Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

don't be ridiculous, the government takes children from the parents all the time in the US when the parents are unable to properly care for them and the kids may be in danger. even for medical care, if you have a child with a serious illness and the parents refuse treatment, for religious reasons or other reasons, often judges end up making decisions. this happens in the USA. people who talk about the UK case simply do not know the case, the child is already brain dead, can't breath, can't swallow, can't move anything, his muscles are gone, is dying and there is no cure and no treatment. even the so called US treatment is something that would not help even if it worked and is not a real cure. I understand the parents but the reality is that the child is dying.

I also find disgusting that OP talks about this tragedy just to score a political point. if anything, these parents were lucky they are in the UK where a universal health care system threated their terminal child since birth doing anything possible and incurring $$$$$$$$$$ expenses at no cost to the parents. then a private doctor in the US was ready to "treat" the child (with no real hope of even improving his condition) but only for millions of dollars cash........ yes, sure, the US system is so much better. nope!

I don't think in the US parentsl rights could be interfered with because the parents wanted *more* treatment. I don't know much about UK family law but this case would have a different outcome here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it doesn't. Pay for your abortion yourself and no one will say a word to you.
In case of this baby, parents are willing to pay cash but government stoped them and stripped their parental rights to decide their baby's fate.

It's very delicate territory. Putting emotions aside, this poor kid is hopeless. But if was his mother I would exhaust every opportunity to nourish him to an executable quality of life.

Wrong and wrong. The state governments are trying to shut down abortion clinics. There are five states with only one clinic.

And the parents may have money, but the whole thing is insane. The child has irreversible brain damage. Can't see, hear, move, or make a sound. The treatment will not cure this, even if somehow it cures his underlying condition. The courts are stopping them because what they are doing is inhumane.

I don't think it's for the courts to decide if a bona fide medical treatment is inhumane. It's the parents' right to decide.

This isn't about healthcare, regulation of experimental treatmant, or even liberal v conservative. It's about parental rights, which never breaks down on easy liberal/conservative lines.

Anonymous wrote:

No, it doesn't. Pay for your abortion yourself and no one will say a word to you.
In case of this baby, parents are willing to pay cash but government stoped them and stripped their parental rights to decide their baby's fate.

It's very delicate territory. Putting emotions aside, this poor kid is hopeless. But if was his mother I would exhaust every opportunity to nourish him to an executable quality of life.

Wrong and wrong. The state governments are trying to shut down abortion clinics. There are five states with only one clinic.

And the parents may have money, but the whole thing is insane. The child has irreversible brain damage. Can't see, hear, move, or make a sound. The treatment will not cure this, even if somehow it cures his underlying condition. The courts are stopping them because what they are doing is inhumane.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love the death of children. It's incredibly sick.

Conservatives love forcing a child to be born to a mother who can't take care of it, then scoff at the mother for having that child out of wedlock and not being able to take care of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

The US government does the same when they think there is child neglect or abuse. Also, some people in the US want to control whether a not a woman should be forced to go through a medical condition called pregnancy.

Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion, except for it does end a life, just like the British government wants to do with this baby, parents be damned. If you feel a mother should be able to decide what to do with her womb, why should that change if the baby is born? Or do you just approve of killing babies in general?

This is not child neglect or abuse. They sought help in the US and raised the money to receive it. The government is refusing them the opportunity to try to help their child through private means. That's the epitome of a death panel

This has to do with the argument about whether the government has any say over your child or your body. So yes, abortion and child abuse does come into play.

If you feel that the child should be force to be born, why don't you want to take care of it via taxes?

Again, there are cases in the US where the government has forced the parent to keep a child in the hospital.

No, it doesn't. Pay for your abortion yourself and no one will say a word to you.
In case of this baby, parents are willing to pay cash but government stoped them and stripped their parental rights to decide their baby's fate.

It's very delicate territory. Putting emotions aside, this poor kid is hopeless. But if was his mother I would exhaust every opportunity to nourish him to an executable quality of life.

Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

The US government does the same when they think there is child neglect or abuse. Also, some people in the US want to control whether a not a woman should be forced to go through a medical condition called pregnancy.

Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion, except for it does end a life, just like the British government wants to do with this baby, parents be damned. If you feel a mother should be able to decide what to do with her womb, why should that change if the baby is born? Or do you just approve of killing babies in general?

This is not child neglect or abuse. They sought help in the US and raised the money to receive it. The government is refusing them the opportunity to try to help their child through private means. That's the epitome of a death panel

This has to do with the argument about whether the government has any say over your child or your body. So yes, abortion and child abuse does come into play.

If you feel that the child should be force to be born, why don't you want to take care of it via taxes?

Again, there are cases in the US where the government has forced the parent to keep a child in the hospital.

No, it doesn't. Pay for your abortion yourself and no one will say a word to you.
In case of this baby, parents are willing to pay cash but government stoped them and stripped their parental rights to decide their baby's fate.

