The hospital have right on their side on the treatments but they allowed themselves to get into a confrontation with Charlie Gard's parents and lost any understanding or empathy for the position they were in.
It is a tragedy not just that they lost their child but also there was a complete breakdown of trust between them and those supposedly caring for their child.
How do you know? And anyway so what? You don't apparently think they should have changed anything they did out of understanding or empathy for the parents (and you are right), so your complaint is apparently a touchy-feeliness deficit on the part of GOSH. You have no more knowledge than I do of relations between the parents and the hospital.
As far as Charlie Gard is concerned, there was nothing else they could, or rather should, do. But they have obligations to the parents too, who are very vulnerable and have to deal with the situation. Touchy-feeliness matters. A lot.
I know first hand that GOSH are very good at the touchy feely stuff too. There is only so far that you can go when dealing with denial of reality. They tried for months before it all went high profile legal.
Worth noting that while parents can go to whatever media they choose, hospitals can only respond via their legal teams because of patient confidentiality.
The hospital have right on their side on the treatments but they allowed themselves to get into a confrontation with Charlie Gard's parents and lost any understanding or empathy for the position they were in.
It is a tragedy not just that they lost their child but also there was a complete breakdown of trust between them and those supposedly caring for their child.
How do you know? And anyway so what? You don't apparently think they should have changed anything they did out of understanding or empathy for the parents (and you are right), so your complaint is apparently a touchy-feeliness deficit on the part of GOSH. You have no more knowledge than I do of relations between the parents and the hospital.
As far as Charlie Gard is concerned, there was nothing else they could, or rather should, do. But they have obligations to the parents too, who are very vulnerable and have to deal with the situation. Touchy-feeliness matters. A lot.
I know first hand that GOSH are very good at the touchy feely stuff too. There is only so far that you can go when dealing with denial of reality. They tried for months before it all went high profile legal.
Worth noting that while parents can go to whatever media they choose, hospitals can only respond via their legal teams because of patient confidentiality.
This is a very important point, it's a real bugger of a PR war for them.
This is one of the reasons I'm very wary about medical sob stories, but also people with consumer complaints against a company, or who have experienced difficulties with a local authority or government department. You only get to hear one side in full, the other side is heavily constrained in what they are allowed to say.
"Can't comment on individual cases" is often a get-out, but is true even so.
@BBCJonSopel: This was @SpeakerRyan yesterday:" Reince is doing a fantastic job at the White House. I believe he has the president's confidence." Or not
"After living in Britain, most recently in the north-west since 1995, both will take up senior positions with a leading German hospital company, on more than double their UK salaries.
Their decision was made easier by the fact that stones were thrown through the windows of their house barely 24 hours after the referendum, and that their six-year-old daughter came home in tears after being told in the playground by a classmate that she would soon have to “go home”."
"After living in Britain, most recently in the north-west since 1995, both will take up senior positions with a leading German hospital company, on more than double their UK salaries.
Their decision was made easier by the fact that stones were thrown through the windows of their house barely 24 hours after the referendum, and that their six-year-old daughter came home in tears after being told in the playground by a classmate that she would soon have to “go home”."
The hospital have right on their side on the treatments but they allowed themselves to get into a confrontation with Charlie Gard's parents and lost any understanding or empathy for the position they were in.
It is a tragedy not just that they lost their child but also there was a complete breakdown of trust between them and those supposedly caring for their child.
How do you know? And anyway so what? You don't apparently think they should have changed anything they did out of understanding or empathy for the parents (and you are right), so your complaint is apparently a touchy-feeliness deficit on the part of GOSH. You have no more knowledge than I do of relations between the parents and the hospital.
As far as Charlie Gard is concerned, there was nothing else they could, or rather should, do. But they have obligations to the parents too, who are very vulnerable and have to deal with the situation. Touchy-feeliness matters. A lot.
I know first hand that GOSH are very good at the touchy feely stuff too. There is only so far that you can go when dealing with denial of reality. They tried for months before it all went high profile legal.
Worth noting that while parents can go to whatever media they choose, hospitals can only respond via their legal teams because of patient confidentiality.
