UK baby case

UK baby case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Greta75 -> UK baby case (7/10/2017 5:13:08 PM)
Can some British person explain to me why is there even an issue? Why are the parents forbidden from seeking treatment for their baby overseas? How can the doctors or the government of the UK, prevent the parents from wanting to find a cure for their baby? Is this some kind of Universal healthcare bad point? They give you free healthcare, but they always take away from you the right as a parent to decide what's best for your child? They are essentially mandating assisted suicide for the poor baby! No parents will accept that for their child! And even Theresa May cruelly backs the hospital on their decision of assisted suicide for the baby. This is beyond abortion now! This is state sanctioned murder of a child that two parents love very much and want to keep. PS: For Americans who have not been reading about this case, the gist of it is American Hospitals claim they can cure the child, but somehow UK laws forbid the parents from giving their child a chance to seek treatment in the US and wants to terminate the life of their child, because UK doctors decided there is no hope for this child. I don't think there is any grey area here. UK doctors say keeping the child alive is causing it suffering. ANY ILLNESS is suffering! That's why they gotta find a cure for it to end the child's suffering. Not kill it! I seriously cannot understand the UK government or doctors point of view at the moment. Are they on the side of Life or just killing anything they cannot heal.

Aylee -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 5:21:51 PM)
Sometimes the kindest thing to do is to let people die. If that kid has what I think he has, it is doubtful that the experimental treatment has any chance of success in keeping the kid alive in the long term, much less bringing him to the state where he will eventually be 'walking, talking and potty trained.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA_depletion_syndrome seems to be the problem, with fewer than 2 dozen cases world wide. Nasty, nasty process, and the parents should be encouraged to get genetic counseling, testing and consider in vitro fertilization if they choose to have more kids. Now if you wish to advocate that the parents should be allowed to offer the kid as a 'lab rat,' that is your prerogative...as long as you understand what you are advocating.

Greta75 -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 5:25:45 PM)
Yes, if there is a chance of saving the life of the child. That's what cancer patients do too, subject themselves to unproven experimental treatments. I see absolutely nothing wrong in the parents trying everything to save their child's life until there is seriously no hope. Currently, there is still hope. They should not be forbidden to do whatever within their power to save the child. I mean my friend is going through cancer now and his chemo caused him internal bleeding, liver failure and kidney failure. So since Chemo is killing him rather than healing him, now he is trying other experimental solutions suggested by his doctors. Getting sick is suffering! That's not a factor. He will suffer until he recovers. But you know what? When his FREE European doctors couldn't heal him. He went to US doctors and pretty much pay his entire life savings for it! That's what people do. He is with US doctors now. He is fighting to live. He is European. And he is feeling better from those experimental treatments that are not officially legit yet. Even in Singapore, many couldn't heal from Chemo and give themselves a chance to try these alternative unofficial solutions. Experimental drugs or solution. The chance of getting well is as bad as chemo. But it's better than nothing and some do get well. As long as there is a tiny hope, there is still hope. http://news.sky.com/story/charlie-gard-offered-experimental-drug-by-us-hospital-10940088

Aylee -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 5:40:18 PM)
I have few problems with the idea that the terminally ill should be able to choose, knowingly and OF THEIR OWN volition, to participate in trials that might be useful to future patients. Problem here is, that just like 'death panels' (aka triage, something that few here have done in real life), allowing the parents in this case to choose to send their child to the US for experimental treatment, even on their own dime, is the first step down a potentially slippery slope. What if the next time an infant is in this kind of situation, and the parents decide to 'let go and let G-d' decide, there is a somewhat more promising therapy under test, and the authorities decide that the child has a chance with that therapy and uses the power of the state to strip the child from his/her parents and enroll the child in the study?

