Another example of the insanity that goes on in this world at times.

the parents well what can you say.

My thoughts about this sad situation? Unprintable.

They possibly realise they won't be getting all the extra benefits for a couple of years-Sorry but what quality of life does this poor child have ? IMHO none & now she has been dumped by her parents The foster care will cost £100's a week & for how long before that is too expensive too ?

Sorry to be so very cynical but didn't the parents sell their stories to the tabloids ?

They may have qualified for extra benefits but that is because their costs would have been greater than rearing the average child.  Are you suggesting that is why they brought it before a judge rather than love for the child?

They would not have been the first to do this believe me & TBH their subsequent conduct makes me so very very cynical Having another baby(there is no such thing as an "accidental"pregnancy)etc

They were on benefits before & after her birth & now want the local SSD to provide massive amounts of extra care. I know a family who had a severely disabled baby who needed 24/7 medical care, they put theirs lives on hold during her short life, never went to the papers begging for help etc They learnt the techniques needed to give a quality of life-yes they do now have other children, but none were born/conceived whilst they had their special little girl, she died aged 4 much loved in her daddy's arms with her mummy close by-they have set up a charity to help others with similarly disabled babies & now several years down the line have other children. They had no lives of their own for the four years she was alive, but as parents they expected to give their all to her. Her father worked from home so he could totally share her care, they are not rich they got little help from the local SSD but did they dump her in foster care Nope so perhaps you can see why I am so cynical

I think "dumping" is a very emotive term to use on a family you do not personally know. Many children without the problems of Charlotte are given into care because the parents are unable to cope.

:rolleyes:

I have no idea what you are rolling your eyes about so it is rather ineffective as a discussion tool :)

Years ago an old lady told me there were worst things than death. At the time, I didn't really understand but when I read of cases like this, I know exactly what she meant. 
This little girl may have survived against the odds but she's severely disabled.  She's attached to an oxygen tank and has to be fed through a tube - not much of a life in my view.
The fight by her parents to keep her alive was commendable but, in hindsight, perhaps not altogether in the best interests of the child.

They did not make the decisions though, a impartial judge who heard all both sides had to say did, so I think we have to respect that her quality of life entitles her to the same health responses as the rest of us.

If the parents hadn't taken the matter to court a judge would never have been needed.

An interesting point :)  Do you think we should leave all ethical decisions to the medical profession then?

I think we should leave medical decisions to the medical professionals, who've had the training and experience to know the consequences better than the emotive layman.

I certainly think their knowledge and understanding should be considered but that was presented to the judge.  I am sure they gave full detail of what her life was expected to be, there was certainly much detail in the papers.

I wonder if they took the doctors to court with the use of legal aid?

Does it matter?  Why do we have legal aid if we do not wish to assist people to use the law when they would otherwise not be able to?

Yes, it matters. I wonder how many parents are unable to take this type of action with their babies because they do not qualify for legal aid.

I believe they did get legal aid Chloe.

Should Charlotte's parents not have got it because others don't?  Should legal aid not exist and therefore those without the means have no access to the law?

Do you think they would have/could have paid to take the doctors to court had they not had legal aid?

Should it have been granted even though it was questioning medical professionals advice?

I wouldn't be able to afford it because I wouldn't qualify.

Is it fair?

Nope. Not to me.

Legal aid should exist to help ALL - on a case by case basis and perhaps a percentage of help offered - not just available because the parents are on benefits. But thats another story :D

>Should it have been granted even though it was questioning medical professionals advice?

I think that is a good safeguard, yes.  The medical profession have the edge on understanding the implications of medical treatment but I don't think they have a right to always holding the right answer to ethical considerations.

>Legal aid should exist to help ALL

I think you are probably right :)

There are many who do not have access to the law because they do not qualify for Legal Aid :( How many people could pay for the vast sums required to take a case like this to the High Court ? If people have had to sell their house to pay the legal cost, they wouldn't have a home to take the baby back to ....

Daisy

I'd hate to be the judge who had to make that decision - he/she had to decide to let a baby die or not and deny parents their child. It shouldn't have gone that far.
I know doctors are desperate to save lives, but when Charlotte was born I'm sure her problems were known at the very early stages, why did they still help her ?.Why didn't they do the best for her, give her dignity and peace ?.

Who in their right mind goes on and has another child so soon knowing the care involved with this girl would be huge?

If they really wanted the child at home there would be help for them. I unfortunately don't believe there is no help.  When choosing who to care for did the 4th healthy child ever get added to the equation? was she ever in question? I wonder. :rolleyes: A foster home for the 4th baby would have been easier to find. If I had fought that hard for that child , hail rain or shine it would be with me.

We don't have a perfect NHS system but I know several people with disabled children and family and there is care and help on hand.

I also find it odd that people always look to blame people for their marriage failure.

I think the whole thing is very shocking.

