Community Tard Baby General (includes brain dead kids) - Fundies and their genetic Fuckups; Parents of corpses in denial

Said it earlier upthread that the Gard parents have the right idea even if for the wrong reasons. These cases should never be public. There should be a total ban on reporting, fundraising etc where there's a dispute like this. It should be like the family courts, all done in closed court. No court of public opinion.
I think whether or not we let kids die is a matter of public interest, whether I like what people do with that or not. Simply saying the public isn't allowed to comment on it or we'll kick down your door and throw you in prison would allow for all kinds of things that shouldn't happen.
 
Becuse the resulting death would be horrible, dramatic, out of control and traumatising for the medics and other people in the hospital. The chances are they would die in transit, as opposed to a peaceful situation in hospital.
Ok, so a comfort/dignity thing for the patient. That makes sense. I’m not advocation for tossing terminal folks on trains and whatnot, but I was genuinely curious as to the “why’s” here.
 
See I don’t get what the Gard’s are seeking to do?

The amendment aims to prevent disagreements between parents and doctors from escalating to court and recognises that parents should be able to pursue an alternative treatment for their child, if it is proposed by a credible doctor, and is in the best interests of the child. The vote in favour of the amendment by 112 votes to 107 showed the significant cross-party support to finally stop conflicts between parents and doctors from escalating to court. Such cases benefit neither parents nor doctors and can cost the NHS and the government millions in legal fees every year.

This is what already happens? The only reason things escalate to court is because the parents are not acting in the child’s best interest.

So Gard’s parents wanting to keep him alive and throw a crapload of completely futile treatments at his suffering body, put him through a likely traumatic journey to the US/italy or whatever, was never in his best interest. So the dr’s have to apply to the court so medical decisions can be made as the parents clearly can’t.

Gard’s are still clearly delusional not understanding why they weren’t allowed to move him. They never had the support of a “credible” doctor, there was never any chance of any treatment working,

This will not stop conflicts or these cases going to court. Court is the only way to force idiot like Hollie/gards/evans to stop their delusions and do what’s best for the child. This law amendment will make fuck all difference.
 
With the Gard case, didn't he also have some kind of rare, fatal genetic disorder that even doctors are still learning about? I can see how grieving, undereducated parents would be hoping for a miracle treatment no matter how impossible in that kind of situation.

With Archie there's no rare disorders or anything, the poor kid is just dead from suicide. The only thing that can really be done is to let him rest in peace, and try to prevent other youth suicides especially for kids that young :(

Hollie&Co. suck but if nothing else maybe this will make social workers/etc more on alert for suicidal ideation in preteens w/iffy home situations :optimistic:
 
With the Gard case, didn't he also have some kind of rare, fatal genetic disorder that even doctors are still learning about? I can see how grieving, undereducated parents would be hoping for a miracle treatment no matter how impossible in that kind of situation.
Yea he had a rare progressive mitochondrial disorder. I can understand his parents having issues dealing because of the progressive nature of his disorder.
 
Ok, so a comfort/dignity thing for the patient. That makes sense. I’m not advocation for tossing terminal folks on trains and whatnot, but I was genuinely curious as to the “why’s” here.

Not a medfag, but wouldn't they be legally obligated to try to keep the body "alive" during transport? Even if they are dead in every other definition of the word? And if the transport would likely kill the patient, and the medics are legally obligated to try to keep the body "alive" until it gets there, that feels like a horrific situation to put medics in.
 
Not a medfag, but wouldn't they be legally obligated to try to keep the body "alive" during transport? Even if they are dead in every other definition of the word? And if the transport would likely kill the patient, and the medics are legally obligated to try to keep the body "alive" until it gets there, that feels like a horrific situation to put medics in.
Medfag adjacent. No matter how many waivers of legal responsibility the parents sign, you'll have trouble finding IRL medfags willing to participate in something like that. They're sworn to protect life, where and if it exists.
 
