bucfanclw wrote:uscbucsfan wrote:
I agree with your first point 100%.
I think there's too much ambiguity on your second point. Too much pain is subjective. Who determines that?
That was my point. Hambone wanted to know why courts are involved in the treatment of the child so I presented a case that shows WHY courts should be involved in some circumstances. The problem in this case is we have a child that has enough brain damage that he can't even breathe without a respirator and the doctors are saying that the child is suffering. The parents don't want to "give up" on their child as any parent would, but the court has to rely on the doctors that say the experimental procedure did not show any possibility that the child would have any meaningful improvement to quality of life at this stage. The doctor promoting the procedure admitted he didn't know how much brain damage had been suffered so the courts felt at that point putting the child through said procedures is abusive.
Unfortunately, some people wanted to promote this as some sort of failure of the UK medical system when it is actually the tragic story of a child born with an extremely rare, terminal disease for which there is no cure.
I couldn't find an article that stated the child was suffering...maybe you could provide a link.
However, I did find an article from the Guardian that stated
"But Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street’s legal team, suggested further treatment would leave Charlie in a condition that gave him “no benefit”. The therapy proposed in the US was “experimental” and would not help Charlie, she said.
Gollop said nobody knew whether Charlie was in pain, “because it is so very difficult because of the ravages of Charlie’s condition. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot make a noise, he cannot move.”
Sounds more like the government is against Charlie receiving the treatment...because it is experimental.