susie -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 5:49:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Yes, if there is a chance of saving the life of the child. That's what cancer patients do too, subject themselves to unproven experimental treatments. I see absolutely nothing wrong in the parents trying everything to save their child's life until there is seriously no hope. Currently, there is still hope. They should not be forbidden to do whatever within their power to save the child. I mean my friend is going through cancer now and his chemo caused him internal bleeding, liver failure and kidney failure. So since Chemo is killing him rather than healing him, now he is trying other experimental solutions suggested by his doctors. Getting sick is suffering! That's not a factor. He will suffer until he recovers. But you know what? When his FREE European doctors couldn't heal him. He went to US doctors and pretty much pay his entire life savings for it! That's what people do. He is with US doctors now. He is fighting to live. He is European. And he is feeling better from those experimental treatments that are not officially legit yet. Even in Singapore, many couldn't heal from Chemo and give themselves a chance to try these alternative unofficial solutions. Experimental drugs or solution. The chance of getting well is as bad as chemo. But it's better than nothing and some do get well. In the case you mention your friend is an adult and able to decide for themselves what treatment they want to try. In the UK case the patient is a child with no ability to make a choice for himself. The parents are obviously emotionaly involved with the case. What nobody knows is if the child is suffering or if the experimental treatment will expose the child to suffering. There is no guarantee that the treatment will work. I saw the mother being interviewed and her belief is that this treatment will cure her son and enable him to grow up as a normal child despite being told that this will not happen. This is why the case was taken to Court so that a Judge who has no emotional attachment to the child can make a decision that is in the best intertest of the child.

Greta75 -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 5:56:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee What if the next time an infant is in this kind of situation, and the parents decide to 'let go and let G-d' decide, there is a somewhat more promising therapy under test, and the authorities decide that the child has a chance with that therapy and uses the power of the state to strip the child from his/her parents and enroll the child in the study? In that situation, that could be the parents themselves committing murder of their own child if there is enough evidence that the child could be healed. Especially in the UK where medical is free and it cost them nothing to let the child try. And if parents who's babies are already condemned to death do not try the experimental drugs as a last resort. Future children with the same illness will never be cured either. Either way, if there is 1% chance this drug could heal, they should take it! And if it didn't work, nothing else worked anyway! And if the results could help them develop better drug to save future children suffering from this disease. This is a win-win in all ways. To me, illness is suffering. Period. When you get sick, you suffer, the process of finding a solution to cure yourself is a miserable process. I accept assisted suicide decisions by adults who don't want to go through all the suffering anymore as they are adults able to make decisions on their own life. But in this case, I think the parents have the right to pro-long their child's life as their child's legal decision maker for a minor. But parents have no right to take away their child's life IF the child has a good chance to live. I am pro-abortion, but once it's out in this world, it's a human being with human rights to live. Before that, it's still not human to me but just an invasion into a woman's womb. She has a choice before it comes out to want to take responsibility for this child's life or not. Once she choose to let it out, she is responsible to keep the child well and alive. We can't let parents when things get too rough find reasons to terminate their child's life.

Greta75 -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 6:05:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: susie I saw the mother being interviewed and her belief is that this treatment will cure her son and enable him to grow up as a normal child despite being told that this will not happen. She was told by the UK doctors that this will not happen. But that's not what the US doctors said. They said there was a small chance the child may be able to be healed. All the ones telling her it's not possible are the UK doctors. Because the drug is at experimental development stage, and they aren't the ones developing it, they may not know enough about it to give clear information about it. All doctors are gonna say, as long as the drug is still at experimental stage and not legally sanctioned. They are gonna say it's not gonna work. All of them! But looking at something like chemo that is sanctioned that is basically infusing your body with poison to kill the cancer cells. What difference is it? Really? IF this baby had cancer, it might have to suffer through chemo too! And cause it alot of pain. Think of the children who are going through leukemia. They may not get well despite of the legal chemo put into them. Many have died despite the treatment. That's what cures are. They are not 100% and they may not be painless. Chemo is not painless.

