Charlie Gard has passed

[flacaltenn]

Several Brit Courts took THREE MONTHS of that child's LIMITED time on Earth to give their predetermined decision a phony stamp of LEGAL review. They felt NO SENSE of urgency. What's ONE dead child compared to the droid-like efficiency of the NHS???

And their decision after 3 months was the same decision that had already been made. KILL him.. Court ordered termination.. They ate up any chance of that child being treated or at the very least helping thousands of others in his death..

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This is only one time. How many other times have the government denied people medical care they were going to pay out of pocket for.

 

[Coyote]

There is the implication that GOSH is substandard and knows less than outside specialists is wrong. GOSH is one of the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It's world class and has research facilities for mitochondrial disorders. Like many specialists faced with a patient with a rare and terminal illness - they consult with other specialists and researchers in that field.

Yet it has been the subject of vile attacks over this case that are unwarrented. This article makes some good points and asks hard questions (that don't have right or wrong answers).

Charlie Gard: A case that changed everything? - BBC News
The tarnishing of a famous hospital

Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is perhaps the most respected and well-known children's hospital in the world. It has been synonymous with excellence ever since it was founded in the 1850s with patients from all over the world now being sent there for pioneering treatment.

And yet in the course of this case it found itself under attack with some staff reporting they had been victims of "vile" abuse and threats (Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, also reported that they had been the target of abuse on a daily basis.)

One of the problems the hospital faced, particularly as the case developed and the parents received more media attention, was that it simply could not win.

While Charlie's parents gave television and newspaper interviews and made pleas on social media, GOSH was left to rely on media statements and court papers to explain its position. The hospital said it was not possible to give Charlie the non-invasive treatment - a powder that could be added to his food - that his parents felt could help him in his battle with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

Rational, scientific logic was never going to win hearts and minds against the raw emotion of parents trying to do everything they could for the severely ill baby.

Should more have been done by the world of medicine? As the case developed, GOSH started publishing more details about the case and its position.

But Prof Uta Frith, an expert in cognitive development at University College London, wonders if there is a lesson here, arguing science cannot be entirely stripped of its emotional context.

"We can never be 100% certain about our facts and theories. Emotion, which is utterly certain, wins in comparison.

"However, scientific reasoning cannot be completely stripped of emotion. Perhaps this is an asset we need to cultivate more. Reasoned evidence needs champions to engage the hearts of people."

But the case - and its importance - also comes down to a dilemma that becomes more acute as medicine develops. At what point is it appropriate not to treat patients and allow them to die?

These are discussions that go on every day in hospitals - and the overwhelming majority are resolved without major dispute.

Patients coming to the end of life - both the elderly and the young - are now routinely encouraged to discuss advanced care plans setting out how much they want doctors to do when they get closer to death. These plans cover everything from when it is appropriate to resuscitate to when treatment should be withdrawn and a patient moved on to palliative care to help them die with dignity.

Of course in Charlie's case, because he was a baby, this was simply not possible. Instead, he was kept alive on a ventilator while his parents and doctors took to the courts.

The medical profession - bound by the basic tenet of medicine "do no harm" - felt it was in his best interests to let him die with dignity rather than have an experimental treatment that they believed would do him no good. In court they argued he had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".

But there is also an ethical dimension to this. Are doctors the right people to determine what constitutes "quality of life"? Do we put too much emphasis on their opinion?​

AND - Parents rights vs the child's - it comes down to a 1989 law designed to protect children. Not socialized medicine - a law designed to prevent child abuse.

The rights of parents

But that brings us on to one of the key arguments put forward by Charlie's parents during the hours of legal discussion - the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.

They believed it should have been up to them to decide what was best for their son. But this is not what the law says.

The 1989 Children's Act, which was introduced following a child abuse scandal in Cleveland, makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.

Subsequent legislation has followed and a framework has been created whereby the state has been emboldened to challenge the view of parents where they believe children's best interests are not being served.

This sees doctors oppose the decision of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions for their children.

The law is also used by councils to take children they believe are at risk into care.

Of course, proving someone is at risk or can be helped by medical treatment is much easier to do than proving a treatment is no longer in the best interests of a child when the parents disagree.

