Posted on 07/03/2017 11:34:08 AM PDT by Morgana
In a heartbreaking case in the United Kingdom, Connie Yates and Chris Gard just lost their final appeal in battling for their son Charlie’s life. This means the hospital where 10-month-old Charlie has been staying since birth will now legally remove his life support, essentially euthanizing an infant against his parents’ wishes.
Charlie was born last August with a rare disease, mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. Medical staff at the hospital believed he would not improve and it was best for Charlie to “die with dignity.” His parents did not agree, so the case went to a judge, who affirmed the hospital’s recommendation. The European Court of Human Rights concluded that the UK’s decision to deny the couple’s right to remove their son from the hospital to obtain care in the United States did not violate the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The UK’s system of socialized medicine provided the framework for the legal system to usurp these parents’ rights. It’s a two-headed dragon of law and socialized medicine that could easily pair to usurp parental rights in America as well. Courts Versus Parents
Unlike the United States, the UK has legal precedent that strongly supports state impositions on parental rights and child welfare. Within months of Charlie’s hospitalization because of his debilitating disease, the hospital lobbied to pull Charlie’s life support. His parents objected, hoping Charlie could receive experimental treatment. The couple raised more than $1.3 million via GoFundMe to come to the United States for that purpose. The two parties—three if you include Charlie’s court-appointed attorney—quickly came to an impasse, so the issue went before Britain’s legal system.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Duh!
Socialized medicine is the selling of yourself to the government. THEY decide if you live, or die; THEY decide on your treatment for illness; THEY own you, lock, stock, and barrel.
These parents should declare their Independence from a tyrannical out of control government and flee to the U.S.A. to seek asylum on Independence Day. UK Socialized medicine is a modern day George III.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
They would need a lot of help to do that as the baby is on a ventilator and cannot be taken off of it. Perhaps Trump will send a medevac plane to get him. We will have to see.
They won’t let them bring their child home to die either.
This is all an exercise in government control-freak-ism.
Big Ed please! You know it, I know it but the left are very slow learners.
Just who does own the body you live in? Once they pay for the maintenance, the State.
> Yanking Life Support From UK Baby Demonstrates Dangers Of Socialized Medicine <
Actually, it demonstrates the dangers of socialism, period.
its all well and good to try to keep people alive with machines but somebody's going to have to be the grownup and say enough...
Sarah Palindrome was correct
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/06/jersey_moms_healthcare_plea_for_3-year-old_son_goe.html
Apparently you either didn't bother to read or you missed this:"The couple raised more than $1.3 million via GoFundMe to come to the United States for that purpose."
It doesn’t appear that money is a factor in this case. It is possible that Charlie is too unstable to move, meaning that even with a portable vent and medical staff to transport him, that he would most likely die from being moved. Without being on his medical team that is impossible to know. It is the only reason I can come up with for them ( the hospital to not allow it)
However the late Dr. Sherwin Nuland wrote that there really is no such thing as death with dignity. Other doctors say the same: All Death is Death Without Dignity
Still, the pro-death Left continues to use the phrase successfully to win the battle of public opinion. Remember how Terri Schiavo's husband used it against her parents, pretending that only he had her best interests at heart? And yet, when he legally killed Terri by denying her water, she died a prolonged, agonizing, horrifying death.
From another article, a group of specialists had determined that the experimental treatment would not be effective and the court followed that determination.
My question is, how would they know? The doctors who are offering the experimental treatment do not know whether it will work or not that is why it is called experimental.
I think it boils down to state control freakism. They wouldn’t even let the parents take their child home to die. Total state control freakism.
I hope and pray that Charlie gets a chance to live and grows up to tell the EU/UK courts to stuff it.
I think they believe that his brain damage is irreversible. Also the specialists who developed the treatment would know how it works and whether it could reverse damage already done. Articles on Charlie’s case have sometimes conflicted so it’s hard to know the real story, but I have read that even the US doctor offering treatment doubts it will help Charlie.
Without having all the information of his medical team I am not willing to accuse the doctors who have cared for him so long of wanting him to die... just because they say so. Just my opinion.
Moving Charlie is difficult but he’ll be out of that hospital and in God’s hands. Leaving him to languish longer is insane.
What if moving him causes him increased suffering or pain? Again not being on his medical team it’s not possible to say. It is my opinion only that Charlie probably has no idea of his surroundings, but I do believe that allowing him to go home to die would be the compassionate and right thing to do for his parents as long as it doesn’t add to his suffering.
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.