in the current case) requesting more evidence is sought and presented.
The only good thing that will come out of this terrible situation, is that we will know the determination will have been made using the right process.
I don't know enough about the detail of the case to be able to say which way it should go. But I think the treatment he's getting and which is being considered will not "cure" him, will not improve his quality of life and will serve only to prolong it. And, as there is no proof that he is not currently suffering, extending his life is, in my opinion, going to cause him harm, as it will extend the suffering he's already experiencing.
The most important rule of medicine (often referred to as the Hypocratic oath) is that first, a doctor must do no harm. I think Charly being given more treatment would break that rule. For that reason I don't think his treatment should continue.
I don't believe "the parents views are the most important" - the paramount consideration is this child's best interests which is not necessarily the same thing as the parents views, as illustrated by this case.
I think Chizz qualified that when he said the issue only arises where there is conflict, as in this case. Then adds that the (independent) courts are the best vehicle to make the decision
If the case was about the medics offering two courses of treatment as both viable then the most important view is that of the parents - and of course in that scenario we wouldn't need the courts.
It's an intractable and almost insoluble problem. But one for which we in the UK have the best method of mediating, ie the courts.
The patient's wishes have to be primary. And, in the case of a patient too young to make his or her decision, then the patient's parents' views are the most important.
The medical team's role is to help the patients (or parents) make the decisions that best serve the patient's interest. That might be choosing from a range of options, or it might be helping them understand that there is only one viable course of action.
The issue comes only when there is a conflict between what the medical team decides are the range of viable options and what the parents' wishes are. That's the case with Charly.
When this happens, it's the courts that get to mediate and/or decide. Note, it's not the state, but the courts - that's an important distinction.
The courts play a crucial role, testing the evidence and, when necessary (as in the current case) requesting more evidence is sought and presented.
The only good thing that will come out of this terrible situation, is that we will know the determination will have been made using the right process.
I don't know enough about the detail of the case to be able to say which way it should go. But I think the treatment he's getting and which is being considered will not "cure" him, will not improve his quality of life and will serve only to prolong it. And, as there is no proof that he is not currently suffering, extending his life is, in my opinion, going to cause him harm, as it will extend the suffering he's already experiencing.
The most important rule of medicine (often referred to as the Hypocratic oath) is that first, a doctor must do no harm. I think Charly being given more treatment would break that rule. For that reason I don't think his treatment should continue.
I don't believe "the parents views are the most important" - the paramount consideration is this child's best interests which is not necessarily the same thing as the parents views, as illustrated by this case.
The parents' views *are* the most important, simply because they represent what we assume their understanding of the child's best interests are. And so long as their views don't cause harm or injury to the child, they should be respected and allowed. It's only at the point where their views would cause harm or injury to the child that they should be called into question.
That's the point of this case, I think. I might disagree with their views (on balance, I do), but their views should hold primacy.
It's like withdrawing a child from sex education at school. It's a stupid idea, but we (actually, who is "we"?) should low them to do so, because their view counts the most. Likewise choice of religion, refusing to teach languages, withdrawal from sport, circumcision. These are all things I might disagree with parents' decisions, but that doesn't matter: it's their right to choose, for whatever reason they want. Until there's a choice which might cause harm or injury.
Years ago my wife and I were devastated when her cancer returned. We were young and had three children, life hung by a thread. In a desperate effort to cling onto that thread we practically begged the professor at Guys for a second course of chemo. I can still picture the scene as he sat there for at least 60 seconds, staring into space, before reluctantly agreeing.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I now wish that we could have been mature enough to accept the inevitable. My wife died on Father’s day in 1993 and the chemo had made everything worse, on a body that had already been ravished by disease and the harsh chemical treatment.
I doubt that the parents could get better advice anywhere in the World than that of Great Ormond Street Children’s hospital. No one can doubt their brave sincerity. It is absolutely tragic my heart goes out to them.
I think there was a case a few years ago where parents refused a blood transfusion for their child and the courts overruled them. There are circumstances where the views of the parents cannot take precedence. It is difficult, really difficult.
