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.
I think if you stand back and consider the landscape....there are probably a thousand-odd Charlie Gards in the UK....every single year.
To make the healthcare system work, consider that there is only ‘X’ amount in the bucket and you attempt to use it in an economical way. Those thousand-odd Charlies take a significant amount of cost-factor. If they accepted this scenario and Charlie did survive....the cost of this ‘solution’ then gets dragged up each time that another Charlie enters the scene. The money isn’t there to handle that.
If you look across at what the Affordable Healthcare Act has done....we are experiencing a failure of the entire system because of the expanding cost, and only one single solution (Medicare for all).
So take the current mentality of Americans, the expectations, and the concept of Medicare for all....and layer in about 500,000 Charlies per year. Unless someone determines a special tax or some board such as you see in the UK....you will experience the same arguement.
babies and people in this poor child’s shape are removed from life support every single day nationwide.
And have been since the beginning of respirators and other life support measures, fifty plus years ago.
It is tragic, but true.
The good Dr. Charles Krauthammer stated on the Tucker Carlson show that the baby has no chance of survival and should be allowed to die with dignity. Only the selfish parents are keeping that from happening.
I would expect because to continue would be considered torture. There are researchers worldwide always looking for another lab-rat.
A US hospital has already offered to treat the baby for free so this isn’t about money.
Krauthammer, being disabled himself, needs to stop and think about just what he’s advocating, here. It’s only a short leap of logic away for authorities to begin questioning his utility and his quality of life.
and we keep terminally ill people alive every day too. This baby has a chance. That’s the difference.
Charles Krauthammer should have been left to die when he broke his neck because a broken neck is incurable.
Those darn useless eaters...we need the cash for our refugees anyway.
Moving abroad: planning for your healthcare
Is the UK charging refugees and illegals yet? Or are they still getting a free ride?
The question is who makes that decision for Charlie: Charlie’s parents or the government that has financial and political interesta in the outcome...
We’ve had to make or help make this decision for other family members, though none of them children, thank God. I have no problem with the government saying not on our dime. What I do have a problem with is the government making the decision to preclude any other care.
Are you personally offering to turn on the gas?
Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street’s legal team, suggested that further treatment would leave Charlie in a “condition of existence.”
At some level, these monsters take pleasure in having the power of life and death over others. The more innocent the victim, the greater their perverted pleasure in destroying that life. Sick.
I can’t stand Krauthammer. He was a NeverTrumper who was wrong the entire election cycle yet people like Tucker Carlson keep giving him a forum to spew more idiocy like his statement on the baby, which even took Tucker aback. My first response nowadays when I see he is commenting is to turn the channel.
Nope, but I’m not volunteering my money at gunpoint to pay for it either.
A vatican hospital volunteered - I did not see a US hospital volunteer. Regardless, this is just one case and if your going to have socialized healthcare (medicaid, medicare, 90% credits for lower middle income, etc), you are going to have to have “death panels” or the costs of healthcare will keep doing like they are doing - skyrocketting and quickly heading towards bankrupting the entire country. If you want to pay $5m+ towards a 1% chance procedures/surgery/whatever - do it on your own dime.
agree about government overreach.
also happens all the time.
Who did the parents point a gun at? All of the donations were given voluntarily. What kind of person would rob a baby of what is rightfully his and necessary to his very life, unless someone points a gun at you?
a U.S. hospital has now stepped forward and offered anonymously to treat Charlie for free: The unnamed hospital has allegedly offered a new experimental treatment at no cost - if he is granted permission to travel.
I thought it was 7 figures and virtually no chance of success? Could it be that you don't know precisely what the cost is and what the chances are? He has a 10% chance of survival according to several sources I have seen and A US hospital has apparently offered to treat the child for free. So, if this is what the parents want, there should be nothing standing in their way. Parents should be making this decision for their child, not a panel of bureaucrats. I would like to see this child be given a chance. If he survives, I would like to see what becomes of him. If he turns out OK, I would like to see his name carved into a mountain in big giant letters.
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.