susie -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 7:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: susie I saw the mother being interviewed and her belief is that this treatment will cure her son and enable him to grow up as a normal child despite being told that this will not happen. She was told by the UK doctors that this will not happen. But that's not what the US doctors said. They said there was a small chance the child may be able to be healed. All the ones telling her it's not possible are the UK doctors. Because the drug is at experimental development stage, and they aren't the ones developing it, they may not know enough about it to give clear information about it. All doctors are gonna say, as long as the drug is still at experimental stage and not legally sanctioned. They are gonna say it's not gonna work. All of them! But looking at something like chemo that is sanctioned that is basically infusing your body with poison to kill the cancer cells. What difference is it? Really? IF this baby had cancer, it might have to suffer through chemo too! And cause it alot of pain. Think of the children who are going through leukemia. They may not get well despite of the legal chemo put into them. Many have died despite the treatment. That's what cures are. They are not 100% and they may not be painless. Chemo is not painless. Greta you should read these articles which explain the details of Charlie's condition. It is obvious from the first article that what the doctors see and what his mother sees are two very different things. How can he be watching videos with them when he cannot keep his eyes open and when they are open they are facing in different directions? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/10/charlie-gard-key-questions-answered http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40554462

longwayhome -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 9:10:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Can some British person explain to me why is there even an issue? Why are the parents forbidden from seeking treatment for their baby overseas? How can the doctors or the government of the UK, prevent the parents from wanting to find a cure for their baby? Is this some kind of Universal healthcare bad point? They give you free healthcare, but they always take away from you the right as a parent to decide what's best for your child? They are essentially mandating assisted suicide for the poor baby! No parents will accept that for their child! And even Theresa May cruelly backs the hospital on their decision of assisted suicide for the baby. This is beyond abortion now! This is state sanctioned murder of a child that two parents love very much and want to keep. PS: For Americans who have not been reading about this case, the gist of it is American Hospitals claim they can cure the child, but somehow UK laws forbid the parents from giving their child a chance to seek treatment in the US and wants to terminate the life of their child, because UK doctors decided there is no hope for this child. I don't think there is any grey area here. UK doctors say keeping the child alive is causing it suffering. ANY ILLNESS is suffering! That's why they gotta find a cure for it to end the child's suffering. Not kill it! I seriously cannot understand the UK government or doctors point of view at the moment. Are they on the side of Life or just killing anything they cannot heal. I know you really hate the UK but you do need to read the detail on this Greta. I'm not completely convinced that it wouldn't be better to let the child go to the US, but the principle is that in extreme cases where treatment is held to be extending suffering hospitals can appeal directly to the courts to act in the child's best interests should the parents not be acting in the interests of the child. The parents have rights too but the child's come first. The principle that the court can decide what is in the interests of the child is the legal cornerstone of child protection, replicated the vast majority of legal systems. These cases are never easy as the child could be artificially kept alive almost indefinitely through ventilation, tube feeding and prevention of infection. There is therefore a debate as to what constitutes the best interests of this child. Cases like this have gone both ways however. There is a famous case where a child's cancer was cured after hospital doctors had refused to provide treatment available elsewhere which it appears these parents are clinging to, however that case was quite different. (And there have been many more cases of parents campaigning for specific treatments for their children against medical advice, which have subsequently failed badly subjecting the child to unnecessary suffering.) In some ways if the child does not travel for treatment there will always be a tiny doubt that it could have worked, especially given the high profile cancer case I quoted. The court could allow the parents to take the child to the US, certain in the knowledge that it would fail, reducing the possibility of future cases coming to court. However the possibility of condemning this and other future children to excessive treatment and suffering is a terrible moral dilemma to have. Whilst I am not convinced that they should not let this child go to the US for non-invasive drug therapy (the specifics of this case), I have great sympathy for the judges involved in making this decision and defend the right of the courts to make that decision (i.e. the legal and moral principle).

longwayhome -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 9:19:30 PM)
Finally just one perspective on having a system with healthcare free at the point of delivery. In many other countries this issue hardly ever arises because this child's ventilation would have been switched off a long time ago because the parents' insurance would have run out and the new treatment wouldn't be covered. Where funding is available for life, a process has to be available, other that the size of the patients' pockets, has to make the difficult decisions, when doctors and patients/family disagree. That inevitably results however in some really heart rending court cases.

