Posted on 07/19/2017 8:05:24 AM PDT by Morgana
The on-going political row over the treatment of Charlie Gard took a new turn today as it emerged US lawmakers have granted the terminally-ill 11-month-old permanent resident status to allow him to fly to America for treatment.
Congress passed the amendment that it is reported could mean Charlie's parents, who have been mired in a battle with British doctors, to take him to the US without needing their permission.
Jeff Fortenberry, Republican U.S. Representative for Nebraska, tweeted:
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Last I hear, Charlie’s parents have raised over a million dollars. Charlie’s not a charity case.
Permanent Resident status means he may legally live here it does not make him a U.S. Citizen.
Thank you both. And thanks to the decent Congresspeeps who did this.
I’ll let you both know when I can be on FR more.
Thanks so much for the ping!
We should save as many children as we can, even when it’s one child at a time.
God bless you all, but referring to this process as “the medical treatment he NEEDS” mis-states the facts.
Nobody NEEDS highly controversial experimental treatment.
People who willingly suffer damage or give up their lives in the hope that some course of action will advance medical science are very admirable. But no one with an incurable and poorly understood disease is OBLIGED to do that.
The wish of the family to offer up their child for this purpose is also admirable.
But, I can tell you after 45 years of medical practice, a lot of it focused on experimental treatment in desperate situations, EVERYONE who is told “there may be a 1/1 000 000 chance this could help” believes with stone-cold certainty that they are that one in a million.
If these experimental treatments were either beneficial or harmless, that would be one thing. But that is far from the case.
Hippocrates nailed it:
Life is Short, but the Art, long
The occasion fleeting
Experimentation dangerous
And decision difficult.
We are all God’s children. Let’s open our borders.
“But that avenue is not always the quickest or cheapest.”
In my opinion allowing a person you love to linger in something that hardly qualifies for life can be punishing to both. The only good part here, if there is such a thing, is that a baby never realizes the goods or bads of life except needs for a while. They only want what they need because they have never seen what the could get. But those can become monotonous and thus a yearn for more is created even though they don’t know what. And that becomes frustrating.
An older child that crossed over into this catagory has seen beyond food, warmth, and waking up from sleep. They realize the people that are with them, and through a process of limitation, entertain them. But that in itself for one who doesn’t know, is a good life until the newness gets old.
An adult does not want to linger. They know it’s painful and frustrating to everyone. And unless the adult is happy as they are, they won’t be long. My mother’s mind is pretty much gone now in her advancing age. And she has her health. But she’s happy in her memories and her revert back to babyhood.
So where do you go from there? Nobody said it would be easy.
rwood
Stick it up you ass. This has nothing to do with this thread.
Fork over what money? Are you saying the money that belongs to Charlie for his treatment should be confiscated, knowing that would mean certain death for Charlie? I know there are bloodthirsty people calling for his death. I hope you’re not one of them.
Oh, I get it. I should have read further before responding. You want him to fork over his money, and then be denied entry into the country to get the treatment he paid for. That’s cold!
There are two issues here. And they are not the love of a child or the laws by the governing country. One is that there is no reason to say that the “cure” they are using is going to even help. It is an experimental drug, not a cure set up by our AMA or FDA. They don’t know if it will even work. So even though this illness is being called terminal, what do they have to lose? But that leads us to the second issue, quality of life. This phrase has not been in the forefront of the issue in a way that considers it a part of it. We have been told the child already has brain damage. Okay, how much? Will this experimental cure do anything about that? Probably not. Destroyed cells normally do not regenerate. So if this cure actually works, what type of life will, or can, or have the ability to consider, possibly have? Life is fragile, but sometimes death is peace. Why hurt for a few years? This needs to be weighed and decided if just having life is worth living? Or if death is the answer to the pain of no life whatsoever or one of pain and anguish. Hell of a choice, huh?
rwood
That sounds pretty much like this:
Are there lives that have forfeited their individual legal protection because their continued existence has permanently lost all value for the person himself, and for society as well? Simply posing this question brings up an uneasy feeling in anyone who has become accustomed to evaluating the value of a particular life to both the individual concerned and to society.... If one simultaneously thinks about a battlefield covered with thousands of dead young men, or a mine where a violent thunderstorm has buried alive hundreds of diligent workers, and compares it to an institution for imbeciles with its care for its living inmates, one is deeply shocked by the blatant dissonance between the sacrifice of the greatest treasure of humankind on one hand, and on the other, the greatest care being given to existences that are not only absolutely worthless, but that drag other worthy beings down negative existences.
Binding & Hoche
Redwood, who do you think should decide whether Charlie Gard, or anyone else with disabilities that according to you make their lives unenjoyable and thus not worth living, should die? The government? Hospitals? Other?
You certainly have read that Charlie’s parents have raised over $1 million.
Why do you compare him to illegals who sneak in, breaking the law, to get US government to pay their bills?
Even little Gerhard Kretschmar’s parents got to decide for him. Of course, they made the government approved choice. If they hadn’t, I’m sure they wouldn’t have been the ones to decide.
Look it up, Redwood. I think you’ll be appalled when you realize whose song you’ve been singing. While you’re at it, look up the Binding and Hoche quote I gave you in post 53, which was virtually word for word what you said. Scary stuff.
You’re welcome, Sun.
Thank you for keeping up the good fight, for life, and against the destruction of our healthcare which supports life.
Thanks, BykrBayb.
The Nazi regime started with, IIRC, the mentally retarded, and we know the end result. Millions killed for having lives not worth living.
“and for society as well”
Society and legal protection have nothing to do with it. That is one of the most deplorable parts of the ACA. The death squads that sit in hiding that make decisions based upon finances and not the life involved.
If you believe life is sacred, and should be lived to the fullest, then I hope you never have to make the decision to allow a person that no longer lives it with nothing more than a few brain waves with no thought, no love, no laughter, no dreams, no connection to anybody or anything, and no future. If that’s living, then your and my definition are opposite. Life has to grow and get stronger. His can’t happen unless by one of ‘god’s miracles, he is spared this type of hell on earth. I don’t call that living. I call that existing. Rocks exist.
And yes I have been on that battlefield with the bodies of fallen soldiers. You call them young men. I call them fallen Americans that stood up for what they believe in and committed their all for their stand. And they didn’t do it for a few people they know. They did it for this entire country and no one can respect them enough. But they knew the possibilities when they walked into the recruiter’s office. They knew there was a possibility they were going to walk in front of a bullet. But a baby with brain damage, and again we don’t know the extent, may not know anything ever. He didn’t make that decision. God did. So if you are going to question anyone’s opinion on whether he should be allowed to pass, then why not question why he was placed in that situation to begin with? I don’t have that answer. I just know it exists and someone or thing greater than I has it. I can only answer for me.
rwood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.