Bryn Posted 4 July 2017 Share Posted 4 July 2017 (edited) I sees he's waded in on the Charlie Gard case at the last minute, for maximum impact. He's selfish and attention seeking. Edited 4 July 2017 by Bryn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 July 2017 Share Posted 4 July 2017 6 minutes ago, Bryn said: I sees he's waded in on the Charlie Gard case at the last minute, for maximum impact. He's selfish and attention seeking. I can't get on Twitter at the minute, what has he said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 4 July 2017 Share Posted 4 July 2017 5 minutes ago, MattP said: I can't get on Twitter at the minute, what has he said? He himself has tweeted, to paraphrase, if there's anything we can do for Charlie we should do it. His lawyer has tweeted that he's in contact with his European office to intervene. And the broadsheets are reporting that they've found a doctor and hospital and are prepared to take him over there for treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 4 July 2017 Share Posted 4 July 2017 Just now, Bryn said: He himself has tweeted, to paraphrase, if there's anything we can do for Charlie we should do it. His lawyer has tweeted that he's in contact with his European office to intervene. And the broadsheets are reporting that they've found a doctor and hospital and are prepared to take him over there for treatment. It might be self fulfilling but it seems like a positive outcome for the poor lad? Or is that too simplistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 July 2017 Share Posted 4 July 2017 2 minutes ago, Bryn said: He himself has tweeted, to paraphrase, if there's anything we can do for Charlie we should do it. His lawyer has tweeted that he's in contact with his European office to intervene. And the broadsheets are reporting that they've found a doctor and hospital and are prepared to take him over there for treatment. Excuse my ignorance but out of interest why is that selfish? I thought going to the US for treatment was exactly what the parents wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 4 July 2017 Share Posted 4 July 2017 Is this the kid who's blind, can't hear, talk or move with brain damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 4 July 2017 Share Posted 4 July 2017 Its selfish because he's waited until it's been demonstrated in court multiple times why Charlie should not go to the USA and the ECJ found their rulings impeccably put together. He's waited until now for maximum emotional impact in a hopeless case. I implore you to read this. http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/gosh-response-charlie-gard-high-court-ruling-today 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 4 July 2017 Share Posted 4 July 2017 This man is such an utter cvnt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Bryn said: Its selfish because he's waited until it's been demonstrated in court multiple times why Charlie should not go to the USA and the ECJ found their rulings impeccably put together. He's waited until now for maximum emotional impact in a hopeless case. I implore you to read this. http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/gosh-response-charlie-gard-high-court-ruling-today Cheers, this is actually something that has passed me by. This looks like one of the most sensitive cases I've ever read, courts here believe he should be left to die, doctors over the Atlantic believe he can be saved albeit with only a very small chance. The Pope has now also offered his private doctors at a hospital in Rome as well. The poor parents, can't blame them for wanting to try, who could just let their child die when you think there is a chance they could be saved? (I'm still not sure this makes Trump a bastard though, according to his PS he only heard about the case this week) Edited 5 July 2017 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 10 minutes ago, MattP said: Cheers, this is actually something that has passed me by. This looks like one of the most sensitive cases I've ever read, courts here believe he should be left to die, doctors over the Atlantic believe he can be saved albeit with only a very small chance. The Pope has now also offered his private doctors at a hospital in Rome as well. The poor parents, can't blame them for wanting to try, who could just let their child die when you think there is a chance they could be saved? (I'm still not sure this makes Trump a bastard though, according to his PS he only heard about the case this week) It's desperately sad. I've got no anger towards the parents, much as I wish they'd relent, what an awful situation. I'm also not sure why they're not facilitating a death at home if it's feasible, which with the family prepared to contribute financially it surely must be. It should be noted that the US doc who originally gave them hope said prior to judgement that having reviewed the case he no longer thinks Charlie would benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: Cheers, this is actually something that has passed me by. This looks like one of the most sensitive cases I've ever read, courts here believe he should be left to die, doctors over the Atlantic believe he can be saved albeit with only a very small chance. The Pope has now also offered his private doctors at a hospital in Rome as well. The poor parents, can't blame them for wanting to try, who could just let their child die when you think there is a chance they could be saved? (I'm still not sure this makes Trump a bastard though, according to his PS he only heard about the case this week) 1 hour ago, Bryn said: It's desperately sad. I've got no anger towards the parents, much as I wish they'd relent, what an awful situation. I'm also not sure why they're not facilitating a death at home if it's feasible, which with the family prepared to contribute financially it surely must be. It should be noted that the US doc who originally gave them hope said prior to judgement that having reviewed the case he no longer thinks Charlie would benefit. I don't suppose this will be a popular opinion, but I think the parents are the ones being selfish; keeping the poor soul alive is not the same as giving him life. As for Trump, this a shameless attempt to court approval and popularity. He is beneath contempt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 1 hour ago, Buce said: I don't suppose this will be a popular opinion, but I think the parents are the ones being selfish; keeping the poor soul alive is not the same as giving him life. As for Trump, this a shameless attempt to court approval and popularity. He is beneath contempt. Nope that's the sad truth. The tests in America have not even been