The Charlie Gard scenario. It's all rather tragic, isn't it ?

[7sisters]

Quite what the parents are hoping to achieve here is beyond me ..

[Pokster]

Quite what the parents are hoping to achieve here is beyond me ..

Well it is impossibel to put yourself in their shoes.. having to turn off a life support for a family member must be the hardest thing in the world.

[Burney]

Well it is impossibel to put yourself in their shoes.. having to turn off a life support for a family member must be the hardest thing in the world.

Of course. Which is why it ended up in the hands of the courts. The trouble is that, because something is emotive does not mean that the emotional argument is the right one.
The kid is going to die and nothing's going to stop that happening. The court has to decide whether him being kept alive because his parents cant bear to face just letting him die is simply causing him to suffer unnecessarily.

[Ash]

Of course. Which is why it ended up in the hands of the courts. The trouble is that, because something is emotive does not mean that the emotional argument is the right one.
The kid is going to die and nothing's going to stop that happening. The court has to decide whether him being kept alive because his parents cant bear to face just letting him die is simply causing him to suffer unnecessarily.

And presumably Sir C is having to pay to keep the thing alive when it has no future.

[Pokster]

Of course. Which is why it ended up in the hands of the courts. The trouble is that, because something is emotive does not mean that the emotional argument is the right one.
The kid is going to die and nothing's going to stop that happening. The court has to decide whether him being kept alive because his parents cant bear to face just letting him die is simply causing him to suffer unnecessarily.

I thought the argument was that dr's in Italy and the US think they can help.... if they are willing to pay then you could say what harm could it do when it has been seen that the treatment has helped others

[Sir C]

And presumably Sir C is having to pay to keep the thing alive when it has no future.

What's this now?

[redgunamo]

And presumably Sir C is having to pay to keep the thing alive when it has no future.

No, that's President Trump, I think.

[Monty92]

What's this now?

I think he's trying to say that you're so ideologically driven by heartless conservative values that your primary concern about the issue is that you're having to contribute financially to keeping the poor little vegetable alive. I'd imagine he probably also thinks you viscerally hate the boy's inescapably common parents.

[Ash]

I think he's trying to say that you're so ideologically driven by heartless conservative values that your primary concern about the issue is that you're having to contribute financially to keeping the poor little vegetable alive. I'd imagine he probably also thinks you viscerally hate his inescapably common parents.

Now don't stir things up by suggesting I am calling Sir C 'heartless'.

[Sir C]

I think he's trying to say that you're so ideologically driven by heartless conservative values that your primary concern about the issue is that you're having to contribute financially to keeping the poor little vegetable alive. I'd imagine he probably also thinks you viscerally hate the boy's inescapably common parents.

Hmm, I'd expect such a judgement from the sanctimonious left, but I don't think a is one of those.

I could be wrong. I hope I'm not.

[Ash]

Hmm, I'd expect such a judgement from the sanctimonious left, but I don't think a is one of those.

I could be wrong. I hope I'm not.

You are correct. I am making no judgement and indulging no sanctimony. Merely invoking you a symbol of the put-upon taxpayer that we all are, where we are forced to indulge such whimsies as keeping vegetables alive.

Not only that, first game of next season bloody Gt Ormond Street chuggers will be rattling their tins round the pubs before the game expecting further contributions. That hospital actually diverts funds away from other, less glamourous childrens units.

I had that JM Barry in the back of the cab once.

[Sir C]

You are correct. I am making no judgement and indulging no sanctimony. Merely invoking you a symbol of a the put-upon taxpayer that we all are, where we are forced to indulge such whimsies as keeping vegetables alive.

Not only that, first game of next season bloody Gt Ormond Street chuggers will be rattling their tins round the pubs before the game expecting further contributions. That hospital actually diverts funds away from other, less glamourous childrens units.

I had that JM Barry in the back of the cab once.

In fairness I do have concerns about 'my' money being spent by the NHS on nonsense like 'gender re-alignment', or counselling for blokes who need nothing more medical than a boot in the árse; on the subject of a dying baby, on the other hand, I am rather more sanguine as far as budgets are concerned.

[Burney]

You are correct. I am making no judgement and indulging no sanctimony. Merely invoking you a symbol of the put-upon taxpayer that we all are, where we are forced to indulge such whimsies as keeping vegetables alive.

Not only that, first game of next season bloody Gt Ormond Street chuggers will be rattling their tins round the pubs before the game expecting further contributions. That hospital actually diverts funds away from other, less glamourous childrens units.

I had that JM Barry in the back of the cab once.

'Barrie', I think you'll find.

[redgunamo]

In fairness I do have concerns about 'my' money being spent by the NHS on nonsense like 'gender re-alignment', or counselling for blokes who need nothing more medical than a boot in the árse; on the subject of a dying baby, on the other hand, I am rather more sanguine as far as budgets are concerned.

I'd donate to "gander re-alignment".