- 25 Jul 2017 08:42
#14826813
His parents have agreed to end his life support. They blame GOSH for wasting time, of course, but the truth seems to be there hasn't been any hope since January.
GOSH themselves took a swipe at the quack doctor for giving the parents false hope and raising unrealistic expectations.
It turns out this doctor has a financial interest in his so called treatment.
Who would have thought it?
The below is taken from GOSH's website:
Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
4
9. In the months between January and July, the Professor provided written and oral evidence for the best interests hearing in April and, after the Court decided that NBT was not in Charlie’s best interests, he went on to provide further written evidence for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Most recently, on 6 July, he co-signed the letter indicating that he had new information that changed the picture for Charlie, that brought this case back before the High Court.
10. When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed. It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April. Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.
11. In the months ahead, all at GOSH will be giving careful thought to what they can learn from this bruising court case that might enrich the care it provides to its most vulnerable patients and families. It is hoped that those who, like the Professor, have provided the opinions that have so sustained Charlie’s parents, their hopes and thus this protracted litigation with its many consequences, will also find much upon which to reflect.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” -Socrates.