carried out to a stable extent on mice never mind humans... and this brain damaged baby could well be in the most incredible pain and can't move, talk, see or hear - but if Trump can get some publicity and a tweet out of it.... cheap doesn't cover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 2 hours ago, Buce said: I don't suppose this will be a popular opinion, but I think the parents are the ones being selfish; keeping the poor soul alive is not the same as giving him life. As for Trump, this a shameless attempt to court approval and popularity. He is beneath contempt. Selfish ? - that's harsh ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 5 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said: Selfish ? - that's harsh ! How is it? They aren't keeping that poor kid alive for his benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 2 minutes ago, Innovindil said: How is it? They aren't keeping that poor kid alive for his benefit. Because even though the courts may have made the right decision (based on what I know of the case) I can understand how a parent in such circumstances might cling on to the hope, however slim, that something might be achieved to improve his quality of life and that he might have a life worth living. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 3 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said: Because even though the courts may have made the right decision (based on what I know of the case) I can understand how a parent in such circumstances might cling on to the hope, however slim, that something might be achieved to improve his quality of life and that he might have a life worth living. Alright step out of the parents shoes for a few seconds, we can all agree that losing a kid is most probably the worst thing that could ever happen to a person. Put yourself in that kids shoes, he can't hear, see or move. He's pretty much lifeless already. No one knows if he's in pain or not because he can't express it. Pretty much every doctor is in agreement that any suitable treatment is years away at best, a pipe dream at worst. It's fine clinging to hope when there is a chance, but if the experts are saying there isn't then why let the poor child suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 9 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Alright step out of the parents shoes for a few seconds, we can all agree that losing a kid is most probably the worst thing that could ever happen to a person. Put yourself in that kids shoes, he can't hear, see or move. He's pretty much lifeless already. No one knows if he's in pain or not because he can't express it. Pretty much every doctor is in agreement that any suitable treatment is years away at best, a pipe dream at worst. It's fine clinging to hope when there is a chance, but if the experts are saying there isn't then why let the poor child suffer. Well there are experts in the USA who have rightly or wrongly given the parents a sliver of hope. As I indicated above, on the totality of the medical evidence I believe the courts here have made the right decision. That does not equate to a position that the parents are "selfish" in opposing the moves to end the life of their son. Objectively, I agree with the decision of the court. Subjectively, I understand why the parents fought the case as they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 8 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said: Well there are experts in the USA who have rightly or wrongly given the parents a sliver of hope. As I indicated above, on the totality of the medical evidence I believe the courts here have made the right decision. That does not equate to a position that the parents are "selfish" in opposing the moves to end the life of their son. Objectively, I agree with the decision of the court. Subjectively, I understand why the parents fought the case as they did. I knew it would be controversial, but Innovindil has said everything I would have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 14 minutes ago, Buce said: I knew it would be controversial, but Innovindil has said everything I would have said. That's fine. It's your opinion. And I have expressed mine as I wished too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 35 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said: Well there are experts in the USA who have rightly or wrongly given the parents a sliver of hope. As I indicated above, on the totality of the medical evidence I believe the courts here have made the right decision. That does not equate to a position that the parents are "selfish" in opposing the moves to end the life of their son. Objectively, I agree with the decision of the court. Subjectively, I understand why the parents fought the case as they did. I thought the American doctor involved had changed his mind on the treatment having any potential merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 Just now, Carl the Llama said: I thought the American doctor involved had changed his mind on the treatment having any potential merit. Yes because he recognised the baby was in the advanced stages of the terminal condition, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 The local MP is standing up now at PMQ's now trying to pressure the Prime Minister into intervening and letting him go to the USA, not sure that's helpful at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 19 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I thought the American doctor involved had changed his mind on the treatment having any potential merit. I've seen an article in which he described the proposed tratment as "uncharted territory" but not one in which he changed his mind as you describe. I'm not suggesting you are wrong, just that I was not aware of that. Do you know when that change of opinion was expressed.? But even with that information, I remain of the opinion that the description of the parents as "selfish" in circumstances such as these is harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 Not entirely sure you can criticise China for trading with a repressive regime without appearing to be a massive hypocrite, Don. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 5 July 2017 Share Posted 5 July 2017 1 hour ago, leicsmac said: Not entirely sure you can criticise China for trading with a repressive regime without appearing to be a massive hypocrite, Don. Not sure what he's playing at... he already has a growing problem with North Korea their, why double your problem by disrespecting China so publically? Those are behind closed doors discussions, not things to air on Twitter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts