Doctors withdraw baby's life support

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M

Miri

Guest
#1
Charlie Gard case: Doctors can withdraw baby's life support - BBC News


Poor little boy, and his parents.

Pray for them all.


Doctors can withdraw life support from a sick baby with a rare genetic
condition against his parents' wishes, a High Court judge has ruled.

Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital said eight-month-old Charlie
Gard has irreversible brain damage and should be moved to palliative care.

His parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard, from London, had wanted to take
him to the US for a treatment trial.

They said they were "devastated" by the decision but intended to appeal.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#2
I agree with the courts. Coming to America isn't going to change Charlies' life. It's going to prolong his torment for no other reasons than his parents want to keep him alive as long as possible.

They need to leave it to God. There was a girl named Karen Ann Quinlan. She OD'd but was resuscitated barely. She was comatose. The doctors wanted to take her off life support, but her parents fought against it, and lost. She lived in a vegetative state for years. By the time it was over, her parents took her off feed bags and IVs. That's not life!

They need to let go, and let God. God is able to keep people alive as long as he wills, and this should be up to God, not up to extending-life healthcare. It's going to hurt no matter what. Don't torture the baby because of the parents. I know this is all about how much his parents love him, but sometimes it needs to go beyond keeping him alive.
 
L

LanceA

Guest
#3
I agree with the courts. Coming to America isn't going to change Charlies' life. It's going to prolong his torment for no other reasons than his parents want to keep him alive as long as possible.

They need to leave it to God. There was a girl named Karen Ann Quinlan. She OD'd but was resuscitated barely. She was comatose. The doctors wanted to take her off life support, but her parents fought against it, and lost. She lived in a vegetative state for years. By the time it was over, her parents took her off feed bags and IVs. That's not life!

They need to let go, and let God. God is able to keep people alive as long as he wills, and this should be up to God, not up to extending-life healthcare. It's going to hurt no matter what. Don't torture the baby because of the parents. I know this is all about how much his parents love him, but sometimes it needs to go beyond keeping him alive.
So if someone gives it to God then in a way you wouldn't want to take someone off life support. God can still work miracles and someone on life support still has a chance for complete healing. I know this is a touchy subject and I have never been put this situation before.

I guess we can look at it logically as well. If we didn't have the technology then everyone on life support would be dead right away anyways so are we just slowing down what should have happened in the first place?
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#4
So if someone gives it to God then in a way you wouldn't want to take someone off life support. God can still work miracles and someone on life support still has a chance for complete healing. I know this is a touchy subject and I have never been put this situation before.

I guess we can look at it logically as well. If we didn't have the technology then everyone on life support would be dead right away anyways so are we just slowing down what should have happened in the first place?
Last year, my husband was being kept alive through multiple blood thinners. (My doctor called me a liar for saying hubby was on three, but I've since checked, and, including aspirin, he was on four.) The thought was, "If he isn't on blood thinners, he'll go into AFib again or get another blood clot."

And, he had both -- 13 hours of AFib and a clot in his leg. (Not at the same time, but he did have both.)

Little problem. When someone is on that many blood thinners, well, the blood thins. Thins enough to go through the blood vessels and seeps out into the body itself. He went through at least 50 units of blood that I know about, and I wasn't there all the time. That causes anemia. Life threatening anemia. (One time he needed two units of blood just to stabilize, and the next day he needed another one.) He was alive but a snail had more vitality than he had.

They're still back at "keeping him alive for as long as we can." We're at "this isn't life!" They told us he has a 7% chance of having a stroke every single day he's alive without the blood thinners. Hubby was willing to take that chance for a chance at living again and so was I. They still wouldn't do it because of regulations.

One hour after the cardiologist residents told us this, a new cardiologist resident was assigned to him. We kept telling them the reasons behind the bout of AFib and thrombosis. They kept telling us he had a history of it.

Ends up, someone created that history in his files and the new cardiologist spotted where it wasn't there before, (just like he never had bypass in 1985, but that got in there too.) He was taken off blood thinners and from that moment on he got better in surprising leaps and bounds, after spending months of too tired to rebuild his strength.

There is technology, but technology can be flawed. (GIGO) There is help to get better. But help to hang on for no particular reason? That's where people get stuck. Hubby would rather grill turkey than lie in bed sleeping all day every day, even it means he has a bigger likelihood of having a stroke than most people (by a shot.)

The day of his heart attack, I told the doctors how far to go, "Do what you would do, if he was you." I know most doctors will go as far as the family would want them to go, but if it was them, they wouldn't take it that far. Not to say they wouldn't try anything to live, but they really get the difference between "living" and "surviving."

That was the choice I asked them to make. And now? Hubby finally grilled that turkey he had been talking about since last year. lol
 
Jul 27, 2016
458
7
0
#5
Charlie Gard case: Doctors can withdraw baby's life support - BBC News


Poor little boy, and his parents.

Pray for them all.


Doctors can withdraw life support from a sick baby with a rare genetic
condition against his parents' wishes, a High Court judge has ruled.

Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital said eight-month-old Charlie
Gard has irreversible brain damage and should be moved to palliative care.

His parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard, from London, had wanted to take
him to the US for a treatment trial.

They said they were "devastated" by the decision but intended to appeal.
I will pray for them all, it's a very sad situation, maybe God will be able to help the baby. He is the only hope, I pray for that baby, and for all the family and the doctors involved.