Aylee -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 10:57:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee What if the next time an infant is in this kind of situation, and the parents decide to 'let go and let G-d' decide, there is a somewhat more promising therapy under test, and the authorities decide that the child has a chance with that therapy and uses the power of the state to strip the child from his/her parents and enroll the child in the study? In that situation, that could be the parents themselves committing murder of their own child if there is enough evidence that the child could be healed. Especially in the UK where medical is free and it cost them nothing to let the child try. And if parents who's babies are already condemned to death do not try the experimental drugs as a last resort. Future children with the same illness will never be cured either. Either way, if there is 1% chance this drug could heal, they should take it! And if it didn't work, nothing else worked anyway! And if the results could help them develop better drug to save future children suffering from this disease. This is a win-win in all ways. To me, illness is suffering. Period. When you get sick, you suffer, the process of finding a solution to cure yourself is a miserable process. I accept assisted suicide decisions by adults who don't want to go through all the suffering anymore as they are adults able to make decisions on their own life. But in this case, I think the parents have the right to pro-long their child's life as their child's legal decision maker for a minor. But parents have no right to take away their child's life IF the child has a good chance to live. I am pro-abortion, but once it's out in this world, it's a human being with human rights to live. Before that, it's still not human to me but just an invasion into a woman's womb. She has a choice before it comes out to want to take responsibility for this child's life or not. Once she choose to let it out, she is responsible to keep the child well and alive. We can't let parents when things get too rough find reasons to terminate their child's life. So your open stance is that this child should have a prolonged death in order to become a lab-rat.

Greta75 -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 11:21:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee So your open stance is that this child should have a prolonged death in order to become a lab-rat. It's a 10% chance of success. Yes, the child should take the experimental drugs for a 10% chance to live. 8 specialist has confirmed this experimental drugs has 10% success rate. That's alot better than 0% and just killing the child immediately. This whole pro-longing death is bullshit talk. If there is 0% chance of success, then it's pro-longing death. As long as there is 1%, it's not pro-longing death, it's giving the child a chance to live! And this child deserves the chance to live. Who are they to decide that 10% or even 1% is not good enough chance? There are many chemo survival rates that are 10% too. It's not uncommon! The damn government and doctors can stop being heartless bastards and give up on the child. Infact, it should be illegal for government or doctors to make the decision to murder a child. I don't think this is possible in my country since assisted suicide is completely illegal. The idea that a government can prevent a parent from seeking medical treatment for their child is just outrageous! And in Asia, EVEN if western medical science fail. We got Chinese medical science and many many other Asian medical science to try. It's endless. All not proven by Western medical, but there are success stories that the child can try. I just can't believe this is legal. I would never have a child in a Western country and allow them to deny treatment to my child if my child ever got ill!

Greta75 -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 11:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome In many other countries this issue hardly ever arises because this child's ventilation would have been switched off a long time ago because the parents' insurance would have run out and the new treatment wouldn't be covered. That's not the point. In other countries, as long as the person has unlimited money, they can keep hunting world wide for a specialist that could treat their child and keep trying and never give up. In the UK, they kill your child even if you can afford alternative treatment. Which is worst? To me, if a parent cannot afford medical for their child, they have not done their duties as parents to properly plan their financing and insurance. As simple as that. And currently, this couple already got 1.3million raised on the internet for them to go for their alternative treatment overseas. They got everything to save the child. Only the UK government is trying to murder their child right now. This isn't about burdening the UK taxpayers for a "lost cause" that the UK doctors deemed this baby to be. They got fundings, multiple foreign hospitals willing to step in and help them and take over the care and treatment. WTF is wrong with UK government to prevent all this? Protect islamic terrorists. Murder innocent babies, deny them the right to get well. I gotta love the priorities.

Lucylastic -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 11:37:05 PM)
Until Greta can come up with reality, its pointless discussing it with her.

Greta75 -> RE: UK baby case (7/10/2017 11:41:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: susie Greta you should read these articles which explain the details of Charlie's condition. It is obvious from the first article that what the doctors see and what his mother sees are two very different things. How can he be watching videos with them when he cannot keep his eyes open and when they are open they are facing in different directions? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/10/charlie-gard-key-questions-answered http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40554462 I personally do not know what kind doctors prefer to end a life than to do whatever last resort possible to save a life. What are their priorities? The fact that the UK court has been internationally pressured to relook at evidence for this treatment as the chance is big as 10% for the child to heal, is evidence to me that the doctors in the UK just didn't give a fuck! It's free medical, so whatever. I hope international pressure will prevail and this baby will be given the last chance to fight to live. I now know that free medical is not a good idea. Because as long as I pay. Nobody blocks my way in fighting for a love one life. Because it's free, they easily make decisions to end the life, giving up hope so easily. As it involves taxpayers money. So any life with low hopes, they terminate. To save taxpayers money spent unnecessarily. This is reality of free medical care. Or Universal or single payer, whatever ya wanna call it. Doctors have been wrong and doctors who claim that coma patients who are braindead and will never wake up, have had their patients also woken up. While such cases are minority, but a chance is a chance. Anything can happen. The alternative is immediate death. To deny the parents the right to do everything possible is just inhumane.

