"Currants Bw..."

[Letters]

I'll just leave this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo

1 Corinthians 2:14, innit.

[Letters]

And at the risk of being a pedant, a miracle would be defined as a disturbance to the natural order to make what would appear physically impossible, possible (and that's why there's no such thing, at best a demonstration of a gap or an error in our understanding). These are cases where the chances of recovery are statistically slim and they have defied the odds.
It's not a matter of blind faith.

Next time my mate Dave gives his testimony I'll invite you along

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I don't think there is anything wrong with them not just accepting the doctor's opinion at face value.
I completely understand them asking for second opinions. Anyone would do that.
What most people wouldn't do though is whip up a media storm and act like GOSH are trying to kill their child (leading to abuse of and threats towards GOSH staff) and claim that they have found a cure if only those nasty GOSH people would let them take their child.
This experimental treatment is NOT a cure and has never even been tried on this form of Charlie's condition.
It would NOT reverse the extensive brain damage which had already occurred late last year.
Multiple medical experts and multiple courts kept telling them the same thing.

Again that's it, getting a second conflicting judgement is obviously completely fine. But the GOSH doctors aren't unfeeling bureaucrats just going by the book. There's disagreeing with their judgement (which in the case of the parents is more a case of obdurate refusal to give up which no one can fault) and making out they are just trying to kill the child.

[Niall_Quinn]

Another post where you say nothing.

I'd never try to deprive you of reading the previous posts.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Next time my mate Dave gives his testimony I'll invite you along

Ok, because that would obviously be the first time I'd ever heard people give anecdotal evidence about something spiritual, miraculous or other worldly they'd encountered.

[WMUG]

1 Corinthians 2:14, innit.

How convenient.

[Letters]

I'd never try to deprive you of reading the previous posts.

Why don't you, for a change, try and address the issues I've raised. To sum up for you:
Yes, parents by default should be the ones making decisions for their children. BUT there should be a process in place if it's felt the parents are making decisions which will harm their child.

[Power n Glory]

I would hope that you accept that these are outliers. And it's not a basis for which we can decide To routinely ignore medical expertise.

And at the risk of being a pedant, a miracle would be defined as a disturbance to the natural order to make what would appear physically impossible, possible (and that's why there's no such thing, at best a demonstration of a gap or an error in our understanding). These are cases where the chances of recovery are statistically slim and they have defied the odds.
It's not a matter of blind faith.

Of course this isn’t a regular occurrence. The odds of survival are slim but you’re missing the point and shifting the focus from some of the points NQ made. The question is, when met with overwhelming odds, how far will doctors push to look beyond their usual methods to cure a patient? They have a ‘duty of care’ but how likely are they to look for alternative medicine if the treatments not supplied by Pfizer or the other massive pharmaceutical companies they’re contracted to work with?

[Power n Glory]

I do believe in miraculous healings. Well, it's more than a vague belief, I know a couple of people quite well who have experienced them. But I also know that these things are not common. And the parents in this case weren't basing their hopes for Charlie on faith in such things, they simply thought they knew better than the doctors. They still do.

Would it make a difference if they were Christian? If they'd been praying and believed God told them to press on with their pastor and congregation all backing them to press on and fight despite what the doctors have told them? Would that still make them idiotic?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Of course this isn’t a regular occurrence. The odds of survival are slim but you’re missing the point and shifting the focus from some of the points NQ made. The question is, when met with overwhelming odds, how far will doctors push to look beyond their usual methods to cure a patient? They have a ‘duty of care’ but how likely are they to look for alternative medicine if the treatments not supplied by Pfizer or the other massive pharmaceutical companies they’re contracted to work with?

No I'm not missing the point, in the case of these doctors the decision they made was based on the fact that Charlie would most likely not survive the journey over to the United States to have treatment which even the people offering it stated would not reverse the damage done.

The argument about big pharma, can be very lopsided and overlooks the amount of clinical research these companies do that the NHS simply could not afford....which is why I don't get the piety of certain people (which politicians jump on) stating that there should be no private involvement in the service.

Are there doctors in the NHS who are paid to push the medication produced by certain companies....yes of course, it's wrong and in breach of medical ethics for me. But again find me the evidence that this was in anyway a factor in this case.