Connie says: “I found a potential treatment in the US. It offered up to a 56% chance of working. GOSH weren’t able to offer any treatment, so we thought why not?”

Still deluded. If there seriously was a treatment that had a genuine chance of meaningful recovery, and he had any chance of surviving the journey, they’d have been allowed to take him. The nhs don’t let children die for giggles, and it’s standard procedure in this kind of case to convene a review panel to examine all treatments and trial. Parents are allowed to put forward their ideas. If there is any real chance they will agree. I’ve known the nhs actually pay for a kids treatment in the US or elsewhere, if they can’t offer it and it’s likely to have a better outcome than other treatments.

While parents like this exist who batter their dead ir nearly dead treatment for their own ends, we will need the court process.
 
With the Gard case, didn't he also have some kind of rare, fatal genetic disorder that even doctors are still learning about? I can see how grieving, undereducated parents would be hoping for a miracle treatment no matter how impossible in that kind of situation.

To their credit, the parents of Charlie Gard did ultimately accept that he had deteriorated too much even for the experimental treatment and he was transferred to a hospice for end of life care.

The parents of Alfie Evans were not allowed to move him anywhere because they couldn't be trusted not to smuggle him out of the country.

ETA if anyone wants to remind themselves of the facts of these cases, the court judgments are all available at https://www.bailii.org
 
I keep hearing about the content on Archies TikTok, anyone got any screenshots?
Here's a few screenshots I posted earlier in the thread. I'd link to the tiktok itself but either is been deleted or my phone is just being stupid slow with loading it. His account was called painhub1679.

Screenshot_20220617-222922_TikTok.jpgScreenshot_20220617-223353_TikTok.jpgScreenshot_20220617-224322_TikTok.jpgScreenshot_20220617-224347_TikTok.jpg
 
To their credit, the parents of Charlie Gard did ultimately accept that he had deteriorated too much even for the experimental treatment and he was transferred to a hospice for end of life care.

Recent interview claims they still don’t understand why they weren’t allowed to take Charlie abroad for treatment, as Connie claims she had found a trial with a 56% success rate.

I think it’s more likely they accepted there was no where else to go legally and had no other choice. If they’d have been able to take him, they would.
 
Like, why didn’t they just let that Gard kid travel. Sure he might die but he was going to die anyway. Maybe it happens a bit quicker but that’s it.
Is it a comfort thing? A liability thing? I am genuinely curious.
Not certain about European regulations, but in the United States, it's difficult to find an airline willing to transport a patient at imminent risk of dying mid-flight. There are (extremely expensive) special medical flights for such a purpose, and it's possible to hire a 1-on-1 nurse to care for the patient during a flight if such travel is unavoidable. Even medical flights, though, will refuse a patient who isn't stable.

He would not have survived the trip, and if he had, the treatment being offered elsewhere wouldn't have helped him anyway. Doctors take an oath to do no harm. By releasing him from the hospital and allowing his parents to try to travel with him, doctors would have caused him pointless suffering.

Edited to add that Charlie Gard had a mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. This is a group of genetic disorders with incredibly heterogeneous symptoms and outcomes, but as a rule, the younger the patient is at symptom onset, the worse the outcome. Specifically, Charlie had an extremely rare disorder called RRM2B-related mtDNA depletion syndrome, or MTDPS8A, which begins in early infancy and mainly affects the brain, muscles, and kidneys. There have only been around 15 cases ever reported in the literature, and all affected patients have died in infancy or very early childhood. By the time he was diagnosed, Charlie was unable to breathe independently. Because this disorder is progressive, there was basically no chance that he would ever come off the ventilator. Because all of the cells in the body need mitochondria to produce energy, no organ system is spared the effects of mtDNA depletion syndromes. Even if they could have magically weaned him off the ventilator, all of his other organs, including his brain, kidneys, and liver, were all fatally damaged. They could have taken him to Mars, and it wouldn't have mattered because every single cell in his body was too sick to ever be fixed.
 
Last edited:
Back