Greta75 -> RE: UK baby case (7/11/2017 12:10:33 AM)
I was reading that the point of this law where the government can over-rule parents decision is suppose to be for things like, when a parents deny a child blood transfusion due to religious reasons. Which could result in death of the child. It was suppose to prevent abusive parents from denying their child treatment. Now this law is used to deny the child treatment. It's unreal! What is going on! This isn't about religion or anything. There are parents who are born with kids who are also blind/deaf/mute, unable to use hands and legs. Pretty much fully dependent on the parents for the rest of that child life. Probably can't be a normal kid ever and no cure. But it's not the government decision to tell the parents, they can't keep the kid alive, because he is not gonna grow up to be an ordinary kid. This bullshit about attempting other treatment will cause more suffering to this child as a reason to block the kid's treatment. This is seriously, not reasonable. They aren't abusive parents, they are parents who are willing to do anything to keep a child who probably needs life time care, which most other parents would have easily said, can't deal with this burden, let's take it off life support. Why are they being punished for being good? I think the biggest outrage about this is, other hospitals from other countries want to help if the British hospital doesn't want to take care of this baby anymore. Who are they to say that, they know better than all the other medical professionals out there? The ones who genuinely want to save lives. I really have no respect for this decision. It's inhumane. Every human being should be given every chance to fight to live. And if it's a minor, their parents deserve the right to try everything possible before they say they give up and pull the plug. Not everything possible is tried yet. All that is standing between this kid and his final hope is the damn UK government. And because there has been many real medical situations where unexplainable recovery has occur. Fluke incidents that can't be explained. If the UK hospital just wanna get rid of it's life, then it shouldn't matter to them if the baby is pass on to another hospital for care, so it's not their problem anymore. Gosh, I seriously can't stand the bullshit that, treatment will cause pro-long suffering. When what patient suffering from major illnesses do not go through pro-long suffering while trying to get healed? ZERO!

