Fifth Avenue Forum

GMAFB They've already wasted how much money and tied up a hospital bed for nearly a year.



Because they know it's the right decision. It should have been made in October.

Yeah I figured you wouldn't care that a government was making the decision regardless of what people want. I mean you need the government to make all your decisions, so it makes sense.

I mean we all know doctors have never been wrong before...

The government isn't "making" the decision, the doctors are. The Supreme Court backed them.

It happens in the US fairly frequently. We had a elderly patient who had a child that wouldn't let the patient pass away, and the hospital was able to obtain medical power of attorney. The daughter had no say in her care. Not sure why these stories pop up every so often.

They had a doctor in the USA say that they would try a new treatment, the courts in Britain overruled saying they weren't allowed to try it even after raising all the money. That is effectively the government saying f$ck you to the parents.

The argument from the doctors was the baby couldn't even go home to die because of unnecessary pain it would cause the baby. If that's the case, then how would we expect the baby to survive an eight hour flight to the US?

Again, these arguments always turn into the "government" or the "doctors" are sticking it to whoever. I sort of doubt that one doc came up with this entire plan.

The specialist, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said therapy would provide a “small chance” of a meaningful improvement in Charlie’s brain function.

He told the court via a telephone link from America: “It may be a treatment, but not a cure. [Charlie] may be able to interact. To smile. To look at objects.”

On the flip side, the increase in births to older moms is also important, said Martin.

For women between the ages of 30 and 34, the birth rate increased by 1% over 2015 — the highest rate for this age group since 1964. The birth rate for women who are between 35 and 39 is up 2% over 2015, representing the highest rate since 1962.

Even older women, those between the ages of 40 and 44, showed a swelling increase of 4% over 2015 — the highest rate for this group since 1966, according to the statisticians, while the rate of birth for women who are older than 45 is also a record high though the number of births remains essentially unchanged compared to last year.

On the flip side, the increase in births to older moms is also important, said Martin.

For women between the ages of 30 and 34, the birth rate increased by 1% over 2015 — the highest rate for this age group since 1964. The birth rate for women who are between 35 and 39 is up 2% over 2015, representing the highest rate since 1962.

Even older women, those between the ages of 40 and 44, showed a swelling increase of 4% over 2015 — the highest rate for this group since 1966, according to the statisticians, while the rate of birth for women who are older than 45 is also a record high though the number of births remains essentially unchanged compared to last year.

I'll be curious to see if there is a correlating increase in the number of children born with some type of defect, whether minor or major, since the risk of that occurrence increases steadily with age, and more rapidly so once women hit their mid to late 30s. I can totally understand the desire to wait, and sometimes it isn't even a choice, but I wonder if that will result.

I personally can't imagine having a child in our early 40s and up. I'd rather have the kids out by the time I'm in my mid-50s. But again, sometimes it isn't a choice for a lot of people, and we have had our own difficulties with that stuff.

Back to that baby:

Any scenario that doesn't involve his parents (and only them) making the decision is completely unacceptable. Mind you, that also includes them possibly/eventually taking him off life support

Back to that baby:

Any scenario that doesn't involve his parents (and only them) making the decision is completely unacceptable. Mind you, that also includes them possibly/eventually taking him off life support

Absolutely ridiculous. That sentiment is surely popular, but it's not based on any sound reason or logic. Of all the players in an end of life situation, family are almost always the least qualified to make these decisions - from an educational, emotional and religious standpoint. It is a huge part of the reason health care is so expensive. How much of our health care resources are just thrown down the toilet treating those that will never recover? Especially in a govt run system, are you really willing to pay to let people keep relatives on life support machines indefinitely?

Did you miss the article that I posted that said a specialist believes brain function could be returned in some capacity?

She got in touch with the neurologist in the United States, who said there was a “theoretical” prospect of success, but acknowledged that nucleoside therapy had never been tested on a patient with the form of the disease, known as RRM2B mutation, as severe as Charlie’s.


Great Ormond Street Hospital was initially open to the idea, but then Charlie began to experience severe seizures, leading to a diagnosis of epileptic encephalopathy, a severe brain disorder. With that, doctors concluded that nucleoside therapy would only prolong the child’s suffering.

Did you miss the article that I posted that said a specialist believes brain function could be returned in some capacity?

She got in touch with the neurologist in the United States, who said there was a “theoretical” prospect of success, but acknowledged that nucleoside therapy had never been tested on a patient with the form of the disease, known as RRM2B mutation, as severe as Charlie’s.


Great Ormond Street Hospital was initially open to the idea, but then Charlie began to experience severe seizures, leading to a diagnosis of epileptic encephalopathy, a severe brain disorder. With that, doctors concluded that nucleoside therapy would only prolong the child’s suffering.

And I was just pointing out a different article which states that the doctors actually involved believe there is a very slight, theoretical chance of very, very modest improvement (but certainly no cure and likely no meaningful quality of life) for one disease, but that the nucleoside therapy would do nothing to combat the epileptic encephalopathy which has lead to numerous brain damaging seizures. Meanwhile the child continues to suffer on a daily basis.

"One of the factors that influenced this decision was that Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the U.S. who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred," the statement says.

There have been second opinions. No single doctor has said the brain damage caused by the seizures is reversible. The doctor who initially suggested treatment for the mitochondrial disease admits that the treatment for that will not help the child now.

"One of the factors that influenced this decision was that Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the U.S. who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred," the statement says.

your entire point of these posts, outside of being a d*uche, is?

your entire point of these posts, outside of being a d*uche, is?

Wow, this has to be the ultimate pot/kettle exchange.