Court Orders Baby's Death

[yochiek93]

How many billions are spent in the US on care of people who are no longer (or never were, will never be) "productive" members of society?

Touché

[Super Speed]

Trump just tweeted about this.
"If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so."

[smart man]

Trump just tweeted about this.
"If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so."

He really can't help him?

[username]

He really can't help him?

Really.
The European Court of Human Rights are forbidding the parents to take him out of the hospital.

[skyguy918]

He really can't help him?

It would be strange if he could help him. A foreign head of state interceding with a country on behalf of a citizen of that country?

British politicians, or even other European leaders, would maybe have an effect, but that doesn't seem to be happening. The vatican/pope put out a statement about it as well.

[Aaaron]

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

[Boruch999]

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

Although Charlie’s parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is by law vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests.

Is that the law in the US?

What comes out from that FAQ is that the doctors involved are extremely arrogant (perhaps to be expected from Darwinists) and that Europe is a frightening place to raise children.

[LoLo]

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit. 

[skyguy918]

Sounds like the US doctor they were gonna go to didn't exactly help the case in his statements to the courts:
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/04/doctor-says-he-is-less-enthusiastic-after-hearing-just-how-unwell-baby-charlie-is-6552188/

[Boruch999]

Sounds like the US doctor they were gonna go to didn't exactly help the case in his statements to the courts:
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/04/doctor-says-he-is-less-enthusiastic-after-hearing-just-how-unwell-baby-charlie-is-6552188/

She said there was a ‘very small’ theoretical chance that treatment would result in any improvement.
The specialist said that possible benefit was outweighed by the continued suffering Charlie would endure.
She said: ‘Charlie is suffering and that outweighs the small theoretical chance that this may be effective treatment.

What in the specialist's training makes her more qualified than the child's parents to make that call?

What about the pain and suffering experienced by a terminal cancer patient who is a child?

[Aaaron]

What in the specialist's training makes her more qualified than the child's parents to make that call?

Umm, medical training and experience. 

What about the pain and suffering experienced by a terminal cancer patient who is a child?

Not sure what your point is.

Although I disagree with taking away the decision making rights from the parents, I understand the doctors' position. 

[skyguy918]

Umm, medical training and experience. 

Not sure what your point is.

Although I disagree with taking away the decision making rights from the parents, I understand the doctors' position. 

+1. The doctor has a duty to the patient, not to the parents. The issue is the legal weight given to that duty, as opposed to parents' duties and rights.

Anyway, my point from that article was not the UK's specialist - we knew they felt that way, otherwise there would be no case in the first place. My point was that the US doctor - the one that was offering the Gards the treatment - sounded very wishy washy in the quotes from testimony.

[Boruch999]

Umm, medical training and experience. 

Medical training and experience make one qualified to decide under what circumstances life is worth living?

[ckmk47]

The UK doctors are saying that any medical intervention will be futile. 
BUT, he's so sick, it would be dangerous for the parents to remove him from the hospital.
If the parents had requested him to come home to die quietly with the family, the doctors might not have argued against it.  They have a philosophical disagreement with keeping someone in this condition alive.

[aygart]

Umm, medical training and experience. 
 

I'm with @Boruch999 on this one. This is not a question of statistics and the like. It is a moral and ethical question of what lengths to go to to save a life.

[good sam]

The UK doctors are saying that any medical intervention will be futile. 
BUT, he's so sick, it would be dangerous for the parents to remove him from the hospital.
If the parents had requested him to come home to die quietly with the family, the doctors might not have argued against it.  They have a philosophical disagreement with keeping someone in this condition alive.

That would be a more acceptable position but doesn't sound like that's the doctors' position. Metro article says it's because the journey would be painful, not a medical risk.

[Emkay]

If the parents had requested him to come home to die quietly with the family, the doctors might not have argued against it. 

Nope. That was turned down also.

[ckmk47]

I'm with @Boruch999 on this one. This is not a question of statistics and the like. It is a moral and ethical question of what lengths to go to to save a life.

Do we make a distinction for someone who lived a long life and is beloved by many? Do we not spend money on respirators and nursing homes?

[aygart]

Do we make a distinction for someone who lived a long life and is beloved by many? Do we not spend money on respirators and nursing homes?

I am not sure if you are trying to agree or disagree with me.

[ckmk47]

I guess I'm saying that having doctors and courts deciding when to stop life support measures is wrong.
For Jews guidelines should come from Talmidei chachomim and Rabbis familiar with the issues. 
Questions:
1) At what point do we say medical intervention is futile? At that point, are we mechuyav (supposed to ) abandon further intervention- or are we allowed to keep trying?
2) What criteria do we use? "quality of life" vs importance to the community vs cost?
ie Who gets to decide when a person's life has no meaning? Who gets to choose who's important enough to spend money on?
3)Does the patient's own wishes take precedence or do others get to decide?  What about pain- does that change the equation?