Charlie Gard has died

[Nebuchadnezzar]

But this isn't about that baby dying.

what I want to know is if Trump said the parents and child could come to the United States for treatment and that the treatment to maybe save the child's life would be free, why were these parents and this child not on the first plane to get this treatment?

Did they have to get permission to get treatment from the British government?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-charlie-gard-20170728-story.html

Quote:The 11-month-old was the subject of a long, emotional and protracted legal battle that ended this week when his parents abandoned their bid to have him sent to the U.S. for experimental treatment that they hoped could save his life.

Seems so.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-28-2017, 05:34 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: But this isn't about that baby dying.

what I want to know is if Trump said the parents and child could come to the United States for treatment and that the treatment to maybe save the child's life would be free, why were these parents and this child not on the first plane to get this treatment?

Did they have to get permission to get treatment from the British government?

I read the judge's decision. You should read it, too. It is a heartbreaking position for any parent. I hate how some have tried to turn this into a political football regarding socialized healthcare.

To summarize the judge's decision without political spin; Charlie's parents didn't believe he should continue on life support in his previous condition. One doctor in America offered an experimental treatment which has never been tried on any patient with Charlie's medical condition. At one point the British hospital was working toward arranging for Charlie to receive the treatment until his medical condition worsened. So far that experimental treatment may increase a patient's life by a small amount, but it would not improve Charlie's irreversible brain damage. So the treatment would basically amount to human medical experimentation and it would only increase Charlie's life for a short time which would continue the same quality of life the parents agreed they didn't want to continue on life support.

[Goalpost]

Free to be corrected if wrong, but I think a U.S. Doctor went there recently and determined his method to help this child would not work. Whether he could have been helped earlier, who knows.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-28-2017, 06:03 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Free to be corrected if wrong, but I think a U.S. Doctor went there recently and determined his method to help this child would not work. Whether he could have been helped earlier, who knows.

No one knows if it would work because it has never been tried on a patient with Charlie's condition. But, at best it may have increased his lifespan slightly without improving his brain damage. That doctor did admit Charlie's condition was worse than he thought initially.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/charlie-gard-ruling-read-full-10202972