But what was often overlooked in the Charlie Gard case was that it wasn't just the doctors against the parents. Charlie also had an independent guardian who agreed with the hospital.

Daniel Sokol, a medical ethicist and barrister, says the case has shone a light on this issue. "It reminds us that the rights of parents over their children are not absolute. They are limited by what is in the best interests of the child."

But he says it is interesting that in the US, which played such a key role through the intervention of doctors who said they would be prepared to treat Charlie, and because of President Donald Trump's offer of help, the rights of parents to decide what is best are much more enshrined.

"The wishes of parents and 'surrogates' generally carry more weight, which is why many US commentators have expressed surprise at the hospital's handling of this case," he says.

"For them, the doctors should do what the parents want."​

It's a complex ethical situation imo.

Waste of time. NOBODY is attacking the Hospital. Not EVEN the Parents. The problem lies in the callousness and arrogance of a system that BLOCKS and prolongs an effort to attempt alternate treatment against the WILL of the baby's parents.

Oh WOW -- AN INDEPENDENT -- state appointed Guardian AGREEING with the State. Imagine that. Imagine how happy you'd be in the Soviet Union or East Germany..

So parents can do anything they want with a child, is that it?

No... They can't .. They WILL be prosecuted for abuse. That's how that should work. You don't ASSUME that every parent is incompetent and strip ALL their collective Guardianship rights. Only the arrogance of "we know best and you are untrustworthy" leftist thinking would punish EVERY parent for the abuses of some.

Coyote -- I have seen lists of proposed "child abuse" guidelines from Leftist policy folks and orgs that include

1) Feeding them a PopTart for breakfast. OR
2) Sending them to Sunday School

I do NOT trust those leftists to make Guardianship decisions on my parenting. And I will not give them the MASSIVE Political power to fuck with every hare-brained decision on LAW regarding child rearing.

Nevermind denying me the RIGHT to take my child into a mainstream cutting edge Clinical Trial that COULD save what OTHERS CLAIM to be a terminally ill child. ESPECIALLY when they wanted to KILL that child 6 months before he died.

WHY the FUck do we have Hospice Care? We could save 10 to 20% of end of life care costs by just going around pulling plugs out of the wall. These jerks would not even ALLOW Charlie to go back HOME for Hospice care. Just Fuck it all. That's not gonna happen in America...

I agree - people go TO FAR with some of this. You're preaching to the choir. Ok, you won't trust leftist to make Guardianship decisions, well what about a RIGHTIST - you know, the guys who are behind the religious exemptions allowing legally sanctioned child abuse?

And in Charlie's case - it wasn't "cutting edge" - it was so experimental it hadn't even been tried on mice with Charlie's form of disease and none of it had been tried in ANY clinical trials, much less with Charlie's form of the disease - not to mention the fact that he was already diagnosed with epileptic encephalopathy in December, indicating severe brain damage.

How long do you keep trying something for someone who can not speak for themselves and who should speak for them if there is suffering involved or end of life decisions?

The parents should be the first choice...but what if they go against established and expert medical advice, how far should they be allowed to go?

I don't think there is a clear cut answer.

 

[Coyote]

Several Brit Courts took THREE MONTHS of that child's LIMITED time on Earth to give their predetermined decision a phony stamp of LEGAL review. They felt NO SENSE of urgency. What's ONE dead child compared to the droid-like efficiency of the NHS???

And their decision after 3 months was the same decision that had already been made. KILL him.. Court ordered termination.. They ate up any chance of that child being treated or at the very least helping thousands of others in his death..

I think you are doing a disservice to the doctors involved in the child's care. Charlie's condition markedly deteriorated by December. In fact - they were in the process of obtaining a "compassionate use" exemption FOR the therapy (and, that's the same legal process WE in the US have to go through with experimental therapies)when it became apparent the child had deteriorated markedly and would not be helped by the therapy other than being kept in a persistent vegetative state. It was after that it went to the courts.

 

[Coyote]

This is only one time. How many other times have the government denied people medical care they were going to pay out of pocket for.

