Posted on 04/11/2017 10:58:56 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Judge rules Great Ormond Street hospital can withdraw life support for Charlie Gard after doctors say he has brain damage
Doctors can withdraw life-support treatment from a sick baby boy against his parents’ wishes, a high court judge has ruled.
Specialists at Great Ormond Street hospital (GOSH) in central London had told the court they believed it was time to stop providing life support for eight-month-old Charlie Gard, who has a rare genetic condition.
Doctors treating the infant say he has brain damage and should be moved on to a palliative care regime. His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, of Bedfont, west London, wanted to take him to a hospital in the US for a treatment trial.
On Tuesday, Mr Justice Francis said: “It is with the heaviest of hearts but with complete conviction for Charlie’s best interests that I find it is in Charlie’s best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.”
As he spoke, Gard buried his head in his hands and cried “no” as other family members broke down. Charlie’s parents are considering mounting an appeal.
The judge praised Charlie’s parents “for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf” and “their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy from the day that he was born”.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Gotta be “FAIR” to everyone since the government is paying for it. And this is perfect government speak.
” Charlie’s best interests that I find it is in Charlie’s best interests “
Sorry Charlie. For your own sake we are going to kill you.
Government health ‘care’: killing you when convenient.
The judge is a nazi.
Hitler won, England was defeated, just 50 years later.
This is one of those cases where the judge is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
I understand the position of the parents and can empathize with their desires for their child.
OTOH, if he’s in an unrecoverable state then let nature take its course.
Glad I don’t have to decide this.
This is outrageous.
With that kind of money, couldn’t they just move him to another country?
Another example of what progressivism/being pro-death leads to.
Right. Much as we instinctively recognize that human life cannot have a price put on it, modern medicine has moved us to a point where patients with medical conditions that cannot be cured end up in a state where they can be “treated” indefinitely. This dilemma gets magnified when you have a government-run health care system where all of these decisions are made by bureaucrats instead of doctors.
People wonder why Pro-life people should not give an inch. It is indeed a slippery downhill slope.
I think the parents should decide, not a judge.
They were trying to bring him to the U.S. judge ruled they cannot, he must die.
This is so wrong on so many levels. This case solves all the arguments we hear about cases like this; the parents were in agreement, not expecting the taxpayers to pay, found doctors in U.S. willing to put him into research program.
The problem is the government (judge) says no, doesn’t matter what the parents want. Definition of nanny state.
That’s what happened with Karen Ann Quinlin but in reverse.
The parents wanted to pull the plug.
The courts wouldn’t let them based on what the Drs. wanted.
The parents finally succeeded with the NJ Supreme Court.
The plug was pulled.
Karen lived another 9 years.
Turns out, God was in charge.
I personally know many people who doctors said were “unrecoverable,” and know of many more. Doctors don’t exactly have an unblemished record about this sort of thing.
It's important to note that the parents never sought to remove her feeding tube after she remained alive without the ventilator. That's why she was able to survive another nine years in that state.
They wanted to move him to the U.S. The death panel said, “no.”
If that’s the case, then I would probably have no objection if the parents armed themselves and spirited their child away from the hospital at gunpoint.
How can a judge prevent parents getting care for their child using private money? Anyone got a link to the ruling?
Then there was Terri Schiavo, whose parents wanted to care for her, but her husband who contributed to the judge’s political campaign wanted to starve her to death, and surprise, the judge agreed with the husband.
Both Gov. and Pres. Bush talked big about wanting to save her, but cowarded out.
No, I will not accept, “They did all they could to save her.”
Like I said, I’m glad I don’t have to decide...Either morally or ethically.
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.