I expect that this case will be used in future as a case study in how to handle public relations. Great Ormond Street's team have dealt with this in what looks to me like an exemplary manner. It's a no-win situation and they haven't tried to play, which is absolutely correct.
Dealings between the parents and the hospital will have consisted of private face to face interviews which you weren't at.
Possibly relevant to this. The judge appeared to think the hospital had little understanding of the Gards' position. The same was true the other way, but it would be up to the professionals to lead the way on any resolution. I don't think Great Ormond Street Hospital lacks compassion. They allowed themselves to get into a confrontation rather than maybe try to defuse it.
The High Court judge who oversaw the legal dispute, Mr Justice Francis has suggested that parents and hospital bosses who disagree over life-or-death treatment for children should be forced to mediate in a bid to avoid litigation.
The judge, who analysed Charlie’s case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court, says almost-all family court proceedings are subject to compulsory ‘dispute resolution hearings’.
He says it is his ‘firm view’ that mediation should also be attempted in cases like Charlie’s. Adding: ‘Almost all family proceedings are now subject to compulsory court-led dispute resolution hearings,” Mr Justice Francis said as he drew the case to a close.
‘This applies in disputed money cases, private law children cases and in all cases involving the welfare of children who might be the subject of care proceedings.
‘I recognise, of course, that negotiating issues such as the life or death of a child seems impossible and often will be.
‘However, it is my clear view that mediation should be attempted in all cases such as this one even if all that it does is achieve a greater understanding by the parties of each other’s positions.’
He said: ‘Few users of the court system will be in a greater state of turmoil and grief than parents in the position that these parents have been in and anything which helps them to understand the process and the viewpoint of the other side, even if they profoundly disagree with it, would in my judgment be of benefit and I hope that some lessons can therefore be taken from this tragic case.’
@BBCJonSopel: This was @SpeakerRyan yesterday:" Reince is doing a fantastic job at the White House. I believe he has the president's confidence." Or not
There was an interesting thread on Trump firing sessions. Apparently he can't fire Mueller, but if he fires Sessions, he can appoint someone who can fire someone else so he can then fire Mueller. Or something
Dozens of people mattresses, wheelie bins, traffic cones and rubbish into the street in Dalston, where Charles died after being chased by police officers
On a related topic, I think the plan to sail HMS Queen Elizabeth through the disputed South China Sea waters is idiotic. How is it remotely in our national interest to provoke Beijing?
Think of it more as a performance for their entertainment. Beijing will probably be studying Brexit 2016-2018 in great detail for lessons in how to peacefully bring a rogue offshore island to heel.
What if peaceful doesn't work? Would you endorse force?
So now "taking back control" means incorporating all EU law into British law, losing our representation in the EU, but continuing paying, continuing free movement, continuing the European courts etc.
Note: this is not some outrageous demand by a controlling Superstate, but rather the opening offer from our government.
There was an interesting thread on Trump firing sessions. Apparently he can't fire Mueller, but if he fires Sessions, he can appoint someone who can fire someone else so he can then fire Mueller. Or something
I thought that, since Sessions has recused himself from all things Russian-related, then his Deputy (Rosenstein) is the one doing any firing/hiring.
There was an interesting thread on Trump firing sessions. Apparently he can't fire Mueller, but if he fires Sessions, he can appoint someone who can fire someone else so he can then fire Mueller. Or something
I thought that, since Sessions has recused himself from all things Russian-related, then his Deputy (Rosenstein) is the one doing any firing/hiring.
Itd be interesting to see what the GOP do then.
Because he cant appoint anyone for AG without Congress i dont think. And Sessions is GOP's man
So now "taking back control" means incorporating all EU law into British law, losing our representation in the EU, but continuing paying, continuing free movement, continuing the European courts etc.
Note: this is not some outrageous demand by a controlling Superstate, but rather the opening offer from our government.
The Chinese have spent billions developing weapons specifically to destroy the US aircraft carriers. In any case, they won't give the Americans time to actually reach the battlefield. A not insignificant minority of the Taiwanese actually favour reunification, and I just don't see there being the will for a drawn-out conflict when PRC troops have landed.
