Image credit: PA Press Association taken from The Sun web page, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3277149/charlie-gard-court-case-decision-latest-news-gofundme-life-support-parents/
I’m sure by now you’ve heard the name Charlie Gard. He is the infant child of parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates who have been fighting a desperate battle with the British State to prevent their son from being put to death against their will.
Charlie was born with infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion. It’s an extremely rare disease that affects tissues in the muscle, liver and brain. There is no cure and most die in infancy or early childhood. Charlie is unable to breath on his own, has brain damage and frequent seizures.
Last March the London hospital where Charlie is being cared for recommended removing his ventilator, as there was nothing more they could do for him. Chris and Connie refused on the grounds that an experimental treatment was available in America, so the hospital took to the courts, which on final appeal ruled in favor of allowing them to take out the ventilator over the expressed wishes of his parents. This legally sanctioned killing of their son is to be done, of course, in Charlie’s best interest.
Yes, of course, his best interest. How many doorways to evil have been opened with that sentiment? Too many to count. No one is denying that the experimental treatment probably will not work for Charlie, nor that his chances of survival beyond a few years aren’t slim. The point is that his parents deserve the choice of doing what they see best fit for their child and if that means bringing him to the U.S. for medical care they should have that right.
Certainly the decision should not be left up to a hospital bureaucracy whose best interests lay in exterminating costly patients. And if Chris and Connie are making arrangements to to take Charlie out of said hospital than what is the real problem here?
The euthanasia movement throughout western countries has brought with it an unhealthy reliance on “experts” by its promoters to make it seem virtuous. I’m sure the hospital administrators really do believe they are acting with compassion and that’s what frightens me the most in cases like this. So sure they are of this “compassionate” view that the power of the state had to be brought in to enforce it against the will of Charlie Gard’s parents.
You’d think the Catholic Church would offer some moral clarity on this but this recent statement from the Vatican was muddled and tinged with euthanasia talking points. Odd for an outfit that claims to value life in all its forms.
What constitutes a life of value and what does it mean to suffer? Only God knows and we should at least approach such issues with some humble awareness of this.
Freedom Through Empowerment 
Would you also champion ‘parental choice’ if it were a case of those parents withholding medical attention for religious reasons?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It depends the scenario. If it’s damaging to the child probably not. In this case the state is ok with killing the child, it doesn’t get much more damaging than that.
LikeLiked by 3 people
On a different note Tricia, what do you know about the experimental treatment option in the US that the parents are trying to get approval for their boy to travel for?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve heard it’s a long shot in this case KIA, but that others have had some success. The parents have the money to bring him here through a Kickstarter campaign, but the courts ruled against this saying that the treatment won’t address the boy’s irreversible brain damage. That’s disturbing on many levels to me and I’m sure to the many parents of functioning and loving brain damaged children as well. Oh, and the hospital is refusing to even let them bring Charliehome to die. This is a sign of a seriously morally empty and broken system.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From what I’ve read, the courts have ruled based on sound, professional medical opinion. Is there another professional, medical opinion, that isnt being heard, that might contradict?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Their sound professional medical opinion is that because the boy is brain damaged they don’t think his life is worth living. Do you know any people KIA whose brain doesn’t work the way so called normal people’s brains do? Do you think their life is worth any less because of this? If so, why?
Besides, the British government nor the hospital should have any say in whether or not Charlie’s Gard’s parents want to take him to America for treatment. It’s pure and simple bureaucratic hubris and arrogance that’s motivating this..
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Tricia
Unfortunately , this is a rash, highly, emotive and almost politicized response Trish, and just the type of thing that has the ill-informed baying for blood and screaming such things as ”Police State” etc.
You might want to look into this case a bit more before you post such inflammatory statements.
LikeLike
And you as well.
LikeLike
If you suggesting I have missed something and this is the case then I stand corrected. Please direct me to what it is I have missed or erred.
LikeLike
Put a cork in it preacher. In your 34 years of supposed ministry, among exactly how many times did you see parents refuse medical care to children due to their religious beliefs? How many times did you counsel them to do that, preacher.
Your question is not relevant to this post, and is just you regurgitating militant atheist talking points.
Have a nice day!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Poor manners wally. Have a wonderful Lords day
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah I’m a jerk
Meanwhile do you have a response?
