Posted on 07/24/2017 7:01:42 AM PDT by Ennis85
The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard have ended their legal challenge to take him to the US for experimental treatment. A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court that "time had run out" for the baby. Grant Armstrong said Charlie's parents had made the decision because an American doctor said it was too late to give him nucleoside therapy. "The parents worst nightmare have been confirmed", Mr Armstrong said.
He told the presiding judge Mr Justice Francis that US neurologist Dr Michio Hirano had said he was no longer willing to offer the baby experimental therapy after he saw the results of a new MRI scan last week. He added Mr Gard and Ms Yates would now look to establish a foundation so that Charlie's voice "continues to be heard". They had raised £1.3m in donations to take their 11-month-old abroad for treatment.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Liberal caring at its best.
So sad. Prayers for all.
Heartbreaking. So the pro death creeps succeeded in delaying treatment long enough that the kid will die. Let’s not forget the parents began pursuit of this treatment in November.
The corrupt hospital, judge and the EU ran the clock out on baby Charlie.
This is what single payer looks like up close and personal.
What group is next up for the Brits?
The elderly?
National Health Care is great unless you look at the results.
The is quite an advertisement for government-run health care. The Death Panels are not a figment of Sarah Palin’s imagination.
Single payer.
The British Health (non)Service wins another one. Had they not obstructed and interfered with these parents’ efforts to save their child, this may have had a different outcome. The sad, simple fact, here, is the Health (non)Service folks will chalk this one up as confirmation their policies are sound and move on to the next one...
But they won’t receive a bill/sarc...
The Cost Containment Board DEATH PANEL Wins the final round...
Yeh, free healthcare is going to be the death of us.
I would appreciate clarification from the forum please.
Were the parents of Charlie Guard planning on paying for this treatment out of their own pockets, or did they expect others, e.g. taxpayers, to pay for it?
Is this “experimental treatment” not a scam?
This is another example of a government death panel to be sure, but is that all there is to the issue for us as conservatives?
I hope for help from the fine freepers here. My opinion is that if this mother simply wanted to take Charlie home so he could die in her arms, and the UK government prevented that, then our country should immediately and permanently withdraw all military assistance and support from that country. If however, she wants to take him from one socialist paradise with free medical care to another with free medical care because one has a death panel and the other does not, then I cannot see reason for us to be interested. Please correct me, as I want to learn.
I BAD things to say of the presiding judge Mr. Justice Francis and the British High Court.
Boycott everything British.
Death Panels
The elderly?
= = =
Won’t get there if you knock them off at 11 months.
Have at ‘em, moslems.
The parents had over a million dollars in hand to pay for his care in the USA. They will now establish a fund to help other parents fight for parents’ rights when the NHS sentences their children to death, as they did sweet little Charlie. God be with him and his suffering parents.
I’m not 100% on the details, but I believe the family had gathered over a million dollars of donations to help with the transportation and treatment costs to bring him to the US. Also the Vatican offered to take him into their hospital for treatment, but was also refused.
Hard to say if its a scam or not, but I doubt it was... someone would have said something earlier.
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.