Charlie Gard should be allowed to die, says Dominic Wilkinson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ค. 2017
- Consultant Neonatologist and Professor in Medical Ethics (Oxford), Dominic Wilkinson, argues that #CharlieGard should be allowed to die, and that though there surely is disagreement about this case, it is not necessarily 'reasonable' disagreement. He also explains what would be required to change his mind about the case.
Any word on ethics perhaps he has forgotten that is professor in the matter
Pure evil
From an ethical perspective Charlie guards parents should be able to take their son elsewhere if they want to try other treatments as the hospital their son resides at is not specialist in this condition ..
I agree.
of course you are right but this is more about the State determining who lives and dies
earthen vessels, what a load of absolute garbage, thank god people like you dont make decisions on how to treat terminally ill children.Charlie has brain damage,cant hear, cant see ,is paralised ,cant move cant swallow ,cant breath ,and is quite possibly in dreadful pain.Why cant people see that this professor is a master class he knows what he is talking about.Are you saying it has been right for Charlie to be kept hanging on ,having no quality of life,while his parents have been fighting the people in ghst who has probably given charlie the best care.Charlie has now died ,and in my mind found peace.People like you are disgusting ,but if you needed an operation in this mans hands ,would you refuse,and say you wanted to travel to America,to have a consultation with the doctor ,who was only wanting financial gain to the tune of 13000,000 for treating him. Rest in peace Charlie your nightmare is now over.
I have one thing to ask. Is the ones making the right where he lives or are their God. If not then as long as parents are trying to get the best care for their child should be listen to
The person who has the most love for the baby is the best person to make the important decisions for the baby. Any decision based in love is the wisest decision.
The State is far more likely to be fallible than loving parents.
"Practical ethics"-- more like "eugenics propaganda". The professionals clearly have lost sight of their role to not cause harm.
Look at this guy, who cares what you think it is not your child and his parents have raised the money to get treatment somewhere else. If they would have let him leave sooner maybe his out come might have been better.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU WANT IF HIS PARENTS RAISED THE MONEY. YES PARENTS SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE FINAL SAY.
He is just giving an opinion, as you are. If a child had physically abusive parents should they always have the final say? Just a thought.
you are comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same in anyway, the opposite actually . Again his parents have raised money for treatment outside the UK and they should be able to try other options. Do you want to be the one to pull the plug, I doubt it but why, because it doesn't feel or look right.
The ethical debate is not about this at all, it's not about money. It's about what is best for the child, it is sadly a logical reduction to what is better for the child - prolonging life, and what would according to medical experts be prolonging suffering to fly to America for experimental treatment, which the experts say has a very limited chance of success or to move the child onto palliative care and allow Charlie to die with dignity and not extend his suffering. As a parent you would not be able to make this decision rationally - this is why we have independent experts and judges to make these decisions. But CJ Holt this is not about what the parents want at all, in fact is it wrong to even suggest it, ethically it is about what is best for the child and numerous experts have said that what is best for the child is to move to palliative care. In my opinion quality of life should always outweigh length of life.