I think there was a case a few years ago where parents refused a blood transfusion for their child and the courts overruled them. There are circumstances where the views of the parents cannot take precedence. It is difficult, really difficult.
If you follow a god that wants your child to suffer instead of receive safe medical treatment then you should not be a parent.
I think there was a case a few years ago where parents refused a blood transfusion for their child and the courts overruled them. There are circumstances where the views of the parents cannot take precedence. It is difficult, really difficult.
In my view, this is simple. In the case of denying blood transfusion on religious grounds, the parents' decision would cause harm to the child and should therefore be disallowed. Same with FGM.
I think there was a case a few years ago where parents refused a blood transfusion for their child and the courts overruled them. There are circumstances where the views of the parents cannot take precedence. It is difficult, really difficult.
In my view, this is simple. In the case of denying blood transfusion on religious grounds, the parents' decision would cause harm to the child and should therefore be disallowed. Same with FGM.
Yes, I agree - my point is parents can not be trusted to do what is best for their child even though they will believe they are doing what is best.
I think there was a case a few years ago where parents refused a blood transfusion for their child and the courts overruled them. There are circumstances where the views of the parents cannot take precedence. It is difficult, really difficult.
In my view, this is simple. In the case of denying blood transfusion on religious grounds, the parents' decision would cause harm to the child and should therefore be disallowed. Same with FGM.
Yes, I agree - my point is parents can not be trusted to do what is best for their child even though they will believe they are doing what is best.
I would qualify that and say 'can not always be trusted' - the vast majority of the time parents will choose correctly what is best for their child and if they are unable to do that then they shouldn't be parents.
Comments
If he doesn't end up getting the treatment I hope it somehow turns out the correct decision.
Would he have had more chance of success if sent to the US early doors after the money had been raised?
It's all just brutal on all involved related to Charlie.
This is why the courts are involved in this - to consider both sides, and decide what's best for the child.
My gut feeling is that the British doctors are probably right, but if I was one of the parents and I thought there was hope, I would fight as hard as the poor lad's parents are doing! Sometimes, love is knowing when to let go though.
I do know the Americans getting involved seem more bothered about this poor little soul than the massively high infant mortality rate in their country, linked to poor people and something they can do something about. A poor country like Cuba puts the US to shame in this respect! The Catholic church has been content to order people in Africa not to use condoms which resulted in unthinkable numbers dying of AIDS! These people fighting for life, have responsibility for too many deaths for my liking.
And that's before we get on to the risks of any side effects of the "treatment". While it may have been used on kids with a similar genetic condition with some success, it hasn't even been tested on mice for his specific one, and we can't just blithely assume that it will work in the same way or with the same success rate. In addition, his physical condition may cause added complications - I know it's said he can't breathe unaided, so presumably he can't swallow either, which means the usual oral application isn't going to be appropriate, so they're going to have to tweak the dosage for intravenous use. There's a whole host of unknowns here, so the 10% chance thing is at best a misapplication of statistics, and at worst a number that someone's just pulled out of their arse. And what does "improving his life" mean exactly? It'll stop any further deterioration, it'll stop him having seizures, it'll somehow reverse the brain damage he's already suffered? His Mum seems to have slightly unrealistic hopes about what this treatment can do.
If Charlie had capacity to make the decision for himself to be a guinea pig for a therapy that was utterly untested for his condition as a last throw of the dice, that would be one thing. But he doesn't, so there needs to be an objective assessment of the risks and benefits of any treatment options, and obviously it's very difficult for the parents to be objective.
I understand the parents don't want to let him go, but sometimes the hard decisions have to be taken. Also, the doctors (and not just at Gt Ormond St) have said there is no prospect for a recovery & FOUR separate judgements by the courts have agreed with them.
I think the Americans are just trying to make a point & one of them ( a pro-lifer) was on C4 the other day and didn't come across well.