On a related topic, I think the plan to sail HMS Queen Elizabeth through the disputed South China Sea waters is idiotic. How is it remotely in our national interest to provoke Beijing?
But looking at a recent example in the Falklands War, note that Woodward kept the two carriers as far away from the islands as possible. That meant that the Harriers could only be on station for tens of minutes, which is why Britain never really established airspace denial. If that was the position in the 80's, think how hard it must be now in the era of the DF-21
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-cEunmqXM8 h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY7v21Zy1yE h ttp://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-would-really-take-to-sink-a-modern-aircraft-car-1794182843 h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M
But looking at a recent example in the Falklands War, note that Woodward kept the two carriers as far away from the islands as possible. That meant that the Harriers could only be on station for tens of minutes, which is why Britain never really established airspace denial. If that was the position in the 80's, think how hard it must be now in the era of the DF-21
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-cEunmqXM8 h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY7v21Zy1yE h ttp://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-would-really-take-to-sink-a-modern-aircraft-car-1794182843 h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M
When i started serving on carriers in the 90s the popular view of people not involved in carrier ops was then, as now, that they were obsolete sitting ducks for new wonder weapons. Back then the carrier killing threat was high speed, supercavitating Russian torpedos that turned out not to exist.
Meanwhile a carrier hasn't been damaged, let alone sunk, in combat for 75 years. USNS Card doesn't count.
Any discussion about the viability of a weapon against CVN misses the point as the CVN doesn't go anywhere without the CVBG (which will include a Tico and 3 x Burke), So to kill the carrier you have to kill the battle group which is a much more challenging proposition. The UK's QE class CVFs are a different matter as the RN has neither the vessels nor the people to constitute a single CVBG.
No doubt the day will come when some new system renders carriers obsolete but that day isn't today or tomorrow. If it were the Chinese wouldn't themselves be trying to acquire carriers like Liaoning and the 001A/002 programs.
But looking at a recent example in the Falklands War, note that Woodward kept the two carriers as far away from the islands as possible. That meant that the Harriers could only be on station for tens of minutes, which is why Britain never really established airspace denial. If that was the position in the 80's, think how hard it must be now in the era of the DF-21
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-cEunmqXM8 h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY7v21Zy1yE h ttp://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-would-really-take-to-sink-a-modern-aircraft-car-1794182843 h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M
When i started serving on carriers in the 90s the popular view of people not involved in carrier ops was then, as now, that they were obsolete sitting ducks for new wonder weapons. Back then the carrier killing threat was high speed, supercavitating Russian torpedos that turned out not to exist.
Meanwhile a carrier hasn't been damaged, let alone sunk, in combat for 75 years. USNS Card doesn't count.
Any discussion about the viability of a weapon against CVN misses the point as the CVN doesn't go anywhere without the CVBG (which will include a Tico and 3 x Burke), So to kill the carrier you have to kill the battle group which is a much more challenging proposition. The UK's QE class CVFs are a different matter as the RN has neither the vessels nor the people to constitute a single CVBG.
No doubt the day will come when some new system renders carriers obsolete but that day isn't today or tomorrow. If it were the Chinese wouldn't themselves be trying to acquire carriers like Liaoning and the 001A/002 programs.
That's precisely the problem the RN has, too few escorts. Not sure that will change any time soon.
The hospital have right on their side on the treatments but they allowed themselves to get into a confrontation with Charlie Gard's parents and lost any understanding or empathy for the position they were in.
It is a tragedy not just that they lost their child but also there was a complete breakdown of trust between them and those supposedly caring for their child.
There's an alternative view (not one I'm sure I'd subscribe to) which seems arguable - quite strongly from a utilitarian angle, though I can't recall seeing anyone actually argue it - that: - the development of experimental treatment for rare disorders is slowed by the shortage of suitable candidates; - the parents were willing, indeed eager*, for such a trial, - the child was a goner either way, - there were risks of causing harm (e.g. prolonging suffering) but it is difficult to know if a child with such neurological defects is "suffering" in the sense an adult does, nor can we quantify just how bad the treatment's effects might be (this is one of the reasons for wanting to do the research), - these potential risks should be set against the potential benefits to future patients from what might be learned by undertaking "treatment".