I bet even the blog just is curious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Blog host I mean to say, not just.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No wally… that would not be the word I would have chosen. But I didn’t call you a name. That’s your insecurity and unwillingness to be self aware and honest. Have a great day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So still no answer to the question?
Look i have my issues lol
But you using me as an excuse to avoid backing what you say?
That’s moronic
LikeLike
Keep digging the hole deeper wally.
LikeLike
Keep refusing to answer preacher
LikeLike
… and wally, your ‘issues’ arent just issues. They are serious flaws in your character and how you treat others. Almost like you aren’t really filled and indwelt by the holy spirit at all. Are you even Saved, bro?
LikeLike
Lol. Great im flawed and possibly damned too
Meanwhile back at the ranch
LikeLike
Meanwhile back at the ranch do you plan to answer the question?
LikeLike
This is what happens when you give government absolute power which, of course, is the objective of liberalism. They tout terminating unborn babies, so this is their logical next step.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s exactly my point Al, thank you. It ‘s not as if there are not debilitating choices on both sides of this issue. It’s that the big fat state does what big fat states always do, bully its weight around over the needs/desires of the individual.
LikeLike
Good stuff Tricia, Next it will be the old, the mentally infirm, and anybody else the powers that bee deem no longer useful to society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s where I’m afraid it’s heading Wally. In parts of Europe they have already started allowing euthanasia for non- terminal illnesses like depression. Gee, was could wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. Have a bad day and…poof
Yeah what could possibly go wrong there
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your uninformed emotional outburst, Wally, is not only wrong on so many fronts but also the typical type of remark that pours gasoline on the fire in what is, essentially a traumatic and tragic situation.
LikeLike
Yes and your well considered remarks always help bring peace and harmony.
Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you read over your ignorant and inflammatory remarks you will see just how ridiculous they are.
If you have never been in such a situation then it might be wise if you rather kept your stupidity to yourself?
LikeLike
Ah. Got it. Stupid people shut up. Stupid being defined by not agreeing with ark.
Look. Same to you as Mike the preacher. Offer something besides the fact that I am stupid to support your arguments. I may in fact be stupid, but that’s presented by you as an argument to support your case.
That’s pretty stupid! So maybe you could address the content of Tricia’ s post?
Have a nice day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I interact with people who disagree with me often. Most are quite intelligent as well. It is a great way of learning things. However,if you wish to continue to demonstrate how ignorant and insensitive you then who am I to stand in your way?
I actually did address the content of Tricia’s post.
If your reading comprehension is only at the very basic level, then maybe you should either read it three time over or not interact? Otherwise you will simply confirm what most people are already painfully aware of?
Have a day.
LikeLike
Hey Ark
When you addressed me? You did NOT address the post content nor the specific content of my comment. You addressed my shortcomings by addressing the way i presented my point. That actually the hallmark of an illustrate bufoon with no argument. I believe you really smart people call it ad hominem or something. Us bumpkins call it blowing smoke. So again, do you offer some counter to my statement other than my emotional failures?
I will get specific. You clearly support the idea that the presence of pain is enough reason to end a life by your own decision, against the will of either the person or those responsible. That was the gist of my comment. When the ending of life is in the hands of those who do not own that life then the question i asked Tricia is completely valid. Of course you call it stupid and inflammatory…that’s typical of those who simply want to squash disagreement rather than engage it. So do your best to ignore me address the question asked.
LikeLike
Those responsible, being the medical professionals, specialists , and the residing judge involved, yes?
Those responsible professionals who are first and foremost putting the considerations of the child above everything else, yes?
Right. So, I agree with these professionals and not an ignoramus such as yourself who is trying to insinuate their own brand of ethics and morality into a situation which, quite frankly, I doubt you have any experience whatsoever.
I DO have personal experience in this area.
Anything you’d like to add?
LikeLike
Sure. I am sorry for the experience had, and i mean that. However that doesn’t make you more entitled to speak about thus than me. It doesn’t make you more expert than me.I actually never injected anything in this other than the simple fact that those parents have the absolute right to pursue that treatment if they want to.
But again all you bring to the table is my lacking. Perhaps someday you will be able to euthanize all of the idiots like me against our will.
