View Single Post
  #1841  
Old 07-24-2017, 07:33 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torch View Post
I'll try to get back to it tomorrow, but long story short: The treatment would not have cured him of his brain damage and organ failure. This is not a guess. This is "unless something entirely beyond the realm of science and what the developers of the treatment believe can happen, happens" level "it wouldn't cure him."

As such, and given that he showed signs of pain, the doctors COULD NOT in good conscience allow him to undergo treatment that would, at most, allow him to live a life of suffering longer. Like, that would practically go against the Hippocratic oath level bad.

Throw in some shit like "the people proposing the treatment may have been trying to milk it for money, when they would've known it wouldn't worked had they looked at Charlie", and the right wing trying to claim it's to do with socialised medicine (it seriously isn't) and use it to bash those heartless experts over good honest parents (who I can't blame for trying, but were still sadly ignorant) to promote their own insidious agenda, and yeah. Could go on longer, but the long and short of it is "treatment couldn't have worked, kid suffering = doctors want to let to poor fellow rest in peace"
Reply With Quote