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.
This is a much, much bigger issue than one child. See my post #37 for more detail.
Again, I don’t really care about the specifics of this one incident - if a hospital will actually do it free and not increase prices on other customers to pay for it then by all means; but, we spend about 50% of all healthcare dollars in the last few months of people’s lives, which is ridiculous. This is a much, much larger issue than just one baby. (And no I don’t consider a 10% chance at the cost of several million to be a very wise spend either.)
I know. It’s about more than just one little baby. It’s about all the lebensunwertes leben.
My husband and I are costing TriCare, Medicare and the VA an awful lot of money. And we intend to keep it up as long as possible. We expect to be more successful than little Charlie in our greed for oxygen. We’re armed.
No, it’s about bankrupting the country with you do-gooders. The US government (mostly fed, some state) spends ~10% of the total country’s GDP on healthcare today rising at a rate of 8% annually non-impeded since ~1960 (when it spent less than 1% of GDP on healthcare). If it continues to rise at 8% annually, in 20 years, rather than $2 trillion a year of spending by the government, it will be over $9 trillion ($6T in 2017 dollars). Where is the extra $4 trillion per year in today dollars going to come from? That’s 20% of GDP today. Are you going to raises taxes on EVERYONE by 20% of their income to pay for it or are you just going to let the US government collapse in the name of “doing everything we can (with someone elses money)!!”
I’ve got no issues with healthcare for military and military vets. It’s a perk of the job. But everything else is a handout (including Medicare, which has never fully been funded and is getting worse - the average medicare eligible person today paid in less than $20k in 2017 into the system and will likely get $250k-$1m in benefits) and if you are fine with handouts for medicare, why not even the higher up the pyramid of life’s necessities than healthcare such as food, water and shelter? Shoot, let’s just go full communist. Please.
You make an exception for military, but not the other people who have paid into your system. Interesting. Could it be because we are better armed?
It’s not your money, and we are not your subjects. If you want our share of the oxygen, come take it now, while we’re able to fight for it. No, that’s not your way. You’ll wait until we’re weak, and dependent on you to divvy up what belongs to us. Then you’ll cut off our oxygen, food and water, “for our own good,” and proclaim it’s what we wanted, or would have wanted if we were decent folks like you.
I didn’t serve in the military. I have TriCare because my husband served and we pay for it. So by your standards, I should be killed along with Charlie. I am, after all, very expensive.
You demand what belongs to Charlie, and what belongs to me, but you’re too much of a coward to take it personally. You use the State to gather the spoils. You want a portion of the resources we consume, knowing it belongs to us and we will die without it.
In case you think your views are original, let me assure you, everything you said has been said before.
Excerpts from Alfred Binding and Karl Hoche: Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens. Ihr Maß und ihre Form, [Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Existence. Its Extent and Form.] Leipzig 1920.
“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 ...” (page 27)
“There are two main categories ... of individuals that may be considered for killing as well as an intermediate group:
1. ... incurables dying from disease or injury, who, fully understanding their situation, urgently wish to be released and have given some sign of this ... (page 29);
2. The second group consists of congenital idiots, whether they were born this way or have become much like those in the last stages of a paralyzing disease. They have the will neither to live nor die. Thus they cannot consent to their killing; on the other hand, there is no will to live that would have to be broken ... (page 31);
3. I spoke of an intermediate group, which I define as those who, while mentally intact, have lost consciousness due to some event, such as a very grave, unquestionably mortal wound, and who, if they should regain consciousness, would awaken to an unspeakable misery ...” (page 33).
And regardless of your personal beliefs on this issue, its heading towards bankrupting the federal government in the next 20 years or so. Good luck collecting at that point. Your other post was way too long, didn't read.
No need for you to read it. It said exactly what you’ve been saying.
You still haven’t explained why you feel entitled to kill Charlie and take his money. You keep pretending that it’s your money to begin with, but it isn’t.
How am I taking his money? If its taxpayers money, it is definitely my money. I sent the federal government alone $100k per year plus another $30-40k local and state not even counting hidden taxes.
Since when is the tax in income from donations 100%? The money was collected for HIS medical expenses, not YOUR expenses. You’re advocating murdering him and divvying up his assets to the British government. It is not your money, the taxpayers’ money nor the government’s money. It is Charlie’s money, to be used for his medical expenses. He’s fighting for his life, and his parents have to fight against bloodthirsty sadists like you trying to steal his money and kill him. The excuses you’re using for wanting him and all similarly disabled people murdered are the exact same excuses used for perpetrating the world’s greatest Holocaust. You said you’re too lazy and/or illiterate to read about it, but you’re ignorance of history isn’t justification for your views either.
You apparently have reading comprehension issues. I said multiple times earlier as long as the government isn’t paying for it or the hospital that is “donating” the money isn’t raising other people’s prices to offset the cost, I have zero issues with it - in fact encourage it. But, I don’t think the donations are remotely covering the cost. And again, I don’t particularly care about this one kid. You can’t raise $2 million from funding raising for every kid that dying around the world (there are ~6 million children’s deaths under the age of 5 every year around the world). For the amount of money we’re (collectively) spending on this one baby, we could probably save 2000+ in Africa or parts of Asia/Latin America.
world). For the amount of money we’re (collectively) spending on this one baby, we could probably save 2000+ in Africa or parts of Asia/Latin America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But for what possible reason would we do THAT ???!
I know. You say you have no problem with him getting treatment, as long as the government doesn’t pay for it and the hospital doesn’t raise their rates. Then you prove you don’t mean it, by claiming the government is paying for it when you know that’s a lie, and repeating the same old tired excuses for exterminating Charlie and everyone else you deem unworthy of life because you perceive them to cost more than they produce.
When you have to lie to promote your cause, you should realize your cause is unjust.
You are really, really bad at making straw-man arguments.
I hope you are joking, otherwise you are saying a life in the US is worth 20x++ the life outside the US.
Then it’s a good thing I don’t make them. Just the facts. Unlike you, I don’t hide behind lies to promote murder.
No, you make terrible straw-man arguments - but that typically happens when people argue on emotion.
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.