It's very delicate territory. Putting emotions aside, this poor kid is hopeless. But if was his mother I would exhaust every opportunity to nourish him to an executable quality of life.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love the death of children. It's incredibly sick.

You love making this stuff up, and that is what is truly grotesque.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love the death of children. It's incredibly sick.

No, no they don't.

Liberals love the death of children. It's incredibly sick.

Anonymous wrote:
This is not child neglect or abuse. They sought help in the US and raised the money to receive it. The government is refusing them the opportunity to try to help their child through private means. That's the epitome of a death panel.

You are correct, the judges in this instance did rule that life support should be withdrawn and palliative care only should be administered, and the result of those actions was expected to be death of this child.

The baby had no hope of recovery, was not showing any movement, not capable of crying, not capable of breathing of eating on his own. There was no way to even know if the baby was in pain.

The treatment the parents wanted to give to their baby was far away, was experimental, had never been tried before on a child with their condition, and was not expected to cure the illness.

The judges did rule against the parents, believing it to be in the best interest of the baby to remove life support and allow the baby to die.

Yes, in some cases, judges need to make decisions against the wishes of the parents. I believe they made the right decision here.

The child had irreversible brain damage. "He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot make a noise, he cannot move."

If they cured his disease, he would still be left unable to see, hear, make a noise, or move. Nothing in the proposed treatment would cause repair to his brain.

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

A) Congress IS making decisions for you about the quality of healthcare you receive in the US. PAY ATTENTION. The GOP-led congress is about to pull back a thousand different provisions that offered more expansive and meaningful healthcare.

B) Do you want a for-profit company making those decisions for you? Oh you cost us a lot, then we'll drop you. You realize that's essentially the US system today and what we're going to return to thanks to the hateful GOP.

Anonymous wrote:
They simply want the child out of the hospital and into private care. The EU says nope. And the US and the UK are nowhere near the same on legal terms. We have a lot more choice. The bolded? No, they really can't. It's been done but illegally and the courts invariably rule in the favor of the parents. I've warned my mother about the growing trend of well to do seniors going to the hospital with X problem and some social worker swoops in and places them in nursing homes and gains control over their finances. Family ends up having to get a lawyer involved but often times, a lot of the money is then gone.

No, the courts do not. There are cases of cancer treatment, blood transfusion for Jehovah's Witness family children who would die otherwise, etc, and care is turned back over the parents when the child has received lifesaving treatment.

Anonymous wrote:

Incredibly judgey, aren't we? Why so defensive? Drug companies give away drugs for free all the time to those in need. And yes, they can agree to give it to the parents for the doc to use in-hospital. Insurance would have paid for it outside of an inpatient setting, as you said, so clearly it's doable. The British parents raised 1.8 million through charitable means. Your friends can do same.

No, they do not. You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I don't even think you know that you are just making stuff up at this point.

No drug company will "just give it to the parents" if it is a prescription medication. A) There must be a prescription written by a physician first, and there is no involved physician licensed there to give it who is willing to prescribe it, and B) Pharmaceutical companies are not dispenseries -- they are not licensed to dispense prescription medications, and they do not want to. Too much liability. Prescription medications are dispensed through pharmacies, thus the need for a prescription.

I know this because I write those prescriptions. It is an involved process. I have to write the justification letter/form, which goes to the drug company, which sends me a voucher for the family to pick up with the prescription, which the family takes to the pharmacy, from which they are dispensed the medication.

Pharmacists aren't magically not involved just because the drug company waives the fee. Prescription meds are still controlled and require a system of checks to ensure safety and legitimacy.

You really don't get it, and you don't understand that you do not get it. I don't know how to help you with that.

Why should there be courts and lawyers? You simply sign a form waiving the hospital/doctors of liability.

I also do not understand why you do not get that "waiving liability" is not all that is involved in the care of children. You can't do whatever you want to them, so long as you "waive liability" for other adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

don't be ridiculous, the government takes children from the parents all the time in the US when the parents are unable to properly care for them and the kids may be in danger. even for medical care, if you have a child with a serious illness and the parents refuse treatment, for religious reasons or other reasons, often judges end up making decisions. this happens in the USA. people who talk about the UK case simply do not know the case, the child is already brain dead, can't breath, can't swallow, can't move anything, his muscles are gone, is dying and there is no cure and no treatment. even the so called US treatment is something that would not help even if it worked and is not a real cure. I understand the parents but the reality is that the child is dying.

I also find disgusting that OP talks about this tragedy just to score a political point. if anything, these parents were lucky they are in the UK where a universal health care system threated their terminal child since birth doing anything possible and incurring $$$$$$$$$$ expenses at no cost to the parents. then a private doctor in the US was ready to "treat" the child (with no real hope of even improving his condition) but only for millions of dollars cash........ yes, sure, the US system is so much better. nope!