You made the claim, show us.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

All experimental treatment goes against standard medical practice. At one time, doctors and nurses washing their hands went against standard medical practice.

Once the government announces that this patient shall die, they can't buy their way out and pay for their own medical care.

 

[Coyote]

All experimental treatment goes against standard medical practice. At one time, doctors and nurses washing their hands went against standard medical practice.

Once the government announces that this patient shall die, they can't buy their way out and pay for their own medical care.

The government wasn't who decided.

You are right though about experimental treatment...but there is a way in which to use it ethically.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.

No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious.

There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.

The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care. That's it.

Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank. Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.

Except that isn't true. And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948. Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.

Evidently NOT. Because Charlie's parents RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- the State OWNED that child. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..

No, I'm not defending the indefensible.

You're trying to make this something it's not.

Parents do not OWN a child either.
.

Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.

Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.

You want a war? That's a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.

The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.

That's a fact

 

[Coyote]

Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.

No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious.

There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.

The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care. That's it.

Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank. Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.

Except that isn't true. And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948. Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.

Evidently NOT. Because Charlie's parents RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- the State OWNED that child. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..

No, I'm not defending the indefensible.

You're trying to make this something it's not.

Parents do not OWN a child either.
.

Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.

Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.

You want a war? That's a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.

The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.

That's a fact

I don't want a fight with you Sassy.

But what happens when parents are wrong?


btw...sexualization of children? Maybe you should look at those child pagents.

That too is "you people".

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.

No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious.

There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.

The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care. That's it.

Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank. Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.

Except that isn't true. And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948. Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.

Evidently NOT. Because Charlie's parents RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- the State OWNED that child. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..

No, I'm not defending the indefensible.

You're trying to make this something it's not.

Parents do not OWN a child either.
.

Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.

Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.

You want a war? That's a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.

The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.

That's a fact

I don't want a fight with you Sassy.

But what happens when parents are wrong?


btw...sexualization of children? Maybe you should look at those child pagents.

That too is "you people".

Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.

Keep your paws off of them.

There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.

Heed it. I live it

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Once the doctor knows the patient will be their patient they will look at the records.

No doctor was called in as a consulting doctor for Charlie Gard so the mention is specious.

There is only one issue and it is not whether any doctor should have reviewed the records.

The sole issue is that these people could pay for medical care and was legally prohibited from receiving that care. That's it.

Today Charlie Gard, tomorrow it's grandma with a broken hip and money in the bank. Once the government says no medical care, even if you could pay, you die and that's just the way the government wants it.

Except that isn't true. And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948. Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.

Evidently NOT. Because Charlie's parents RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- the State OWNED that child. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..

No, I'm not defending the indefensible.

You're trying to make this something it's not.

Parents do not OWN a child either.
.

Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.

Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.

You want a war? That's a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.

The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.

That's a fact

"Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS."

Most of that crowd have NO children of their own, most are either LGBTQ freaks or barren women or weirdos who have chosen to be biologically abnormal and not have children.

People who have NO children of their own should have NO say in how children are brought up or educated.

 

[Coyote]

Except that isn't true. And Britain has had some form of NHS since about 1948. Grandma still gets her broken hip fixed, and those with money can seek treatment outside of the system.

Evidently NOT. Because Charlie's parents RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- the State OWNED that child. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..

No, I'm not defending the indefensible.

You're trying to make this something it's not.

Parents do not OWN a child either.
.

Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.

Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.

You want a war? That's a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.

The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.

That's a fact

I don't want a fight with you Sassy.

But what happens when parents are wrong?


btw...sexualization of children? Maybe you should look at those child pagents.

That too is "you people".

Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.

Keep your paws off of them.

There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.

Heed it. I live it

And what about child pagents? Photographers who SEXUALIZE children? I'm more worried about that then I am about gay and trans stuff.

Isn't there something TERRIBLY wrong with this? But it's MAINSTREAM!

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Evidently NOT. Because Charlie's parents RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- the State OWNED that child. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..

No, I'm not defending the indefensible.

You're trying to make this something it's not.

Parents do not OWN a child either.
.

Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.

Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.

You want a war? That's a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.

The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.

That's a fact

I don't want a fight with you Sassy.