Just a clarification of the facts below, as I've had to look them up myself:

Her parents opposed the hospital's decision, their lawyer argued before Justice Hedley in the Family Division of the High Court that, since the parents wish to give her every opportunity to live, he should order the hospital to resuscitate her. On October 7, 2004, Hedley J ruled that the doctors should withhold treatment and allow Charlotte to die if she required ventilation. In his opinion, Hedley J said,

I know that may mean that she may die earlier than otherwise she might have done, but in my judgment the moment of her death will only be slightly advanced. I have asked myself: what can now be done to benefit Charlotte? She should be given as much comfort as possible, as much time as possible to spend in the presence and in contact with her parents and she should be allowed to meet her end, in the words of Mr Wyatt, with the TLC of those who love her the most.

An appeal was made in March of 2005 to Justice Hedley to change his decision. He ruled again on April 21, 2005 that ventilation should not be undertaken.

Slight improvement continued and on the 21st of October, her second birthday, and after a highly emotional hearing, Hedley J removed the DNR order he had placed over her a year before.

In February 2006, a viral infection led to a deterioration in Charlott'e condition. The hospital went back to court and once more obtained an order permitting them not to intubate or ventilate her, in the clear expectation that she would die. However, once more she recovered and her overall condition was continuing to improve in August 2006.

Hi

This is such a difficult one.  I know if she was my child she would not be alive now. I dont say that easily. I would of wanted the best for my baby and if that meant letting her slip away I would of done it. I would of grieved for her. I really dont like the idea of keeping premature babies alive because we can. Some like Charlotte have terrible disabilities and I dont feel they have the quality of life they deserve.
I do wonder however if Charlotte actually knows her parents, how disabled is she. I have no quarms about a foster home or livign in a hospital she probably get better care.

I just wish her parents had thought this through. Having another baby was irresponsible. But are they not catholics and it is gods way. I had a hard time with this at the time becuase if it was gods way Charlotte wouldnt be alive today he would of taken her  when she was born,it was the medical team that kept her alive.

Please dont want to start a debate about catholics and there beliefs

I am so lucky I have two healthy children and my heart does go out to anyone that has to face something like this.

Wendy

As you say Carla, this is so sad - for all concerned - the parents, doctors, nurses, carers, those who have been involved in the legal profession, and of course, little Charlotte herself.

I am just thankful that I've never been involved in a decision such as this - we can look in from the outside, and think we know what we would have done in the same circumstances - but unless we are involved - how do we know just how we would react?   I too think that I would have let her slip peacefully away - but when shown a spark of life, which one of us wouldn't fight to keep it going?

So hard for everyone concerned.

Margot

I agree Margot.  Unfortunately you have a lot of negative characteristics and human decision making thrown into the mix.  What constitutes a quality of life?  Who is qualified to set the boundaries? At what point can a fetus be born and be considered to have independent life?  How much medical intervention should there be at the birth of premature babies known to have severe medical problems?  Who is ultimately responsible for the child, the parents or the state?

At what point can a fetus be born and be considered to have independent life?

I am a neo-natal surgical ICU nurse and this situation saddens me immensely..... :-(
Because we are a specialist unit we take babies from 24 weeks........at this gestation approx 1 in 10 would survive and would probably have some sort of disability and moderate to severe medical problems. They would almost certainly require litres of oxygen to keep them alive and to help them through their childhood as well as the risk of brain damage, multi organ failure and surgery etc.....

We always give the parents the choice and I have to say 'most' are guided by what the doctors say......

Charlotte's situation is very sad and heartbreaking......

Gabrielle x

I agree Margot.  Unfortunately you have a lot of negative characteristics and human decision making thrown into the mix.  What constitutes a quality of life?  Who is qualified to set the boundaries? At what point can a fetus be born and be considered to have independent life?  How much medical intervention should there be at the birth of premature babies known to have severe medical problems?  Who is ultimately responsible for the child, the parents or the state?

This is a very sad situation but not one I am surprised at. I work for social services as an Occupational Therapist and used to work in the disabled children's section. It is quite usual for parents to seperate having fought hard for their children, and then not coped when they are home. The reality is very different, no matter how much support they receive from the various professionals at the end of the day it is just the parents and the child. Unfortunately children like Charlotte will cost the state about a £1million each in their lifetime, this is cost of medical care, foster care up to age of 18, residential care, therapy, cost of special equipment is huge, a special chair to sit in can cost about £1,500, a special commode £2000 etc and then they need replacing as the child grows. Its doubtful that poor Charlotte will live to adult hood, and if she had some quality of life I would say go for it, but most of the children I see need 24 hr care and are unable to have any basic independence, cannot speak and are unable to make any decisions at all as they are so brain damaged. Is it worth the cost? Well most people complain that their Council tax is too high, so where do we draw the line?

I'm sorry but I think that the reality of caring for a severly disabled child has hit the parents and they want out.
My cousin has a child with severe cerebral palsy (partially deaf,blind and severly disabled)and she is a single mother.Not just to her either,she has an older son and a younger son.The child needs constant 24 hour care and my cousins only help is respite,once a month.
If she can do it what is stopping either of these parents from doing it.