longwayhome -> RE: UK baby case (7/11/2017 12:50:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: susie Greta you should read these articles which explain the details of Charlie's condition. It is obvious from the first article that what the doctors see and what his mother sees are two very different things. How can he be watching videos with them when he cannot keep his eyes open and when they are open they are facing in different directions? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/10/charlie-gard-key-questions-answered http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40554462 I personally do not know what kind doctors prefer to end a life than to do whatever last resort possible to save a life. What are their priorities? The fact that the UK court has been internationally pressured to relook at evidence for this treatment as the chance is big as 10% for the child to heal, is evidence to me that the doctors in the UK just didn't give a fuck! It's free medical, so whatever. I hope international pressure will prevail and this baby will be given the last chance to fight to live. I now know that free medical is not a good idea. Because as long as I pay. Nobody blocks my way in fighting for a love one life. Because it's free, they easily make decisions to end the life, giving up hope so easily. As it involves taxpayers money. So any life with low hopes, they terminate. To save taxpayers money spent unnecessarily. This is reality of free medical care. Or Universal or single payer, whatever ya wanna call it. Doctors have been wrong and doctors who claim that coma patients who are braindead and will never wake up, have had their patients also woken up. While such cases are minority, but a chance is a chance. Anything can happen. The alternative is immediate death. To deny the parents the right to do everything possible is just inhumane. Greta, how does your mind work? *This has nothing to do with free medical.* Or for that matter assisted suicide. It also has nothing to do with burden on the tax payer, as the NHS can afford to keep a small number of people in persistent vegetative states alive for long periods. This has to do with what is best for the child in terms of the balance between treatment and suffering. Strictly speaking this is to do with child protection and the welfare of the child. It also has to do with our ability to keep people "alive" indefinitely whatever the cost (to the patient). No-one is suggesting these are simple considerations. *I don't think you really understand medicine or medical ethics.* You seem to have a problem dealing with the concept that it is sometimes harmful or even cruel to the patient to treat a condition without thinking of the overall benefit to the patient. You use the example of chemotherapy. In fact very few responsible doctors will treat someone where there is only a 10% chance of benefit and large risks of harm. That would not be ethical. Of course you can give chemotherapy on a palliative basis but only if the benefits are likely to outweigh the side-effects. As a result many cancer patients do not receive chemotherapy, because it would cause suffering without significant benefit or actually shorten their life. To do otherwise would be unethical and indeed illegal in most countries. Doctors have quite correctly been prosecuted and disciplined for over-treating patients or making low chances of success seem acceptable against serious risks of harm. This is a matter for debate in health services across the world because the result is that some patients willing to live with high risks do not receive some forms of treatment, whilst many more undoubtedly avoided harm. The death rate for hip replacements has reduced significantly across the world as doctors no longer treat the highest risk patients, which seems appropriate as accepting a significant risk of death for something designed to improve your quality of life can seem disproportionate. There is a continuum and people are at different places on it. What is clear however is that a treatment at all costs approach is unethical and, at least in the US and Europe, it is actually illegal on the grounds of patient well-being. *Your hatred of the UK also leads you to thinking that this case is a quirk of our legal system or approach to health service delivery.* There have been many cases from around the world involving the "switching off of machines" in the interests of the patient. This one is just particularly emotive because it involves a child and it has been so expertly presented to the media. All of that said, in this case the proposed treatment is a non-invasive oral medication with a low risk of any side effects beyond a stomach upset. Refraining from "switching off the machine" until it is tried would seem proportionate if it can be done in the UK with no obvious further suffering for the child, who cannot see, hear, communicate and has severe brain damage. Despite what you suggested, there is no expectation of cure but there is a possibility of some improvement, although the drug has never been used on a patient with such severe brain damage. Dragging the child across the world to be a guinea pig in an experiment by over-excited, media-savvy, research scientists, I have serious concerns about however.

longwayhome -> RE: UK baby case (7/11/2017 1:06:44 AM)
I do have some sympathy with the concerns you are expressing Greta. These are very difficult moral and ethical issues which deserve careful consideration - the right to life, harmful and non-harmful treatments, the use of artificial life extending technology, how do you define death and/or consciousness, the protection of children from over-treatment. The list goes on. This case, and the life of the poor child at the centre of it, has dragged on specifically because it is complex and emotive. I don't think however that you are really up for any "careful consideration" of this, just having a good rant about how disgusting you think your least favourite country is for doing something you have reservations about. This case has been to the European Court as well. Spending significant periods of time around the babies we are able to keep alive these days and understanding the outcomes for some of them is very sobering and makes all of this even more difficult to judge. It's not your reservations I object to, but the aggressive case you are making against people honestly trying their best to make good decisions about a precious human life.

Greta75 -> RE: UK baby case (7/11/2017 1:46:49 AM)
FR I also wanna say that historically to date, ONLY 16 BABIES in this Universe ever got this disease. Those damn UK doctors can't claim to be experts on this disease, AS IF they know for sure everything about it's curability, WHEN they have sooo little experience with dealing with it. This is the letter from the Italian Doctors to appeal to these cruel UK doctors: http://www.charliesfight.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/421C34C100000578-4673276-image-a-13_1499432432453.jpg And those people accusing these parents are allowing their child to become science experiments, like seriously!!! Only 16 people in this Universe INCLUDING this child got this disease. What kind of funding is there ever gonna be for official cures for something this rare and insignificant? Obviously, there isn't gonna be. And if they don't try and see if it works, then no cure will ever be found! This is how cures are found! It starts with experimental drugs! The fact that it is effective on mice would have been good enough for me. I would go on experimental drugs if I had this disease if the alternative is immediate death.

Lucylastic -> RE: UK baby case (7/11/2017 2:17:21 AM)
A slightly different angle https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/7/7/15934752/health-insurance-heterotaxy-twitter

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.188965E-02