Did they or did they not justify the extermination of leftists?
Their board of directors must be a barrel of laughs.
Posted on 07/12/2017 3:29:26 AM PDT by Morgana
LONDON, England, July 11, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Great Ormond Street Hospital is arguing that it should be allowed to take Charlie Gard off life support because there's "no benefit" to allowing him to stay alive.
A July 6 article from The Telegraph highlights the arguments the hospital initially made in court as it was arguing for Charlie to be removed from life support:
Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street's legal team, suggested that further treatment would leave Charlie in a "condition of existence."
She said therapy proposed in the USA was "experimental" and would not help Charlie.
"There is significant harm if what the parents want for Charlie comes into effect," she told appeal judges. "The significant harm is a condition of existence which is offering the child no benefit."
She added: "It is inhuman to permit that condition to continue."
Children facing diagnoses similar to Charlie's have made incredible progress in their recovery. Their parents have pointed this out and spoken in favor of Chris Gard and Connie Yates, Charlie Gard's parents.
Now, the case is back in court. On Monday, Mr. Justice Francis wouldn't dismiss the case, as the hospital wanted, but said Thursday that he'll hear arguments in favor of keeping Charlie alive. His parents have less than 48 hours to give the court new "evidence."
Charlie's parents' lawyers argue that the proposed experimental treatment wouldn't hurt Charlie and that there's at least a 10 percent chance it would bring about significant improvements for him. They've raised more than $1 million from private donations to fund his transfer to another hospital, but so far the courts have said they can't do this. The hospital, not Charlie's parents, must be allowed to decide when to remove his life support, the courts have ruled so far.
"The book is not closed on Charlie Gard, and little Charlie still has a chance," said Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life. She's in England assisting Chris and Connie with Rev. Patrick Mahoney and Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schiavo.
"I am Charlie. We all are Charlie. He could be my child, or your child, or any one of us," said Foster. "The life and death struggle facing Charlie’s parents could happen to anyone, which is why we are fighting alongside them for their right to determine their son’s welfare. As a mother, I could not stand by as Charlie’s parents so bravely fought to seek life-saving care for their son."
"Here we have an institution created to serve the most vulnerable in our society and hired to care for little Charlie, yet this institution is battling against Charlie’s parents to strip them of their rights," Foster continued. "No matter how diverse and pluralistic we are as a culture, there is one thing that unites us all: the family. We all want a better future for our children, and that's why families worldwide are responding so strongly to Connie and Chris's fight to give Charlie a chance."
Despite the hospital's claim that Charlie is in a "condition" that would be "inhuman" to continue, his mother notes they have "nothing to lose" by simply letting him be transferred elsewhere for experimental treatment.
These two quotes show the vastly different worldviews at play in this bioethics case. One worldview says an arbitrary definition of quality of life is enough to take a child from his parents and remove his life support. The other sees the intrinsic value in each human being, and that the parents who loved him into the world, not an institution of strangers, ought to have the final say in his medical decisions.
Yes, if only we had socialized healthcare here in America just like in Great Britain, then maybe we could all experience the same level of care and compassion that is being shown to Baby Charlie right now.
If that is true then the doctors current existence offers no benefit to others as well.
So let Charlie go elsewhere. Why is the NHS refusing to do that...
Because they’re death-loving ghouls.
Another group who think they are God. Do they know what love or comfort the child feels from his parents? Do they know what benefit the US treatment could result in for the baby? Nope they just decide what quality of life is and who should live or die.
The more the NHS says there’s no point, the more they undermine their own case for keeping him there.
Hospital is claiming anyone who has been told they MIGHT HAVE A TERMINAL illness should be EUTHANIZED on the spot.
Anyone over 65 needs to EUTHANIZED on their 65th Birthday.
Hospital claims the Nazi's were so EFFICIENT killing Jews that their model should be used for those being EUTHANIZED.
Did they or did they not justify the extermination of leftists?
Their board of directors must be a barrel of laughs.
“The hospital, not Charlie’s parents, must be allowed to decide when to remove his life support, the courts have ruled so far.”
At what point were the parents’ rights over their child’s care undermined by the hospital’s desire to maintain their reputation and rating?
Whatever happened to the “If it saves just one life” stance? I guess that only applies to left wing “causes,” like repealing 2A.
The UK government has to see the conflict of interest inherent. The UK government obviously doesn’t give a damn.
Money. They’re afraid he’s going to come back from the US and be re-admitted on their dime. And people believe socialists aren’t first and foremost money-grubbing bastards?
Orwellian!!!
So according to them is it OK to euthanize people who are on welfare, people who are habitual criminals and people whose life aren’t of any worldly worth?
there’s “no benefit” to allowing him to stay alive.
Wow, fantastic this Hospital must have a direct line to God!
Once the government decided they would provide no further care why wasn’t it left in the hands of the parents who raise their own money to take him to the USA for treatments?
(rhetorical, I know the answer is government death panel decreed it)
“Why is the NHS refusing to do that...”
My understanding of how the system works is, if you go outside the system for health care and they find out, they can deny you all future care. I am not sure what the stated reasons are, if they even address the situation, but the implications are; if you go outside the system you are criticizing it; so, piss on you! (The system, not mewzilla.)
I knew a man from England who is now a citizen. He said, if you believed you had a problem, by the time you got an appointment, and then six months later a test, you could have a fatal situation that might otherwise be treatable. He had, several times, made an appointment here for a relative. They would fly in, get tested, treated, and then return. That way the fact that they had cancer was never known by or reported to the British health system.
Are you personally volunteering to pay for the 7 digit++ expense with virtually no chance of success?
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.