But what happens when parents are wrong?


btw...sexualization of children? Maybe you should look at those child pagents.

That too is "you people".

Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.

Keep your paws off of them.

There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.

Heed it. I live it

And what about child pagents? Photographers who SEXUALIZE children? I'm more worried about that then I am about gay and trans stuff.

Isn't there something TERRIBLY wrong with this? But it's MAINSTREAM!

So you are saying you're worried about child pageants but not worried about children who are being psychologically abused by perverts who are pushing the faggot and Transgender crap at then?

I mean can't you be worried about the child pageants AND the faggot and Transgender crap also? Or would that not be Politically Correct for you to contemplate?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Evidently NOT. Because Charlie's parents RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- the State OWNED that child. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..

No, I'm not defending the indefensible.

You're trying to make this something it's not.

Parents do not OWN a child either.
.

Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.

Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.

You want a war? That's a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.

The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.

That's a fact

I don't want a fight with you Sassy.

But what happens when parents are wrong?


btw...sexualization of children? Maybe you should look at those child pagents.

That too is "you people".

Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.

Keep your paws off of them.

There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.

Heed it. I live it

And what about child pagents? Photographers who SEXUALIZE children? I'm more worried about that then I am about gay and trans stuff.

Isn't there something TERRIBLY wrong with this? But it's MAINSTREAM!

I'm no fan of all that and it's usually mother's living through their daughters. But there is a big diffetence between that and going after the same age group on gay, trans and gender issues. Then it progresses to crap like Teen Vogue basically pushing anal sex on tweens and teens.

I cannot understand this sudden push on all of it. It's some sort of agenda and people are watching and aware. Many mothers have told me.

Life today is hard enough for a child, stop throwing all this garbage at them. A four, five, six year old isn't ready to confront it

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Evidently NOT. Because Charlie's parents RAISED the money and would have gotten LOTS of help on Life Flights and things like that. So OBVIOUSLY, even with the MONEY -- the State OWNED that child. That's the outrage. Evidently -- you're immune from obvious and want to defend the indefensible any way that you can..

No, I'm not defending the indefensible.

You're trying to make this something it's not.

Parents do not OWN a child either.
.

Yeah we do. You on the left are under the impression they belong to society....you couldn't be more wrong.

Keep your paws off of them, cease your indoctrinatin of them, stop with sexulation of them with this gay, trans, etc. BS.

You want a war? That's a damn good way to get one. I know plenty of parents...we're weary of you people.

The parents of Charlie Gard AND Charlie Gard were wronged.

That's a fact

I don't want a fight with you Sassy.

But what happens when parents are wrong?


btw...sexualization of children? Maybe you should look at those child pagents.

That too is "you people".

Oh good grief, yeah we're teaching them gay and trans shit in preschool.

Keep your paws off of them.

There is a saying, the most dangerous place in the world...between a mother and her childten.

Heed it. I live it

And what about child pagents? Photographers who SEXUALIZE children? I'm more worried about that then I am about gay and trans stuff.

Isn't there something TERRIBLY wrong with this? But it's MAINSTREAM!

What's your opinion of this below, do you think these young children are not being indoctrinated by perverted degenerates or do you think these young children are doing these things of their own accord? If the latter then how? Young children of their own accord do not understand this, it's being PUT into their minds by perverted adults.

The below is a boy, why is he being made to dress as a girl? Is it so faggots can anally violate him, probably.

The below degenerate should either be shot where they stand or thrown into a dungeon and left there until it rots.

 

[Coyote]

My feelings are this.

As a society we are ALL responsible for the children in our society. We all contribute to pay for their education and welfare, and if their parents fail or fall, we all SHOULD be willing to do what is necessary to pick up the pieces and help them.

And as you know, I don't have children but that doesn't diminish my responsibility.

In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this. Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity. To not judge on outward appearances. Is that indoctrination?

On the other hand, parents should not sexualize children. Children are too young to make gender determinations and parents should NOT make them for them. They should be understanding, compassionate and STAND BY their children. If, after puberty, the child's choice is not his biological assignment, I hope the parents understand and love that child all the more. Is that to alien a concept?

