View Single Post
Old 07-29-2017, 10:12 PM
CyberPunk's Avatar
CyberPunk CyberPunk is offline
The Show himself
WWE Diva's Champion
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: India
Age: 31
Posts: 556
CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...CyberPunk scored a win over Santino Marella...
Send a message via Skype™ to CyberPunk

Originally Posted by HBK-aholic View Post
No, not their consequences to live with - Charlie's. Children are not the property of their parent to do as they wish. That doesn't mean as a society we stop parents from making stupid decisions. But we as a functional society will intervene when children are coming to significant harm.
Maybe it's the difference in culture, but parents have everything to lose when they lose their child. When you say significant harm, you portray it as parents are being abusive when they are being anything but. What exact harm did they intend? That they wanted to try everything possible to save their child? Stupid decision as in to try every avenue they can take? Charlie would've died anyway, why not die trying?

They were looking out for Charlie, as medical professionals are trained to do. What you are advocating is looking out for the parents. While that is a huge part of medicine - especially pediatric - you can't put a child, one with no chance of improvement, one who can feel pain through procedures with no benefit, with no idea what effect they could even have.
What I'm advocating is for the decision such as this to not lie with the hospital or the court. It's not about parents' or child's best interest. Whatever I've read about the NBT indicates that it's not an invasive procedure (nucleoside is administered in form of pills). The worst that could've happened would've been the failure of the treatment. Doctors had already given up, then why not try something else?

On top of that, ou act as if Charlie is just in a nice sleep. But invasive ventilation is not nice. The doctors at GOSH believe Charlie to be capable of feeling pain, with no way to express it. Having a tube forced down your trachea, with air pushed in, unable to cough or clear your own secretions meaning your nurse has to force a suction tube down the tube in order to produce an artificial 'cough' - is horrendous. Sometimes, it's necessary, and ventilation is an amazing tool. But in a baby with no chance of improvement, keeping him that way for someone to perform experiments on him, is, at the very least, cruel.
Well, treatments can be nasty, we all know that. Breast removal to treat breast cancer, chemotherapy, all of these medical procedures are painful and sometimes life altering. Yet, they are performed. Again, my point is not whether the 'experiment' as you say would've done anything to improve his condition, but the very denial by hospital and courts to even seek one is problematic. It's not your, mine or any third party's place to say what's cruel for a child when the most merciful thing we can come up with is death.

I ask this without trying to be patronising - do you have any medical background? I ask, because, I do. Specifically in ICU. Specifically in ventilation. Specifically in withdrawal of care. Specifically in dignity in death. I assure you, 100%, there can be dignity in dying. If we can make the right decisions at the right time, if we can give the patient what they want, if we can make the patient comfortable, if we can ensure they have no pain, if we can ensure they're surrounded by loved ones, if we can ensure they are in a calm environment, if we can ensure they have physical dignity - there can be dignity in death.

Imagine how you want to die. The fact most people have a 'in my sleep' or 'peacefully surrounded by family' shows there absolutely can be dignity in death in the same way some are truly awful. This baby wasn't going to survive - the least we could do is give him that dignity.
There's no dignity in death. You can have a peaceful or a horrific/painful death (most prefer a peaceful one). But there's no dignity in it.

I'm not a medical professional (studied for it before taking up engineering), but I'm a product of parents doing everything to save their child. I met with a horrific accident that left me 66% burnt when I was 2 and a half year old. Every doctor gave up on me but my parents who had me moved to a different city and different doctor. Most doctors told my parents I won't have 'quality of life', but hey look. I'm not comparing my case with Charlie's, of course they are very different, but the fact that the fate of a child, who can't speak for himself, isn't a consenting adult, is decided by a third party and not the parents is flabbergasting to me. I cannot fathom that 'death' can be preferable over any form of life.
Just Monika

Last edited by CyberPunk : 07-29-2017 at 10:14 PM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote