Charlie Gard, The President, The Pope & The NHS - Who Is Right? Russell Brand The Trews (E431)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2017
- Today's Trews looks at the complex and tragic case of Charlie Gard.
My new tour Re:Birth is coming to YOUR town - go to russellbrand.seetickets.com/to...
Listen to my new podcast Under The Skin here itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/u...
Subscribe to the Trews here: tinyurl.com/opragcg
Produced & edited by Gareth Roy
Trews Music by Tom Excell & Oliver Cadman
Trews Graphic by Ger Carney
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 71 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ทรงชัยน้อย vs รักษ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_AGPnq2p6Js/mqdefault.jpg)
This is brilliant analysis. You name every totem, every point of contention. You are one amazing truth speaker. I am going to be contemplating these issues today while working in my garden. I like the way you bring this back to the political chasms between authority and changing allegiances and loyalties.
See you in Guildford!
Wendy Knox-Leet Agree!
So you don't have a real job then? Don't forget every totem
What is a real job? Why is someone working in their garden not of value?
Retirement age possibly, moron!
Gary.... I have a job and I also work in my garden! Genius!! Duh!!
I'd have liked a little more discussion on the media's role in this case. It's frustrating how many people still seem to be under the impression that there is a cure for Charlie Gard. And much of this is because of how sections of the media have framed the case to maximise it's emotional appeal. If the facts of the case had been more openly presented, then I think the vast majority of people would side with the hospital's decision.
RENCHER Fantastic comment
That may be true, but ultimately the parents should have the right to decide what's best for their family. They're the ones who have to live with the decisions and outcomes. This experimental treatment could help medical science gain advancements as well. People keep calling the parents selfish. I haven't seen or heard them but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion without evidence. Wanting to try the treatment isn't alone being selfish. Some would say they were being selfish by letting him go, not burdening themselves with the chance he could live a long time in poor health. It could go both ways. Who knows for sure it's not the hospital or country that's being selfish? Maybe they're adamant that he die there so they can take his viable organs for transplants for a staff worker's baby or a relative's baby or a baby related to someone in the court. How would we know? They certainly wouldn't let that info leak. If Charlie dies in another country and the parents donate anything, those parts may go to American babies instead. If they're so willing to care for their baby as long as he can possibly live, why are people calling them selfish? That's not the easy route. Fighting the courts is not easy either. Not that easy and selfish are the same, but sometimes they do go hand-in-hand. They just want to be able to rest when this is all over knowing they tried everything they possibly could to save their baby boy. He's so adorable too. This is all so sad and tragic. I just feel like this is a family issue and the hospital should be trying to preserve life and supportive of the potential medical advances that may be made in treating a baby with such a rare condition/birth defect. What if they have a breakthrough or find a way this can be screened, treated, or prevented inutero in the future? Even if Charlie can't improve, what if the next baby can? What if the doctor they could take him to is able to find out how this happened between their family and is then able to protect and prevent it happening to them again so that they can try again and feel safe that this won't happen again?
Spite The reason this is not just a family issue is because if the nature of what is being proposed. The fact is this child is currently suffering. He cannot see, hear, swallow or even breathe unaided by machinery. EVERYBODY wants his suffering to end. His doctors, who have a duty of care toward him, believe his suffering is best ended by allowing him to die with the minimum of further pain and with dignity. They believe the treatment being proposed has an infinitesimal chance of improving his condition and is very likely to prolong and increase his suffering. That the experimental treatment may help others in the future is neither here nor there. The doctors must protect the child. The courts must protect the legality of their decision. To allow parents, however well-meaning, to hold sway over such an important decision would set a very dangerous precedent indeed.
why is it the "hospital's decision"? it should not be so! they can do what they can do, if permitted, and if someone doesn't want what they have to offer they should have the right to leave, and parents should have the choices in regard to their OWN children!
Parents do NOT own children, thus they are NOT their children. Children are people and have their own rights, thus are protected by law, which is enforced by institutions, like courts. And since we live in judicial societies, courts are the ones having final say.
No one should be trusted or burdened to make a decisions of life or death, especially if emotionally invested. Institutions have the needed distance to make the best decision and more importantly take the burden away from the parents of having to live with it. In this case there wont be a happy ending, its just the choice between two terrible options. Personally I think we are too attached at keeping people alive for as long as possible while not giving much thought on providing a life worth living. This is a debate we need to have sooner or later, as we grow in numbers and we must decided why hundreds of children have to dye in one place so one can survive in a other and who decides which lives are the ones worth saving.
One thing is for sure though, Trump should worry not kill off its own population before having an opinion in other countries, given he is actually in a position to affect millions of peoples lives and in some cases its not just a quality issue.
Disappointed he hardly talks about Led Zeppelin
love u pappa russ
The one thing I have noticed is missing from all the news articles I've seen is whether the baby is in pain or not, and whether he's suffering and if he's going to be able to have a proper life when he's older. Is this simply because they don't actually know, or is it a deliberate removal to stop the answer being so objective and clear cut? Charlie Gard's story, I think, is a little like Madeline McCann: at what point does the balance of attention and funding for one high-profile child begin to harm others? How much is too much to spend on one child? Whilst, ideally, the answer is "whatever it costs", the NHS can't do that, but the parents can't accept that.
Charlie grad case is a very sad and complex matter to which each side is right in there own way. Parents should have a rght in deciding the faith of their child. They love their child and want any possible solution to hepl save their son no matter how slim the chances. But now such large intangile enttity is teling them that they can't because their opinion is invaild. which is fustrating and anger inducing. I their child and they should know what best dor the child
On the other hand, the state though want hte child to be saved is more aware of multiple other factir which don't pretain to the child. if the child is so sick and there is very little to save the child should they allow tthe any doctor around the world who claim to have a solutioon whisk the child away despite having barely any likelihood of a saving the child even admitted to by the doctor who giving the suggestion. Will this open the floodgates for experimental medicine to suggest to grieveing and susceptible parents who are more willing to accpet such treatment. They have also know balance between what is the best interest to parent or the child who has no ability to talk or convey what they think. The doctor said that chiild is constant pain but parent want to keep him alive. who does that benefit the parents as they don't want to lose someone or the baby who living in pain.
entitiy such as the pope and donald trump making them become spiritual and indivudalist matter (who truly don't have stake in the matter regardless what they say) making theis decision to more diffcult and making the emotional stake a lot higher.
It is a complex issue to which many people or either looking from on persepctive or giving very simple answer to.
I only hope we don'r forget aboutt the child in this situation and end up doing what is best him and parents.
(if charlie is to die let it be with the parents though at home if possible)
I appreciate this discussion. A large group of people these days are of the opinion that things are either wrong or right when in actuality issues such as this one are much more complex and the answer to them rarely fits into either category.
Ebony Barber Thank you! Finally someone gets it. We're living in a world filled with simple-mimded people, who can only see the world in black-or-white. Reality is so complex.
I've felt for a while that we need as a society need to change our relationship with mortality
Hi Russel - have you thought about how the idea that the child belongs in the private sphere of the family with access to social and human rights mediated by parental authority as a particularly western and modern idea of childhood. The way I see Charlie Guard is the intersection between this idea of childhood - which relegates the child to one of a 'not-quite' or 'becoming' being who only graduates into being a 'proper' member of society later on; and one of a child who is a life in his own right, including the right to his own legal representation and consideration of his interests as distinct from his parents. In this case, its not about the state acting as an arbitrary authority or doctors as 'shaman' in a way at all unique from any other individual. Rather its about the child having the right to his own independence and representation as distinct from his parents (As you said re the realisation that you don't own your child). And then we might consider why the conclusion representation should be able to be usurped or undercut by parental authoirty?
I sympathise with the suffering of the Gard family but I don't like how this one case consumes so much media airtime when there's worse shit happening that doesn't get reported. Same applies to the press obsession with the child who went missing in Spain a few years back. FFS world, get some perspective.
I have to agree. Of course Charlie's parents will want to keep fighting, for him. It's not their fault that their situation has been made so high profile by a perverse ugliness, in the media, that loves a personal campaign or a poster child. It's as if we think we can sanctify ourselves by focusing on single plights as if they are totemic for all suffering. We are lazy. It's not that easy. We did the same thing with Jesus and Princess Diana.
I think, with a little more effort, we are perfectly capable of caring about more than one situation at a time.
bat in the attic Just as I was chastening myself for searching for truth amid the comments on TH-cam... It's a shame this sparkling diadem is hidden away in all the flak. Thanks for speaking.
Madeline Macann? The news is still speaking about her and her parents are still under investigation I believe.
Russell please keep doing these!! I need to hear and love ❤️ listening to you explain, the different perspectives and discussions of our complex world and complex times. 😊 Thank you
he has a mitochondrial disease. i am not a medic but i am a molecular biologist. if he has a genetic problem with his mitochondria it will be in every cell in his body. i can't even imagine a way that could be effectively treated or altered. i agree it is an interesting case about who has control over life but there is no contest who is right in thia particular instance. it is the experts and charlie will to continue to suffer until they are listened to.
Brand has really 'come into his own' with the trews and it's critical eye on the world. Keep on keeping on Brand!
great show.... I like how you try to sum up the complexity of the situation with out preaching..... excellent keep up the good work
I'm blown away. The most balanced and thought provoking piece I've seen on Charlie Gard. And the only piece I've commented on
This is an ethical decision. This baby unfortunately as a mitochondrial depletion syndrome (encephalomyopathic type). According to what I have read he has suffered irreversible brain damage and muscle atrophy. This wouldn't just be a short life, this would be a short life without consciousness, with likely suffering and pain. Quality f life and non-maleficence are at the heart of modern medical ethics. It is a very difficult case but I do not feel that it is helpful to frame this in a way to show the doctors as being powerful or paternalistic. It is often on these difficult times that parents exasperated by grief will not make the best fully informed decision for their child and it is unfortunate that this led to court proceedings but as a doctor myself I can assure you that these doctors were acting in the best interest of this child.
How can we say let the parents decide when the government (nhs) is providing care and medicine for this poor sick child? They stop and Charlie died, he is ultimately depending on their funds. Therefore unfortunately the decision must be shared. The biggest problem is the current interference of world celebs who are trying to show 'sympathy' yet come across as monsters who want part of Charlie's flesh. It's sickening.
Recently a hospital tried to have me strapped down and immobilized to stimulate bone growth in my liwer spine. I happen to have amassed a great deal of medical knowledge. What they tried to force upon me(12 weeks of being strapped down while in isolation) would have had the opposite effect as it would have stripped calcium away from my spine which is currently infected by a strain of staph. I refused their treatment and I'm doing great. Some antibiotic issues but that's beside the point.
I learned from many medical professionals working for this institution the hospitalist assigned to you who do not specialize in any medical specialty like neurology, osteology, psychology, etc..., yet, this assigned person has the final say and in my case believed his "genius" overshadowed multiple teams of high level, well renowned specialist doctors. These specialists helped fill me in on what was going on out of my presence which were vast arguments with 99% of the specialist denouncing this decision (bad for me on all fronts/great for hospital financially) made by this hospitalist who is financially motivated. Here in the states if I would have been on Medicaid/medicare I would have been released in a few days without this absurd decision the hospitalist tried to force upon me. I happened to be covered under work comp who is legally obligated too pay whatever the team of doctors decide(tricky this as "team of doctors"=1 individual hired by the hospital to make final decisions and can even go against the entire team with their own mad idea(in my case i was told by nurses who witnessed this meeting told me of these specialist teams so outraged that things got slightly physical with a great deal of yelling, etc... All done in hopes of saving ultimately my life). I refused medical aide after several doctors i respect greatly that they would treat me as outpatient and I needed to sign myself out. Which I did with great difficulty as the hospitalist began trying to have me held against my will with various tricks I've had experience. One has to be their own best advocate and relentlessly seek legit knowlege to help yourself.
In this case with this family I truly believe the parents need as much knowlege as is available as from what i can tell is they have their innocent child's best interest in their heart of hearts. I think they have proven this and seem to be the only people acting or trying to act out of love for their child they obviously love a great deal. If any institutions should be doing anything it should be, in my humble opinion, to offer every type of aide to help this family sort through various treatments then help by obtaining as much detailed facts, etc about the potentially decided upon treatment plan. The final decision after being given to the loving parents trying to save their child unbiased knowlege. In an ideal world even the institutions would act out of love and everyone drop the "need to be right" along with their need to be in control. All too often institutions have too diverse of populations to properly accomplish pleasing everyone beyond whatever that institutions mission statement attempts to maintain in their actions.
Yes, this seems like an impossible situation to know what is best. Yet, I think its more simple. Let the loving parents who brought life into this world try their best to save their child made out of love. These court proceedings make me sick. And they seem out of place and out of line for this situation where they are stressing this family in such a tiring way.
I offer my live and support and hope for nothing but positive outcomes for this family.
Dear Russell Brand, I very much doubt you will see this post but I live in hope.
My step daughter who is now 14 was diagnosed with Mitochondria POLG1 mutation at the age of 10.
One day she was a healthy child until she woke one morning with a severe (screaming in pain) headache. Shortly after she had her first ever absence.
She spent the next few months in Bristol hospital. She had gone blind, she was constantly hallucinating, constant seizures, twitches and absences. Had a gastric peg introduced to her stomach as she lost the ability to swallow.
After having a lumber puncture the doctors and brain specialist's still could not give a diagnosis.
The contention came when they started to consider giving her a brain biopsy. A month earlier we had mentioned a biopsy and were told 'we don't live in the dark ages, that's last resort'. At this point we knew it was really bad. So bad that they informed us that if we don't give the ok for the biopsy then the 'Court would handle it'.
We never had a problem with giving the go ahead and were really shocked that the government has the right to do that.
It was after the biopsy we received her diagnosis and another 7 months before she made it home.
This is her life 3 years on.
She takes 22 tablets a day. She has lost the ability to walk, she has 15% vision (her eyes are fine but her brain can only processes so much), she cannot feed herself (unless finger food) or hold a cup for the shaking in her arm. She has lost most of her dexterity, she is autistic, she cannot dress or toilet herself. Her mind is still sharp though easily confused. She has the equivalent of childhood dementia and is slowly dying.
However Russell, the point of this post is not whether my step daughter would be more suited for such treament. My question is what IS this breakthrough medical procedure.
I've spent a lot of time researching Mitochondria and can only find a few medical papers on the subject as the condition is so rare. Most of the papers I found were in the USA and were studies of a condition called Alpers, which is similar to POLG1.
With this I have a problem trying to understand why at this point should such a rare DNA deficiency in a new born (infant onset mitochondria has 100% mortality rate before the age of 3) be headline news. Is it the controversy of the NHS not funding the op and Good old Private Health Care in the USA will?
or are they expecting a surge in diagnosis of the condition.
I heard of 5 children in my area with POLG1 mutation or Aspers when my step daughter was first diagnosed. Only 3 are alive today.
Or is it to keep us looking the other way while the EU negotiations take place?
Hope you get to read this Russell. Peace :)
it's ironic they don't want the hospital over here in the UK anymore considering they would have gone bankrupt if they looked after him from the start in the private health system in the USA. Unfortunately American Charlie Garbs die everyday in the US but it is just the normal and hasn't become a news story. From a logical perspective the parents are prolonging there child's pain which seems cruel but then emotions crowd people's judgement and it's hard to blame the parents for being emotive about this - I see them regretting all this once it's over tho.
Sometimes I look at the parent's faces and wonder if they aren't regretting this already. They are now on a treadmill that's impossible to get off of, being spun harder and harder by media and an ill-informed public. Sad.
5:26 "I know what I'd want if I was a parent" What a thing to forget
I sympathise with parents because I have been where they are. It was my mother who was hooked up to a life support machine in the early 2000's. 2 weeks on the life support machine she was showing no sign of getting better and me and the rest of the family were suffering but she was the one suffering the most (like the baby) so in the end me and my family made the hard choice not to let her go on suffering. The hardest thing we as a family have ever had to do. We could of left the life machine on. We decided that someone on a life support machine really does not have a great quality of life and how ever much we as a family are suffering she would be suffering more.
The baby is brain dead and the only thing keeping it alive is the machine that it is hook up to. What sort of life is that? Maybe he'll get better but there is a slim change of that and while you look for a cure the baby suffers. We don't know if he is in pain or not. Remember as he his the baby's family will not be able to hear him say his first world, walk for the first time, and all the other amazing things. A part of me do think they are being a little selfish.
Thoroughly enjoy your analysis of the situation, very difficult but you have emphasised the importance of looking at both sides of the argument.
Yes a very complex situation and question, however one could argue so much attention and medical expense on one child who has no say in the matter. Meanwhile you have millions of suffering and dying children like Syria, Sudan, Kenya etc who not only have no voice but have no advocates fighting for their lives nor any induced coma to stop their suffering ... excepting (Medicine sans Frontier) governments, religious institutions, media etc play the usual point scoring game of trying to look humane and morally accountable. As a hypothetical ... Charlie Gard is the son of a single mother with a petty criminal history due to poor education and social disadvantage would there be the same world-wide media attention and medical support???
Russell. All I know is what I don't know. Thank you for not polarizing. Thank you for being thoughtful. Thank you for saying the things we want said, instead of talking at us. Thank you.
I don't know what is right, but the fact that it's just the grieving parents vs almost all healthcare professionals. The parents are just looking for anything to hold on to, but that's just causing suffering for the poor child.
"I hope that the best thing happens for Charlie Gard and his family"
Amen to that. Bless you Mr Brand and may peace be upon thee and thine own with bountiful measure.
How has this channel got just 1m subscribers
my 22 month old son has been in icu for 3 months due to a near-drowning accident. I wanted to bring him back to the UK but GOSH said they'd turn off his ventilator because after 6 weeks he was still not breathing on his own. my son when he 1st was taken into hospital was deemed brain dead but now can breathe on his own & week by week his EEG shows improvements. doctors will only ever give you the textbook answer, there are thousands of young children that can survive brain damage. never believe a doctor there is always hope
You cannot leave this decision to parents. In the US a baby was born with Down's syndrome, healthy and capable of life. All she needed was a simple operation on her stomach but the parents said no, she died. They didn't want a DS baby. What if the parents did not want a girl or that colour hair, just let her die? Also what about a baby born to Jehovah witnesses who will not allow a blood transfusion? The courts are the best people to make a tough decision. Objectively in the best interest of the child. People who say leave it to parents are knee jerk pricks.
Cicero Robbie are you a parent? Because I would exhaust every possible option to save my babies.
I'm a parent and I would've switched Charlie's life support off a long time ago. He will never get better and by keeping him alive you are just prolonging his pain.
Amy, this issue with Charlie is that there is no way to cure him. The only possible outcome for any treatment is that he will stay alive longer, but he will still be profoundly ill. Is that really "saving" them? Would you force your babies bodies to continue living when they aren't equipped to and prolong your children's suffering for the sake of YOUR inability to let go?
Cicero The examples you listed were cases where the parents didn't want treatment for their child. This case is the opposite. They want Charlie to have a chance with treatment in the USA. The courts have no right to hold Charlie prisoner. Is this England or former Stalinist USSR?
For a start the UK court system is completely independent from the government. Secondly the American doctor acted in an appalling way. He was invited to come over and examine Charlie 6 months ago and turned GOSH down. The treatment had never been used on a child with this condition, and hadn't even been tested on mice for this version of the disease. In court he admitted that he had not read any of the notes, hadn't looked at the second opinions, the scans and the court's findings. He didn't examine Charlie till he turned up a couple of weeks ago. He even admitted that he had a financial interest in the compounds being used.
The hospital were more than willing to use the treatment 6 months ago, but the doctor didn't get off his arse and come over. And if it had worked it wouldn't have cured him, it would have stabilised him, leaving him unable to move, see, hear, swallow, breathe, or feel anything other than pain for the rest of his short life. The court was acting in the best interest of the child and not the parents. Harsh as it seems the parents were not doing so. They were, at best, delusional, at worse their actions not only caused hospital staff to be abused but they actively prevented Charlie from getting essential scans. Sometimes parents don't know what's best for their child.
Hello Russell. Your Trews is always such an insightful and intelligent analysis of the world we now live in. Thanks for putting into words what I feel are clear and concise, unclouded and accurate deliberations on the here and now. What a great example of a brave, positive and humbling use of one's intelligence and a shining example of how we can manifest good through fame! Well done..
I always enjoy your thought provoking posts. 😃
Just heard on ABC News, how " lucky" we are in US that we have private health care! And how awful the U.K. Government health care is, i.e. The treatment of Charlie. Made me want to be sick. Praying for the best for the sweet baby. How dare all these people use his horrible situation, politically.
this story is about how doctors and nurses and the institutions they work at and lawyers and judges and the courtrooms have become arrogant, too powerful and controlling, they even put themselves between mothers and fathers and their kids and bottom line this is Wrong, they should serve us not control us, the child looks peaceful, they have no right to control the choices of his family and unfairly kill him. it should not be up to them, they shouldn't even have a say.. there are things like this that have been happening in America for years and years and years, Justine pelletier here in boston. even one of the Kennedy's was attacked by the nurses when he wanted to take his newborn out on a patio for fresh air, even a kennedy! Justine was taken from her parents by children's hospital, they went to them for help and their child was stolen from them and kept from them and their love for over a year... we are out of control, we have given these people too much control, they no longer serve us, they Control us and our children, it is bad news from here kids, It is only going to get scarier and scarier to try to live!
I think it's more in the view of the parent that the NHS has done everything within their power to help Charlie, where the NHS can't or won't (because of financial/experimental reasons) help anymore, whereas the treatment in America may help. The Parents just want to make sure they have exhausted every possible treatment. Even if the Doctor's don't think it will help, they can't help anymore, so why can't they allow the trial of this possible treatment?
Because the treatment is almost certain to prolong - and quite possibly increase - the suffering of the child, with only the smallest chance of even fractional improvement in his condition. Whether or not you think the parents should be allowed to expose their child to increased pain and suffering is ultimately what this case is about.
Russle thanks for all the truth! we might be different but we both stand on some common ground. and alot of what you say sounds like real hard core truths! keep it up mate!
The statesmen is too worried about the financial burden, the Religious are too worried about saving the soul, the politicians are too worried about their statistics, yet meanwhile, the parents are just trying to save their child. Everyone can take a seat and let the parents and the doctors do their jobs.
Institutions will never have the best interests of the child over the parents. Experimental treatments should be allowed, it may help others in the future as well. Very well reasoned and thought out, Russell, as always.
It reminds me with all the media. Terry Schalvo.
I just want to point out that when physicists say "we don't yet fully understand gravity - how gravity interacts with particles... it doesn't currently make any sense" what they are actually saying is they don't understand the property of "inertia" or "acceleration" - when you put your foot on the gas pedal (I forget the english name) that makes your car accelerate... no, no we don't understand that yet. All change is dependant on acceleration - so I guess if we don't understand we can never change?
here's the thing....while no one truly "owns" their children....they are RESPONSIBLE for their children until they are grown. If you as a parent want to try everything possible to heal your child, even if it's experimental, should a hospital or government have the power to override that decision? if you have the means or have people that are willing to help you make your child well, why should you not be allowed to do it? If I were a parent, I would want to know that I did everything in my power to give my child a chance to live. Why should one hospital or gov't. be able to dictate what happens with MY child...or YOUR child in these situations? Idk about the gov't in the UK, but the US gov't can't even keep kids safe from abusive parents even when there's been boatloads of evidence...why should they be allowed to make even bigger decisions such as this? And yes, of course there are times when no matter what you do, it will not improve the life of a person/baby/child....but if there are ways, even if experimental, that might give even a sliver of chance to help....you should not be obstructed from doing so if you are able.
Great discussion of this complex situation.
It's crazy because four thousand years ago Sophocles wrote Antigone, a Greek tragedy that pits the rational of the state against the passionate love of a family. To this day the issue in Antigone is still debated and to this day it's almost impossible to find an answer in such a situation. However, i think we all know the hospital is right. Charlie should be allowed to go in peace and not continue to live in suffering. However, we all know "right" goes out the window if its your child.
I am a parent. I do not "own" my children but by gosh *I* am RESPONSIBLE for them and NOT the state !!!!!!!!
Thank you for the beautiful nuance.....you are a sacred soul, Russ...I love you, brother...
Its not 'the NHS'- its doctors. Highly trained, highly experienced doctors. Title should read: 'Who do you trust, Donald Trump, the Pope, or a team of doctors'.
For me, not a hard one to answer.
Apparently there is a history to the word "probably" that goes back a long way and had more to do with morality than numbers.
Russell not to sound horrible or disrespectful in anyway but more of just a general wondering... would you have had more of an outspoken opinion 10 years ago when you were more in the public eye for your bold behaviour?
On a tangent still really happy that the Trews is back 🙌🏽
the fact is that the child will not live a full fledged Life. it will suffer, so will the parents. Let the child go. stop it from suffering.
A lot of people are suffering and want the choice to end it but are not allowed to. Why do they want this one to die?
Mr P are you a parent? As a parent would understand that overwhelming internal drive to cling to the minutest hope to give your child any life, who decides what is "quality" of life? The individual who is living it. When that individual cannot speak for himself, well then it gets muddy. Sometimes suffering is knowing you've lived and loved. To suffer for the love of a child, well, to some that's the ultimate life. You make the choices for your child. Let Charlie's parents do as they do for him.
Amy Artist understand that this child if reports are to be believed .. won't be able to use his brain , body in any way. The quality of life will be hellish. For some reason we humans now accept suffering as normal! and peace of mind the highest goal. This is already a turmoil way of thinking. Also we humans are attached to sense organs , and this material dimension. The parents are the ones who are speaking not the child. And the parents are literally saying " mine , my child" this child could die at any time. The stupidity of the situation shows how far humans have fallen from their true conciouss. The parents are being sellfish. It's their desire .. and their wants and craving which is being taken away from them.
I think we are talking about depriving two parents of their basic human right (if it's not - maybe it should be) of being allowed to hope. There are always 'miracles'. Religion doesn't come in to this - miracles just happen. Then, there is the constant possibility of a medical breakthrough. Where there's life, there's hope. I can't fault these parents, at all, for their passion and commitment in not wanting to let their son go.
Do we know that Charlie will suffer if he survives? Do we know if he will be in actual pain? We he be unable to feel a gentle touch or sunlight on his skin?
+psisky Thats a false comparison. You are allowed to refuse treatment (and therefore die). You can not be aided to die. This child would die without life support, therefore removing treatment is allowing them to die - maintaining consistency of approach.
Russel Brand in a car asmr
Russell Brand is my hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, hero, HERO! Yeaaaaah!
Waiting for the book to come out !
What's horrible about this story is in the middle is a child in agony. If these parents caused a child pain every day quite rightly that child would be taken off them so why is artificially keeping a child with no quality of life much different? I've had children and I know you fight tigers for them and of course they have operations when they'll be in pain but the pain will stop and they'll have a great life after, so I guess this is down to the chances of a cure but from what I've read it's not a chance worth taking.
I think the UK doctors looking after him probably know what the best thing for him is. And they know how over-active their fee per treatment US counterparts are.
Nice one Russell just sit on the fence why don't you..! ...the doctors can advise, but in the end it's the one's that gave life to that child, the one's that love that child who should have the final decision ... we can't allow the system to decide, only advise... what if the doctors fuck up! ...and want to hide their fuckup, and call it some rare illness ... if there's other professionals that think the child has a chance it should be up to the parents ... next they will be putting old people with dementia into a comas, and then using the courts to turn off the ventilator ...
It's not only the Catholic Church that takes that stance, the Anglican and Protestant church are completely in line with that. The only awnser i have is nobody is right, but we have to take into account the parents and now they look at science and they can give hope, but not always perfect solutions or any at all.
yo Russell could u do ur show in a southern molassesy accent so I don't get bored pls.
sincerely,
a concerned fan
The treatment won't work.
How do you know?
one of those guys research? at a guess, try it 😉
one of those guys he only has 10%.
I am on Charlie's side on this issue. He's terminally ill, he has irreversible severe brain damage, he can't see, hear, move. He's in pain. All of which won't be fixed by the treatment, even if it's successful. The treatment will only halt the progression of his disease, it won't reverse any of the damage already done. When other people put the parents wishes over the child's wellbeing, the child suffers. So, sad as it is, the parents wishes are irrelevant to me.
Its awful but I did have the feeling that this case was none of our business... They were going through something so horrific any way, I can't imagine having the general public watching and at times quite aggressively putting their point across. It did really worry me at one point when it came out that people had been sending death threats to the hospital, did the average Jo(e) think that they could override a medical opinion through intimidation? It's so so sad that they lost their baby but the public made it so much worse :(
The state should not prevent parents from taking their child to another country for medical treatment. If the state says a child should stop receiving medical treatment within the borders of that state then that is a different scenario.
Loose Association (very loose). I would love to see you interview Derren Brown. I feel would be a great demonstration of the Socratic method in regards to determinism vs free will.
crazy world we live in, all this debate and attention on this child and how hundreds of thousands of dollars could be spent on managing his suffering when at the same time millions of nameless faceless children die every year for lack of basic medicine and nutrition that would cost cents...
This whole situation is heartbreaking to say the very least. The person who should make the decision is Charlie and he unfortunately can't speak for himself. I've always supported death with dignity, but when a child, in this case a baby is involved, who makes that decision? I'm not a parent and don't know what decision I would make, although I myself do have an active DNR order. (I have a rare and disabling disease, it may eventually kill me or it may not, they don't know and half my doctors have to research it to treat me.) From what I understand, this condition is ultimately fatal, and what kind of life will he have already on life support at such a young age? The argument could be made that this child does not need suffer any longer than necessary, on the other hand, the argument of what if these treatments work? or even partially work which would give any more "Charlie's" a better chance at life? You make a great point as to who "owns" the child, sadly in this case, that is what it is coming to. Personally, part of me thinks what harm could these experimental treatments do? but there's also a part of me not wanting to use this child as a guinea pig for lack of a better term and extend his life any longer than necessary if the outcome is ultimately fatal. He is too young to make his wants and needs known and can anyone but him tell us what his quality of life is? With these rare conditions, every tiny bit of information learned about them could potentially lead to a breakthrough that could save the next "Charlie" and allow them to lead a normal, healthy life. Unfortunately, for this Charlie, I think it will be a heartbreaking ending no matter what is done, barring a miracle cure.
No one owns children, that being said the parents aka legal guardians have final say not the doctors not the government not the religious leaders.
"Is quality of life something that can be qualified"
That was awesome. I do hope people talk about this. Talk about a think piece. Yeah.
It's in our nurture as parents to naturally protect our children... That's a human right!!
Hi Russell, on an unrelated note I'm sure you've seen the News about Linkin Parks Chester. After battling a mental health illness he sadly lost the fight back in May. I was wondering your opinions on this. In particular the fan response from his most recent Album and Touring. Are we as a society so disconnected that we deem it acceptable to be so cruel over the Internet in ways we would never be face face? Surely the effect is the same? If we could have received Cheaters change in direction with a little more understanding, humanity and compassion, could we have avoided this ?
Peace and Love,
Xx
as time goes on the NHS has become more and more bullish about their position and this is not making their institution look respectable and I say this as someone who works in public services
the tru's returns, thnx Russell :))
Russell I absolutely love you. Always enjoy watching your content. I wanted to ask if you would kindly make a video addressing the acid attacks that are becoming more frequent nowadays. Why would somebody do this? What could be the contributing factors that drive a person to commit such a violent act? Could it be the same psychological and sociological factors that drive people toward terrorism? Why are young people so angry? Your thoughts will be much appreciated. Much love Russell
What are you talking about? It's perfectly simple, the only way in which the state should have a say in this would be if the parents were asking the state to pay for the treatment which they aren't. Ergo it's none of the states business. I mean if it wasn't for the court case they could have had this treatment by now so any argument relating to welfare is redundant anyway.
so the hospital is trying to give opinions on what the family MUST do
The reason this is even happening is to do with what he says at 5:19.
How many buttons do you have on your door... surely all you need is window up and window down?
if there is any chance of help or survival, and the Gard family can pay for it, why should they not have it?
If parents see a hope in experimental treatment, I think that should be respected. But I would exclude politicians and institutions out of the meddling with everything other than just a friendly, humane, counseling.
Thing is with these cases of parents raising money for treatment in other countries, the media never seem to let you know a year later when the kid dies.
I remember the Ben Hardwick appeal on Blue Peter. After months of fund raising, poor Ben got his new liver and died shortly after - basically went through the hell of a liver transplant and still died anyway - all because of the vanity of Blue Peter and deluded parents who can't face reality. Or, if I was to be really cynical - enjoyed the limelight.
in the final analysis - who do you believe - desperate parents, greedy American corporations, Pro Lifer Christians, Donald Trump - or Great Ormond Street?
The state is legitimately criticized over Grenfell Tower, and the BBC paying Gary Lineker 2 million a year etc but you've always gotta be careful what the agenda is, is the criticism being over-done for ideological reasons?
In a Liberal capitalist society the state is the whipping boy - rarely do private institutions receive the same endless grilling. Which of course creates this deep suspicion of the state - even benign parts of the state such as the NHS.
You really wonder how the NHS remains popular when you consider the shit that's constantly thrown at it.
Weighty matters to wrangle, Russ. Thanks for your athleticism with reasoning. Couple of notions related here that warrant consideration are the concept of one's 'duty to live' and that old adage 'ownership is theft' (especially as the latter connects to your question of who owns life).
Great and intelligent analysis! that's why I f*** love you Russell Brand!
The privilege and responsibility of creating and rearing a child should not become the purview of an elected or appointed body or person. It sets a dangerous precedent with huge potential for abuse. The ceding of parental responsibility becomes "authority" in the hands of the faceless. Let there be the learned, the expert and the experienced to counsel the parent(s), but the final decision is the parent(s). Poor parental decision will be made and happen on a daily basis. This is not a good enough reason to legislate away the responsibility of parenting for all of society.
This is a complex situation where ethical issues move to the forefront.
As much as I sympathise with the parents, you have to question their objectivity when looking at the case; yes it's their inherant right and will to help their child and keep him alive but at the same time he is conpletely dependant on modern medicine - in the form of machinery to support life.
It seems to me with all this media attention we're forgetting what the heart of the issue is about; a poor suffering young boy, who despite the absolute best intentions of his devoted parents, is suffering and from all the articles and evidence I have personally read, has very little quality of life.
I have one question and that is, what do they expect from this radical treatment? There has been little to no response on what benifit it may bring and all the time this poor child who cannot even breath or see without aid of a machine is keep alive. The poor child is also left with perment brain damage due to oxegyn depervation to the brain.
We have to look objectively at this and ask, what is the outcome? And for me this is to just enlong the poor boys suffering. As I say I sympathese whole heartly with the parents and I hope the keep fight for research on his rare case however I feel hard pressed for an objective outlook to come to anything but the same conclusion. Objective being something that Trump and the Vatican most certainly are not...
God Bless you Russell, love you bro, your work is incredible
Be a lot cheaper for the NHS to let them go and try. If its hopeless then why even bother arguing? If it is not hopeless then rejecting care is a death sentence so no way the parents can juse human experimentation on 'their' child
The case shows modern medicine is over treating and slowing death to allow the tragedy of death to be avoided (for a while)
One issue... why is this one baby so emotive yet other people's babies in other countries basically of no interest?
I don't really know wts the case of Charlie Gaurde but I do know that Last time he was speaking with such a confident was when he was asking not to vote.
It depends whether you embrace natural law or not. Great Ormand Street has been internationally renowned in the healthcare of children, I remember being in Coram Fields, and seeing helicopters arrive with children from abroad. Have the medics at that great hospital changed, or is this case so rare that nothing can be done. Some would say even an experiment is worth a try. However, there is the dignity of the child to consider, and allowing a child to pass over peacefully, if and when the spiritual law ordains it. The medical profession are known to experiment on people and there is a recent case in the news to do with the "contaminated blood". My view is don't allow yourselves, your families or your children to be an experiment.
As far as Trump is concerned, years prior to his rise in American politics to become the President, he was known for his charity and charitable offerings. It was only after he took presidential office, that people in the UK got to see the evidence of his giving. Trump particularly has a soft spot for children, and his family have consistently raised money for a children's hospital in America that specifically is for children suffering from "cancer". So Trump's offer to help Charlie, is Trump being Trump. There is always the self-reflection after a passing, "could I have done more".
i don't trust institutions with good reason either. I just caught this story but I would think with this the parents are doing a second opinion here and better hopeful chances too. That's what loving parents do for the most part.
Agreed on all points. Apart from the one where you state that the relationship between religion and science needs to be repaired.
No matter how you look at it, it is a sad situation.
The question you didn't as is, would the child survive the long haul flight?
you are a man of wisdom
integrity spoken within...
very sad but the parents just cant let go. if there was a 10% chance of a full recovery i can see it but its really just not the case here. they should let him go with dignity.
I, too, hope that Charlie gets what is in his best interest.
However, I do think that more than anything this case shows that us "enlightened," scientific, and secular westerners have no clue how to deal with and accept death.
Tories have turned the NHS into a corporation with the introduction of regional trusts and clinical commissions.
what is right is to exhaust every Avenue of medical help that is possible regardless of the financial costs what harm can come from trying
As a tax payer and a nurse I can tell you that is a selfish view. Resources are limited so the hopeless are literally stealing resources from those who have hope
I think that the parents in this case should be able to try whatever they believe might help their ill dying child in any way possible.
Cause even if what their choice won't work then they can at least live with the fact that they've tried anything possible in their own power to help their babies life.
This child is basically terminally ill and the treatment provided right now doesn't have any hope for Charlie's life and if there's a diff treatment which might give new hope and possibilities for Charlie, then why not let the parents take that chance of they decide to do so?
Right nobody owns a child or a person, but at the end of the day it's the parent's job to raise any child, to make decisions for them, to teach them, provide for them, to help them and most of all to love them.
Any decision a parent makes is made out of love in order to help them be or become their best self.
So let the decision of happens to Charlie be made by the ones who love him the most and those who actually do have the best interest at heart for this child.
The Dr's and government shouldn't have say say so in cases like this!
There are many other children out there who actually could use for others to step in and get them out of terrible situations and then the government does nothing.
But they need to step out of the way of these parents and let them try and help their child's life out of love if there is any hope, cause in the situation the child is in right now there is no hope at all !!!!
I sympathise with parents because I have been where they are. It was my mother who was hooked up to a life support machine in the early 2000's. 2 weeks on the life support machine she was showing no sign of getting better and me and the rest of the family were suffering but she was the one suffering the most (like the baby) so in the end me and my family made the hard choice not to let her go on suffering. The hardest thing we as a family have ever had to do. We could of left the life machine on. We decided that someone on a life support machine really does not have a great quality of life and how ever much we as a family are suffering she would be suffering more.
The baby is brain dead and the only thing keeping it alive is the machine that it is hook up to. What sort of life is that? Maybe he'll get better but there is a slim change of that and while you look for a cure the baby suffers. We don't know if he is in pain or not. Remember as he his the baby's family will not be able to hear him say his first world, walk for the first time, and all the other amazing things. A part of me do think they are being a little selfish.
Medical killjoys. Many doctors aspire to be doctors because they want to help alleviate suffering; then somewhere along the line they become hardenend or greedy.
I'm not referring specifically to them. But it seems they could have shown more compassion and hope-- powerful forces. The bottom line: there was an opportunity for one last try that could make all the difference.
I've seen a miracle, one woman's little son died at the table. No heartbeat, nothing. Getting ready for rigor mortis. The mother said, "Lord, if thiis be your will...so be it." The little son came back to life.
It's hard, for all concerned, and if given the chance, whether the treatment was successful or not, they would have been justified to say they did their best.
I love kids, I'm just so glad I don't have any of my own. If I were in his mother's place, I don't know how I could ever bear it (but good she has her husband by her side).
is the kid dieing?? if he is what does it matter if they try something .... so many people i know have died of cancer and their docs said they would be dead in 9 months... i believe i could help them but no one would listen to me... what would it hurt if theyre going to to be dead in 9 months anyway??? oh yeah they wouldnt get the money from their chemo because my way you dont do chemo
Yes Russell, The state is outmoded. It is time to come up with a better way.
I call it self-determination. Or Anarchy. You may choose to call it something like "government". But as long as whatever it is is founded on and maintains the principle of non-aggression. I don't care what anyone calls it.