On sexualizing children - LOOK AT BEAUTY PAGENTS - it's disgusting. Children masquerading as fully sexualized adults. It's so wrong. Let them be children. Don't force gender choices on them and don't turn them into sexual beings before they need to be

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

My feelings are this.

As a society we are ALL responsible for the children in our society. We all contribute to pay for their education and welfare, and if their parents fail or fall, we all SHOULD be willing to do what is necessary to pick up the pieces and help them.

And as you know, I don't have children but that doesn't diminish my responsibility.

In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this. Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity. To not judge on outward appearances. Is that indoctrination?

On the other hand, parents should not sexualize children. Children are too young to make gender determinations and parents should NOT make them for them. They should be understanding, compassionate and STAND BY their children. If, after puberty, the child's choice is not his biological assignment, I hope the parents understand and love that child all the more. Is that to alien a concept?

On sexualizing children - LOOK AT BEAUTY PAGENTS - it's disgusting. Children masquerading as fully sexualized adults. It's so wrong. Let them be children. Don't force gender choices on them and don't turn them into sexual beings before they need to be

"In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this. Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity. To not judge on outward appearances. Is that indoctrination?"

That isn't what I refer to. I refer to the indoctrination of young children with the LGBTQ Perverts Agenda ie.

If a boy plays with a girls toy, it means he's a boy trapped in a girls body. If a girl plays with a boys toy, it means she's a boy trapped in a girls body. That there is 56 Genders and that boys can have periods also etc.

There is nothing compassionate about this, it's evil and it's child abuse.

 

[Coyote]

My feelings are this.

As a society we are ALL responsible for the children in our society. We all contribute to pay for their education and welfare, and if their parents fail or fall, we all SHOULD be willing to do what is necessary to pick up the pieces and help them.

And as you know, I don't have children but that doesn't diminish my responsibility.

In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this. Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity. To not judge on outward appearances. Is that indoctrination?

On the other hand, parents should not sexualize children. Children are too young to make gender determinations and parents should NOT make them for them. They should be understanding, compassionate and STAND BY their children. If, after puberty, the child's choice is not his biological assignment, I hope the parents understand and love that child all the more. Is that to alien a concept?

On sexualizing children - LOOK AT BEAUTY PAGENTS - it's disgusting. Children masquerading as fully sexualized adults. It's so wrong. Let them be children. Don't force gender choices on them and don't turn them into sexual beings before they need to be

"In the pictures you (Lucy) show above my feeling is this. Children should be taught to be COMPASSIONATE of all humanity. To not judge on outward appearances. Is that indoctrination?"

That isn't what I refer to. I refer to the indoctrination of young children with the LGBTQ Perverts Agenda ie.

If a boy plays with a girls toy, it means he's a boy trapped in a girls body. If a girl plays with a boys toy, it means she's a boy trapped in a girls body. That there is 56 Genders and that boys can have periods also etc.

There is nothing compassionate about this, it's evil and it's child abuse.

I think boys and girls should be allowed to play with the toys they choose without fear of labels...is that reasonable? It doesn't mean anything in terms of gender. But if, after puberty...a child truly feels he's trapped in the wrong body, then lets be open to that.

56 genders, yes...that may be a bit much.

 

[flacaltenn]

agree - people go TO FAR with some of this. You're preaching to the choir. Ok, you won't trust leftist to make Guardianship decisions, well what about a RIGHTIST - you know, the guys who are behind the religious exemptions allowing legally sanctioned child abuse?

I wouldn't let a panel of Buddhist Monks all with Nobel Prizes make those decisions. And you're foolish if you think giving that kind of Freedom Killing Power to the State is gonna end well. Because YOU and your tribe will lose control of it one day and it will be TURNED ON YOU.. That's the point. By trying to make the State the more muscular and powerful Mummie and Daddy -- you are creating a MONSTER. One that can be hijacked for ANYONE'S whims and desires.

Indies and 3rd parties MOSTLY understand this. Lefties and Righties can THINK past the last time they "lost power"..

