Pollcode

In the child's best interests? Dead, or (just about) alive?
Very few adults choose to give up on life however poor quality, because without life, we have nothing. Who decides at what point the "quality of life" is too low to justify any life at all? Given the choice between parents who on the whole love their children, and the State that very rarely gives a , and mostly causes children in its care to have miserable damaging upbringings, I know what I would go with...

I would vote yes let them take him to the USA but it is the abhorrant amount of money to be used on extending his suffering for another 6 months on a whim of his parents which is why I would say no.

...cont

Seems to me that on balance, the doctors here are trying their damndest to pursue Charlie's best interests - I'm happy to believe that, as the alternative (that they're trying to deprive a child of his life) is an abomination. I'm happy to believe that they see transporting Charlie to the US for a treatment by methods in which they see no virtue or hope and which even the treating doctor says may well not work, as a risky process which is prejudicial to Charlie's best interests. I'm relieved and happy to see the commitment the doctors are making to secure Charlie's best interests as they see them.

I'm very unhappy and uneasy that this has entered the legal arena at all. Because of the Twin Tools of Mob Rule - Facebook and Twitter - the hard of thinking, the snowflakes, and the unprincipled have made their usual split-second agreement with the mob and concluded that the NHS, the doctors and the judges are authoritarian bastards who are only interested in covering their own backs because they can't cure Charlie but a guy in the States says he can. This whole process brings medicine, doctors and judges into disrepute by their being drawn into it. As a population we really, really don't need that, and we certainly don't need badly thought out legal decisions made in a political arena.

If the parents want to take him to the US for a probably hopeless treatment which might harm and has a low probability of doing any good, then if they can square it with their consciences, they should go with the blessings of us all. That way disrepute is minimised, knowledge might be gained and who knows? Maybe Charlie gets fixed.

I agree with JQ.

I was torn on this one, starting from the viewpoint that the doctors were in reality claiming that the State owns your children and can make decisions about them on your behalf, with no challenge possible.

Then I read an article in which the US doctor who will (? provide the treatment was reported as having said that it "might" work; that it's not a cure but that he "hoped" it might be possible to achieve an improvement in Charlie's condition. By improvement, he seems to mean that the child will have some sense of awareness about what's going on around him but in no sense will he ever lead anything approaching a normal life.

I've been fortunate never to have been in Charlie's parents' position so I have no real clue how they feel other than to say it's easy to see they'd want to fight for their child - but I've an uneasy feeling that this is no more than a doctor wanting to try out some thoughts on a real live human. An experiment; but then, all medicine is experimental at some stage. /..cont (ran into word limit)

They were always going to pay for it themselves.

The issue isn't money.

MW says "This sort of thing is not the job of government-appointed arbitrators" but it is, in the UK.

The issue is that the law says the state gets to decide what is in the "child's best interests".

Adults are allowed to make stupid decisions (if they are deemed competent, at least) but parents are not allowed to make stupid decisions on behalf of their children.

The doctors at the hospital felt that the parents spending the funds they raised on their own, to take him to the US for a treatment that basically isn't going to do anything beyond prolonging his life by a few weeks, is a stupid decision that is "not in the child's best interests". Frankly, I agree that it is a stupid decision.

In many countries (I don't know specifics) the doctors would say to the parents, it is a stupid idea to go to the US, but you can do what you like with your own children.

In the UK, the doctors would have explained to the parents why it is a stupid idea, but since the parents seem to be missing the bigger picture and disagreed, then the doctors said, right, we will go to court and let them decide what is in the "child's best interests".

I'm with Phil. There has to be a limit or the NHS ends up paying for fringe stuff like cryogenics. If it isn't an immediate health issue or involves non-essential cosmetic treatments, then fine, pay for it privately. Go where you like for treatment if the NHS doesn't provide it in the UK.

Yes they have that right, but they fund it themselves. There has to be a limit on what 'everyone' will pay for - there's the flaw in the NHS, eventually it's expected to cure everything for everyone...