If there was high-quality research value to be had from such a trial, even if it was extremely unlikely to benefit the child directly, and provided there were procedures in place to minimise harm if the effects turned out to be catastrophic, there seems to be a prima facie social argument for going ahead with "treatment".
* One of the things that undermines this argument is the likelihood that the parents' consent was not fully informed, that they would be doing it in the hope of a massively unlikely miracle rather than simply to ensure their child's death might benefit others in some way.
Minimal scientific benefit from a single case study.
For it to be meaningful it needs to be a randomised controlled trial, preferably double-blinded.
"After living in Britain, most recently in the north-west since 1995, both will take up senior positions with a leading German hospital company, on more than double their UK salaries.
Their decision was made easier by the fact that stones were thrown through the windows of their house barely 24 hours after the referendum, and that their six-year-old daughter came home in tears after being told in the playground by a classmate that she would soon have to “go home”."
"After living in Britain, most recently in the north-west since 1995, both will take up senior positions with a leading German hospital company, on more than double their UK salaries.
Their decision was made easier by the fact that stones were thrown through the windows of their house barely 24 hours after the referendum, and that their six-year-old daughter came home in tears after being told in the playground by a classmate that she would soon have to “go home”."
Comments
Worth noting that while parents can go to whatever media they choose, hospitals can only respond via their legal teams because of patient confidentiality.
This is one of the reasons I'm very wary about medical sob stories, but also people with consumer complaints against a company, or who have experienced difficulties with a local authority or government department. You only get to hear one side in full, the other side is heavily constrained in what they are allowed to say.
"Can't comment on individual cases" is often a get-out, but is true even so.
I simply don't believe these stories.
https://twitter.com/vincecable/status/891044037075103745
https://social.shorthand.com/hmtreasury/jC3nNs0vau3/a-cats-life
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/28/jeremy-corbyn-branded-hypocrite-gender-pay-gap-within-top-labour/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/28/demonstrators-dalston-london-protest-death-rashan-charles
What's a people mattress? Gruadian at their finest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40757119
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/891053151327051782
He had a fantastic day.
Good retweet for a change.
Note: this is not some outrageous demand by a controlling Superstate, but rather the opening offer from our government.
Brexit. Don't cha love it?
"Rogue island".
The more I think about it the more I realise how loaded that phrase is. Utterly unbelievable.
If that attitude were in charge I really would fear civil war, It's that bad.
One last outing for the Reince Priebus joke: the consonants in his name spell RNC PR BS.
BFX 2.06 not to finish term, 9.4 to exit 2017, 4.3 for 2018.
I think 2017 is a bit tight because of process but 2018 looks OK.
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/891061212666097665
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/891061363862376449
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/891063253727674369
Hard to disagree
Because he cant appoint anyone for AG without Congress i dont think. And Sessions is GOP's man
Vladimir (Putin) : That's what you think.
My opinion (based on nothing more than Tom Clancy and The Last Ship...
But looking at a recent example in the Falklands War, note that Woodward kept the two carriers as far away from the islands as possible. That meant that the Harriers could only be on station for tens of minutes, which is why Britain never really established airspace denial. If that was the position in the 80's, think how hard it must be now in the era of the DF-21
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-cEunmqXM8
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY7v21Zy1yE
h ttp://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-would-really-take-to-sink-a-modern-aircraft-car-1794182843
h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21
h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M
Meanwhile a carrier hasn't been damaged, let alone sunk, in combat for 75 years. USNS Card doesn't count.
Any discussion about the viability of a weapon against CVN misses the point as the CVN doesn't go anywhere without the CVBG (which will include a Tico and 3 x Burke), So to kill the carrier you have to kill the battle group which is a much more challenging proposition. The UK's QE class CVFs are a different matter as the RN has neither the vessels nor the people to constitute a single CVBG.
No doubt the day will come when some new system renders carriers obsolete but that day isn't today or tomorrow. If it were the Chinese wouldn't themselves be trying to acquire carriers like Liaoning and the 001A/002 programs.
For it to be meaningful it needs to be a randomised controlled trial, preferably double-blinded.