And in Charlie's case - it wasn't "cutting edge" - it was so experimental it hadn't even been tried on mice with Charlie's form of disease and none of it had been tried in ANY clinical trials, much less with Charlie's form of the disease - not to mention the fact that he was already diagnosed with epileptic encephalopathy in December, indicating severe brain damage.

Not true. I gave you the statements of a parent who was saved from certain death with a similar Mitochondrial disease. The purpose of GETTING CHARLIE to the US was to determine in THEIR LAB whether they could treat and make a difference. If YES -- Charlie had a chance to get better.. If NO --- then they return to UK and have a hospice situation. WE and the WORLD have NO RIGHT to be arguing over this. The only reason there's an argument is that the UK has USURPED parental rights to decide alternate treatment.

It's NOT just mice. It's 16 or 18 kids with same general dysfunction that have been saved.. Depending on the genetic "recoding" ability -- the chance was 15 to 50% REMISSION from Jan to about April. That can ONLY be determine in cases like this by having the FULL research and laboratory set-up available to RUN the very complex protocols that my daughter runs for "gene recoding". And for which I've spent a large part of my life designing the specialized equipment to do this..

And that should have been a very quiet event for the parents to AVAIL themselves of this chance for Charlie.

 

[Coyote]

agree - people go TO FAR with some of this. You're preaching to the choir. Ok, you won't trust leftist to make Guardianship decisions, well what about a RIGHTIST - you know, the guys who are behind the religious exemptions allowing legally sanctioned child abuse?

I wouldn't let a panel of Buddhist Monks all with Nobel Prizes make those decisions. And you're foolish if you think giving that kind of Freedom Killing Power to the State is gonna end well. Because YOU and your tribe will lose control of it one day and it will be TURNED ON YOU.. That's the point. By trying to make the State the more muscular and powerful Mummie and Daddy -- you are creating a MONSTER. One that can be hijacked for ANYONE'S whims and desires.

Indies and 3rd parties MOSTLY understand this. Lefties and Righties can THINK past the last time they "lost power"..

It has nothing to do with "tribes" flac...

WHO should make decisions? It sounds like you are saying it should always be the parents. In that case - what about the articles I cited? It's not even right vs left. POLITICIANS are turning it into right/left arguments. It isn't - it's an ethics argument, with the parents on one side and the medical community on the other and the child in the middle. It NEVER WAS a POLITICAL argument until AMERICAN partisans got into it.

And in Charlie's case - it wasn't "cutting edge" - it was so experimental it hadn't even been tried on mice with Charlie's form of disease and none of it had been tried in ANY clinical trials, much less with Charlie's form of the disease - not to mention the fact that he was already diagnosed with epileptic encephalopathy in December, indicating severe brain damage.

Not true. I gave you the statements of a parent who was saved from certain death with a similar Mitochondrial disease. The purpose of GETTING CHARLIE to the US was to determine in THEIR LAB whether they could treat and make a difference. If YES -- Charlie had a chance to get better.. If NO --- then they return to UK and have a hospice situation. WE and the WORLD have NO RIGHT to be arguing over this. The only reason there's an argument is that the UK has USURPED parental rights to decide alternate treatment.

That is where you are wrong. Mitochondrial diseases are not one disease, they are a collection of diseases with different mutations involved and they run the gamut from extremely severe (Charlie) to less severe. Charlie's was determined to be one of the most severe. The other child who was helped had a DIFFERENT mutation.

And you are talking about having a terminally ill child on life support making a transatlantic flight.

You are right - we and the world have no right to be arguing over it - it's between his parents, the doctors and the UK courts.

It's NOT just mice. It's 16 or 18 kids with same general dysfunction that have been saved.. Depending on the genetic "recoding" ability -- the chance was 15 to 50% REMISSION from Jan to about April. That can ONLY be determine in cases like this by having the FULL research and laboratory set-up available to RUN the very complex protocols that my daughter runs for "gene recoding". And for which I've spent a large part of my life designing the specialized equipment to do this..

It's not 16 or 18 kids. It's one. Out of that group, we only know the results for ONE child, with a DIFFERENT mutation than Charlie.

And keep in mind, GOSH IS a top notch research facility for mitochondrial disorders. I'm sure they have the full laboratory and necessary set up needed.