Posted on 07/23/2017 12:31:06 PM PDT by ColdOne
In the course of the hearing, British high court Justice Francis said their son cannot be moved to the United States for treatment without a court order, squashing hope that a move to grant him residency in the U.S. would help him, according to The Independent.
Earlier this week, U.S. Congressional leaders approved a measure to grant Charlie and his parents permanent residency status in an effort to make it easier for him to receive an experimental treatment. Pro-life Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Washington, led the effort; her daughter also was diagnosed with a fatal condition but survived because of an experimental treatment.
Charlie’s parents and his hospital are involved in an on-going legal battle over his medical care. The 11-month-old British infant suffers from a mitochondrial disease and brain damage.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
eewww Thanks FRiend!
***He is probably under armed guard in his room.***
Terry Schiavo v.2
The head judge of the death panel has made his ruling.
You are foolish beyond all belief
Precisely. Too many here at FR think you can waltz in and cart this baby off. They are delusional
And you don’t know sarcasm when it smacks you in the face.
Well then help us all out and use an indicator.
Theresa May was the Home Secretary of CINO PM David Cameron, who presided over policies that equated Muslim clerics who advocated terrorism with talk show hosts like Michael Savage.
Both were banned from the UK as if they were the same.
The notion that she would seriously deal with terrorism is laughable.
May’s government and her Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, refuse to release a report on funding of Islamic extremism in the UK on “national security” ground.
What they’re trying to say is the report would show how Saudi Arabia is behind promoting Islamic terrorist ideology in the UK.
The UK does too much business selling weapons to the Saudis to allow the truth to come out.
The English already had their Civil War (1642-1651). Maybe they need CW II
Why can’t they take him out of hospital? What is the law on that there?
Because Charlie is the award of the courts......when the parents first took their plight to the courts ‘the court then is given charge to determine what is best for the child’.... That is the law ‘there’ when there is a difference between hospital and parents in situations such as this.
The court is right saying that to remove Charlie requires a court order...and the family has known this....giving the family citizenship was the first step ....not the end of the matter.
This exactly the same story as Terri Schiavo.
I bet Terri Schiavo and her family thought the same thing at one time. This Gard story is almost exactly the same scenario as Terri's.
Do you also demand to know who foots the bill for all the diseased refugees that are brought here? You know those that are bringing diseases unknown to the Western World along with the very expensive HIV infected?
I had similar questions regarding “why not just check him out against medical advice” (the UK NHS allows this and has a form for doing so), and “is/why Charlie a ward of the court”. Turns out that it isn’t directly related socialized medicine (although that adds money pressure)...it has to do with UK child welfare laws. The US has similar laws, but they give more leeway to the parents, but the parents in the US can still be overridden in cases like Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists and blood transfusions. In the UK the hospital or doctor can petition the court on behalf of the child and a judge has to make a ruling. In the US they cannot directly do that. For more information see:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40600932
Like AJ Jeff Sessions she's probably in need of one or two naps a day and cannot keep up on what's important and currently happening.
Government single payer on display. The govt can force you not to get perfectly legal medical care for yourself or your family even if on your own dime.
IOW, they can kill you.
I don’t wonder, I know who is footing the bill. And I am totally against it. Build the wall and keep all those people, adults and children, out. There is only a finite amount of medical resources in our country and I want them used for Americans.
However, if private citizens or private charities want to pay the medical bill for cases like Charlie Gard, then great. However I am positive that the $1.2 million that Charlie’s parents have raised won’t even cover the cost of transporting the child to the U.S.
The U.K. And every other western country is part of the following child welfare law - except for the USA. The ‘state’ makes overall decisions. In this case I believe it’s based on pride.
“The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (commonly abbreviated as the CRC or UNCRC) is a human rights treaty which sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. ... Nations that ratify this convention are bound to it by international law.”
I have a feeling that many medical costs will be done out of charity based on the public attention this is getting. I am aware of a situation in Canada where a 4 year old is being refused full treatment for a 3rd time Leukemia. They are saying no more - palliative only. That is flipping breaking my heart.
Yes the parents have been making calls to the US. They need passports and $. I don’t think this child has that kind of time. I’ve been ‘following’ this child for over a year. So it’s been sad to hear of him doing so well for a while and just now relapsing and being refused anything but palliative.
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.