Back to the post. So, it’s your assertion that people in pain judged as unmanageable by some board of experts should be involuntarily killed.
Interesting. Or if i am mistaken perhaps you can share with us your list of those worthy to live, those not wortjty, and the criteria you use to decide?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wrong. And it is time you learned why.
Actually we need people like you to so that we example so as we don’t sink to your level.
That we have an example of why we need compassion and understanding and level headed people who can make decisions based on the welfare of those who are in the most dire need, and not ranting fools who think they know best because their worldview is based upon an immoral genocidal despot deity.
As I have personally been in a similar end- of- life situation, the most eloquent words I have for you Wally, are:
You are simply a very silly person.
Interesting. Or if i am mistaken perhaps you can share with us your list of those worthy to live, those not worthy, and the criteria you use to decide?
LikeLike
Slipped and posted too soon.
If you were truly sorry you might have stopped at your opening sentence.
But you didn’t.
That, in my book, disqualifies you form any reasoned response.
You truly are a grotty little man.
LikeLike
Put a cork in it. The fact that a truly bad happened to you doesn’t mean people can’t challenge what you say.
I suppose that means you won’t answer the questions
Figures
Have a nice day!
LikeLike
No, I would gladly answer the question and have done with others over the years.
For you?
All you do is mouth off unintelligent drivel that you think makes you look understanding and compassionate.
It doesn’t.
You haven’t demonstrated you have any genuine degree of empathy to deserve an answer.
Maybe if you do …
Have a day.
LikeLike
Ark
You are creating a false narrative that I have wronged you to avoid answering questions
Interesting
Thanks for the use of your space here Tricia.
LikeLike
Wronged me? Good grief! How arrogant can you get?
You do not have the intelligence to ”wrong me” and that would only ever happen if I allowed it.
And as is the modus operandi of so many of your ilk, when exposed for the rank fraud that you are you bail.
LikeLike
So…an answer to my questions?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seemed to have missed a couple of things.
let me refresh your memory …
Wrong. And it is time you learned why.
and …
If you were truly sorry you might have stopped at your opening sentence.
But you didn’t.
That, in my book, disqualifies you form any reasoned response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So is it that you don’t have an answer or you know your answer and to face it makes you ill?
Don’t worry about your conscience, Ark, you can just say the “experts” made you do it.
Have a nice day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You remember when I mentioned your lack of reading comprehension?
Have you ever heard of the
Lexile Level?
LikeLike
Does my lack of comprehension assuage your conscience?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does your stupidy assuage your lack of understanding and compassion?
LikeLike
Lol
Have a nice day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
As you appear to be truly struggling to understand, why not get on your knees, pray really, really, really hard and ask your god? Maybe you could let me know what it tells you?
I would be especially interested if the answer was anything along the lines of: ”Wally, please grow up and stop being an arsehole.”
Have a day.
LikeLike
Sorry, I have not been available much for responding to comments. I agree with Wally of course that the parents should have the right to try the experimental treatment. I have not kept up with he latest news, but the last I heard is that the hospital has asked for more time to study things further due to new information.
Ark, to your points, first of all I’m sorry you’ve gone through the horrible experience of having to make end of life choices for a loved one. I’ve had to as well and it is an ugly, gut wrenching and painful matter that I don’t wish on anyone. I and other family members are at peace with the decisions we had to make and I am extremely thankful the state had noting to do with it, it was entirely our personal choice.
In Charlie Gard’s case, the British High Court said they came to their decision because the experimental treatment would do nothing to alter the boy’s brain damage, even if successful at halting the progression of the his disease. Yes, they were concerned about him suffering pain, all parties are, but they don’t know what, if any he is experiencing now and what if any he would experience by traveling to America for the treatment. The brain damage however is certainly not going to improve and that is what they pegged their decision on.
I don’t believe it is at all proper or right for state power to make decisions like this. It’s difficult for me to understand why anyone would want to allow the state to have such enormous power over an individual to make decisions about the most personal areas of their lives. History is filled with tyrannical rule though brought on by an ignorant populace and I suppose this will not change any time soon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been watching this story through the BBC and it’s absolutely broken my heart
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is heartbreaking indeed Julie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for sharing it Tricia
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must admit this is the 1st time I have heard of this story Tricia. Heart wrenching!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It sure is heart wrenching Carl.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t look to the government or the Catholic Church for compassion. Both entities will be “compassionate” when it is beneficial to them either in votes or money. Nothing else matters. The Church is afraid it will cost them money if they get involved and the government will lose support of the young healthy voters if they get involved trying to help the parents and child.