I do wonder sometimes what the parents are doing this for - for themselves maybe ??? (I know this may not sit well with some people & I'm not trying to be controversial) but if they really had their child's best interests at heart surely they would let him go........
The more I think about it, the more depressing their predicament becomes. Sadly I think the time taken during these judgements has allowed Charlie's condition to continue deteriorating.
I hate to say this, but I am beginning to agree that maybe he should be allowed to die peacefully now.
It makes me hate myself a little to even say it, as in my heart it's the wrong thing still, but in my head, Charlie's condition will only deteriorate the longer he is kept alive without treatment.
Truly awful situation, that as a new parent I am really struggling to read/hear about.
It's easy to say, but obviously tremendously difficult to do, but I think they need to change tack and allow nature take its course. They should stop fighting the courts and put all of their considerable energies into ensuring that Charlie has the best possible love a palliative care for his final days/hours. The first hurdle is just beginning to think about that as an option. Even if one of them gets that far, how do they possibly begin a constructive dialogue with their partner. The whole situation is a nightmare, I hope they are strong enough to come through it.
Charlie is not fighting as he's been kept alive on life support and his brain damage isn't going to be reversed.
Speak to parents who have had to look after a severely disabled child for a long time and they can tell you how hard it is.
Some of the media coverage of this case has been highly exploitative and the interventions from Trump and the Pope are unforgivable.
The patient's wishes have to be primary. And, in the case of a patient too young to make his or her decision, then the patient's parents' views are the most important.
The medical team's role is to help the patients (or parents) make the decisions that best serve the patient's interest. That might be choosing from a range of options, or it might be helping them understand that there is only one viable course of action.
The issue comes only when there is a conflict between what the medical team decides are the range of viable options and what the parents' wishes are. That's the case with Charly.
When this happens, it's the courts that get to mediate and/or decide. Note, it's not the state, but the courts - that's an important distinction.
The courts play a crucial role, testing the evidence and, when necessary (as in the current case) requesting more evidence is sought and presented.
The only good thing that will come out of this terrible situation, is that we will know the determination will have been made using the right process.
I don't know enough about the detail of the case to be able to say which way it should go. But I think the treatment he's getting and which is being considered will not "cure" him, will not improve his quality of life and will serve only to prolong it. And, as there is no proof that he is not currently suffering, extending his life is, in my opinion, going to cause him harm, as it will extend the suffering he's already experiencing.
The most important rule of medicine (often referred to as the Hypocratic oath) is that first, a doctor must do no harm. I think Charly being given more treatment would break that rule. For that reason I don't think his treatment should continue.
If the case was about the medics offering two courses of treatment as both viable then the most important view is that of the parents - and of course in that scenario we wouldn't need the courts.
That's the point of this case, I think. I might disagree with their views (on balance, I do), but their views should hold primacy.
It's like withdrawing a child from sex education at school. It's a stupid idea, but we (actually, who is "we"?) should low them to do so, because their view counts the most. Likewise choice of religion, refusing to teach languages, withdrawal from sport, circumcision. These are all things I might disagree with parents' decisions, but that doesn't matter: it's their right to choose, for whatever reason they want. Until there's a choice which might cause harm or injury.
Years ago my wife and I were devastated when her cancer returned. We were young and had three children, life hung by a thread. In a desperate effort to cling onto that thread we practically begged the professor at Guys for a second course of chemo. I can still picture the scene as he sat there for at least 60 seconds, staring into space, before reluctantly agreeing.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I now wish that we could have been mature enough to accept the inevitable. My wife died on Father’s day in 1993 and the chemo had made everything worse, on a body that had already been ravished by disease and the harsh chemical treatment.
I doubt that the parents could get better advice anywhere in the World than that of Great Ormond Street Children’s hospital. No one can doubt their brave sincerity. It is absolutely tragic my heart goes out to them.
Oh, and I'd just like to add that Mike Pence is scum for using this case for his own political purposes.
This case is exceptional, as would be any medical treatment case where the parents wanted to go against unanimous medical opinion.