[reformedliberal]

They would need UK docs and a hospital to participate in that, which under their system means the government must ok it. I understand it is a drug treatment, but Charlie still needs sophisticated life support and he is already damaged.

This is more about how much Charlie will cost the UK system and about the authorities being too hidebound and proud to change their public stance. They need a way to save face before they can backtrack.

[Slyfox]

I have a good friend in London who told me that it is a known but little spoken of fact that you never go to hospital without someone to speak for you. If you don't take someone with you, if you end up not being able to speak for yourself and they deem you to not be worthy of saving, they just put you in a back room and withhold treatment and wait for you to die.

Charlie's parents are speaking up and the media is covering it. This is not a position the hospital likes or wants to be in. They are used to people just dying in the back rooms without the media being aware or caring about it. They are hoping that the baby will just die and they can go back to their backroom deaths with no one the wiser.

[Jane Long]

Spot on. Not to mention the different protocols, in the UK, from our own VERY sophisticated life support systems.

[I cannot think of a name]

“This is more about how much Charlie will cost the UK system”

NONE of these cases, and I repeat NONE, are ever about what it would cost the health care system. If that were true, the second time someone goes in for a drug related illness would result in the death penalty. Drugs will cost the health care system more than all the Charlies born since the beginning of time.

No, this is part of the “innocent human life deserves no protection.” This is a necessary movement if the sheeple are to be hoodwinked into abortion on demand.