[Very sad!] Charlie Gard Parents Lose European Court Appeal

[St_Francis]

Link to article

Charlie is a baby with a mitochondrial condition; his parents wanted to bring him to the US for experimental treatment, *for which they had raised £1.3 M, *but the Court has ruled that the hospital can end life support.

Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital believe Charlie has no chance of survival.

The court agreed, concluding that further treatment would “continue to cause Charlie significant harm”.
…

European Court judges have now concluded it was most likely Charlie was “being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress” and undergoing experimental treatment with “no prospects of success… would offer no benefit.”

I just cannot see how they can forbid his parents to keep their baby on life support and take him for treatment elsewhere, esp given that the parents have raised the money to do this.

So very sad, such a place to come to in our history.

 

[M-Dent]

St. John Paul II articulated the culture of death we exist in today.

 

[St_Francis]

We let up creep upon us little by little, usually in the guise of freedom; we started with the “freedom” to “die with dignity” and have ended up here.

 

[upant]

government run healthcare in its finest moment. yet they want it here

 

[Book_Worm]

government run healthcare in its finest moment. yet they want it here

Yes, because the children of those who cannot raise $2 million to treat a condition like this would also die.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, because the children of those who cannot raise $2 million to treat a condition like this would also die.

Not that that was or is actually happening…

Plus, did you notice that Charlie Gard’s parents raised that money by crowdfunding? In fact, I remember small towns in the 1970s would have jars at the stores to raise money for people who were unable to afford the care they needed. St Jude’s turns no child with cancer away.

Not that I think that because that ibecause people are charitable, that should be all we have. However, why does the system which saves the life of one child *condemn, *as a matter of law, another child to death? Do we have to do that in order to save the lives of *other *children?

 

[EIF5A]

“European court judges”

I will keep this phrase in mind.

 

[Vouthon]

“European court judges”

I will keep this phrase in mind.

Bear in mind, though, that the European judges in the above cited case are not part of the EU.

The European Court of Human Rights is an entirely distinct entity. North Americans often get confused regarding this, so I just wanted to flag it up.

 

[tseleehw]

This is beyond sad. Even if the chance of success for the experimental treatment is small, I cannot imagine how these parents must feel after being denied the right to choose how they want to care for their child. Having just had my first son two months ago it would be excruciating if I were in their position.

 

[philipl]

Link to article

Charlie is a baby with a mitochondrial condition; his parents wanted to bring him to the US for experimental treatment, *for which they had raised £1.3 M, *but the Court has ruled that the hospital can end life support.
Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital believe Charlie has no chance of survival.

The court agreed, concluding that further treatment would “continue to cause Charlie significant harm”.
…

European Court judges have now concluded it was most likely Charlie was “being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress” and undergoing experimental treatment with "no prospects of success… would offer no benefit."I just cannot see how they can forbid his parents to keep their baby on life support and take him for treatment elsewhere, esp given that the parents have raised the money to do this.

So very sad, such a place to come to in our history.

But isnt this what liberals/progressives/leftist wants? A strong central government?

 

[M-Dent]

Bear in mind, though, that the European judges in the above cited case are not part of the EU.

The European Court of Human Rights is an entirely distinct entity. North Americans often get confused regarding this, so I just wanted to flag it up.

Yes. This should be well understood.

 

[EIF5A]

The argument seems to be that death is better than pain.

Death is better than a chance at disadvantaged life.

What is going on with Europe?

 

[Vouthon]

This is beyond sad. Even if the chance of success for the experimental treatment is small, I cannot imagine how these parents must feel after being denied the right to choose how they want to care for their child. Having just had my first son two months ago it would be excruciating if I were in their position.

I agree, it deeply, deeply grieved me to hear of this judgement - with the ECHR backing the domestic UK courts. It’s must be a truly heart-rending agony for the parents for it to come to this

 

[Vouthon]

Yes. This should be well understood.

Indeed, prior to last year’s Brexit referendum Theresa May delivered a speech in which she called for voters to back remaining in the EU but strongly criticized the ECHR. There are people who back the one but not the other. Here’s a portion from her speech. I think it might be useful in clearing up some of the (understandable given their names) confusion which leads to the two separate organisations being conflated:

gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretarys-speech-on-the-uk-eu-and-our-place-in-the-world

**We need, therefore, to establish clear principles for Britain’s membership of these institutions. Does it make us more influential beyond our own shores? Does it make us more secure? Does it make us more prosperous? Can we control or influence the direction of the organisation in question? …

the case for remaining a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights - which means Britain is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights - is not clear. Because, despite what people sometimes think, it wasn’t the European Union that delayed for years the extradition of Abu Hamza, almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada, and tried to tell Parliament that - however we voted - we could not deprive prisoners of the vote. It was the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals - and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court…

We should remain in the EU.

The headline facts of Britain’s trade with Europe are clear. The EU is a single market of more than 500 million people, representing an economy of almost £11 trillion and a quarter of the world’s GDP. 44% of our goods and services exports go to the EU, compared to 5% to India and China. We have a trade surplus in services with the rest of the EU of £17 billion. And the trading relationship is more inter-related than even these figures suggest. Our exporters rely on (name removed by moderator)uts from EU companies more than firms from anywhere else: 9% of the ‘value added’ of UK exports comes from (name removed by moderator)uts from within the EU, compared to 2.7% from the United States and 1.3% from China.

So I want to return to the principles I set out to help us judge whether Britain should join or remain a member of international institutions. Remaining inside the European Union does make us more secure, it does make us more prosperous and it does make us more influential beyond our shores…**

 

[MaryT777]

government run healthcare in its finest moment. yet they want it here

Exactly. That they can actually kill your baby by pulling life support when you have raised the money for experimental treatment in another country is simply horrific.

The health care system playing God is even more frightening.

Mary.

 

[EIF5A]

I would not be surprised if these same “judges” support the use of fetal tissues to find cures for the same mitochondrial disease.

 

[M-Dent]

Indeed, prior to last year’s Brexit referendum Theresa May delivered a speech in which she called for voters to back remaining in the EU but strongly criticized the ECHR. There are people who back the one but not the other. Here’s a portion from her speech. I think it might be useful in clearing up some of the (understandable given their names) confusion which leads to the two separate organisations being conflated

I could see the UK remaining in the EU but leaving the ECHR.

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually, the ECHR’s decision here (“that it was not for the Court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities”) is similar to its decision in Vo v France over abortion where it said that it was a matter for the various States themselves (a decision that American Conservatives would prefer in the US?).

Having your subsidiarity cake and eating it can be a bit difficult.

 

[St_Francis]

Actually, the ECHR’s decision here (“that it was not for the Court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities”) is similar to its decision in Vo v France over abortion where it said that it was a matter for the various States themselves (a decision that American Conservatives would prefer in the US?).

Having your subsidiarity cake and eating it can be a bit difficult.

That did not come across in the article, which did mention many things the court did say. Are you saying they said all those things, but then ruled that it should be up to the “compentent domestic authorites”? Because frankly, that sounds like a cop-out to me, like if they hadn’t agreed with the CDAs, they would have ruled differently.

 

[Kaninchen]

That did not come across in the article, which did mention many things the court did say. Are you saying they said all those things, but then ruled that it should be up to the “compentent domestic authorites”? Because frankly, that sounds like a cop-out to me, like if they hadn’t agreed with the CDAs, they would have ruled differently.

Read the press release for yourself here (it’s “Inadmissibility decision in the case of Gard and Others v. the UK - decisions by UK courts endorsed”)