I would like to see some company or compassionate wealthy person send their private jet with a medical team and pick the family up and bring them to the US so the child can get help even if it is with experimental drugs. He deserves every chance to improve his quality of life.Where are you Microsoft Amazon and Facebook?????
This is the kind of health care Hillary and Obama want. Government having the power to choose who gets treatment and who will not. Who lives and who dies. Remember Obama said Nana might be better off with a pill rather then treatment in a hospital. Single payer health care is a death sentence for the unborn young and elderly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So true Dennis.
LikeLike
The Pope has expressed support for the family.
Their story has been taken up by public figures ranging from President Trump to Pope Francis, who have both expressed support for the family.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/6/15923758/charlie-gard-global-controversy-trump-francis
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the Pope gave his personal comments after the original statement from Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia which I thought were much more sound.
LikeLike
Pingback: PARENTAL RIGHTS – Citizen Tom
Based on a quick search over several sites it seems that the treatment being offered in the States is experimental.
even the (unnamed) doctor behind the experimental treatment in the US agreed, upon seeing additional documentation, that it was “unlikely that he will improve with that [experimental] therapy.”
Even if the treatment could slow further progression of the disease (something that also would be unlikely, according to documentation in Justice Francis’s decision), it could not reverse existing damage. The remainder of Charlie’s life would be painful: Ormond Street specialists believe Charlie is capable of experiencing pain, though not expressing it, a factor in the court’s final decision.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/6/15923758/charlie-gard-global-controversy-trump-francis
It seems that the pain factor is also being taken into consideration regarding the decision, and maybe it is this that is weighing heavily on the minds of those making the decisions.
Sadly, this case has, in many ways, been hijacked by a media frenzy – something that is being displayed on blogs such as this – and the child has become an object as part of some sort of political agenda, where the prolong-life-at-any-cost-gang seem to forget that this kid may be in horrendous pain, cannot evenexpress /em> that pain, has almost zero chance of surviving and if he did would likely continue to be in pain and would remain with irreversible brain damage.
I have experience of a similar situation with a family member. There is no easy answer.
But, in all honesty, what sort of life has this child got to look forward to?
On saying that …. not a call I would ever want to make … again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The treatment is entirely experimental and all probability won’t work. That’s not at all the point though as I’ve explained in my post and through several comments already.
LikeLike
Then perhaps you ought to explain the point differently?
The legal decision has taken into to consideration the pain the child is currently in, the fact that he will not likely improve and certainly there will be no reversal, and the factif he survives he will remain in pain and be unable to express this.
Have I incorrectly stated the current position?
LikeLike
How quick we are to involve ourselves in matters over which we have no control. We offer opinions, solutions, judgments and even our personal (i.e., non-professional) remedies We condemn others when their outlook or solution does not agree with ours. We argue over a very dire, heart-breaking situation that NO parent should have to face.
However this case is resolved, we should be sending loving thoughts to the parents that whatever happens, they will know they have done all they can and their hearts and minds will be at peace.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mine did.
I honestly believe the child has been considered first and foremost and the right call has been made in this situation.
LikeLike
Indeed Nan, very true we should be the thinking of the parents an sending them loving thoughts and prayers. I don’t think though that whether or not we have control over something should determine our speaking out, especially if you think the matter important and worth bringing attention to. Best not to condemn others while doing so, I agree with that and often fall short.
LikeLike
Whether we “think the right call” has or has not been made in this case is sadly irrelevant. Maybe you’re Ok with this ruling because you agree with it. What if it were the reverse and you did not agree? Would you still be OK with the state divesting the parents of their right to make their own decisions in the interest of their child? Would you stand by the state’s right to control the health, life, and destiny of all children? That is precisely what you are doing.
It is surely tragic that this child is in such dire straits. But there are enormous consequences that follow which now apply to every single person. If you are defending this, you are defending the power of beauracracy to make life and death decisions for EVERYONE.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very well said madblog.
LikeLike