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

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t get it. Does the British hospital system own this child? How can you deny parents the right to have their child treated how and where they see fit? It should be no skin of the NHS’s nose.

He is a cute little bugger…😦
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
I don’t get it. Does the British hospital system own this child? How can you deny parents the right to have their child treated how and where they see fit? It should be no skin of the NHS’s nose.

He is a cute little bugger…😦
Click to expand...
When the parents didn’t agree with the doctors, the Hospital (Great Ormond St Hospital For Children) referred the matter for the Courts to decide so, in the sense you mean, the Courts ‘own’ the child.

This is what the Hospital said before the ECHR referral. Their FAQ page on the case is here.
 
Kaninchen said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair point.

It was basically an issue of juridical competence from the perspective of the ECHR.

The substantive decisions on whether or not the parents had the right, on the basis that the state should not be able to interfere with family life, to resist the hospital’s determination that life-support should be withdrawn had already been made here in the UK by the High court, Supreme court and Court of appeal.

In other words, the issue had already been decided domestically and the ECHR judged this to have been the appropriate level for such an issue to be adjudicated.
 
MaryT777 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Tragic and horrifying. They have the money. They have a hospital willing to try experimental treatment on their child. Quite possibly, in the end, the result would be the same and their child will die. But why not let them at least try?

Now, not only will their child die, but they and their family members and friends will spend the rest of their lives blaming the courts and wondering what could have been.
 
AnastasiaRomano said:
Tragic and horrifying. They have the money. They have a hospital willing to try experimental treatment on their child. Quite possibly, in the end, the result would be the same and their child will die. But why not let them at least try?

Now, not only will their child die, but they and their family members and friends will spend the rest of their lives blaming the courts and wondering what could have been.
Click to expand...
Well said 😦
 
AnastasiaRomano said:
Tragic and horrifying. They have the money. They have a hospital willing to try experimental treatment on their child. Quite possibly, in the end, the result would be the same and their child will die. But why not let them at least try?

Now, not only will their child die, but they and their family members and friends will spend the rest of their lives blaming the courts and wondering what could have been.
Click to expand...
The American hospital involved has said that the therapy will not improve Charlie’s quality of life, will not reverse the progressive brain damage, it will not ‘cure’ what is a terminal condition. In other words, ‘at least try’ to do what?
 
Kaninchen said:
The American hospital involved has said that the therapy will not improve Charlie’s quality of life, will not reverse the progressive brain damage, it will not ‘cure’ what is a terminal condition. In other words, ‘at least try’ to do what?
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. That information certainly changes the picture. So there is no viability, no eventuality in which this purported “experimental” medical intervention could actually improve his condition? What is its purpose then for those who do undergo it? I cannot understand why the American doctors would even offer this treatment if they thought it had zero chance of having any positive effect on the sufferer.

I should have read more deeply into this case, clearly.
 
Kaninchen said:
The American hospital involved has said that the therapy will not improve Charlie’s quality of life, will not reverse the progressive brain damage, it will not ‘cure’ what is a terminal condition. In other words, ‘at least try’ to do what?
Click to expand...
Is there a link to this> Why would the family be considering taking their child to the American hospital If there was no hope whatsoever of improving the quality of the child’s life. Surely they are under the impression the hospital is offering to try experimental treatment. That comes with no guarantees of course.

I would hope not hospital would take exorbitant sums of money for worthless treatment simply for monetary gain. .

Mary.
 
MaryT777 said:
Is there a link to this> Why would the family be considering taking their child to the American hospital If there was no hope whatsoever of improving the quality of the child’s life. Surely they are under the impression the hospital is offering to try experimental treatment. That comes with no guarantees of course.

I would hope not hospital would take exorbitant sums of money for worthless treatment simply for monetary gain. .

Mary.
Click to expand...
There’s info from a BBC story in post 27.
 
MaryT777 said:
Is there a link to this> Why would the family be considering taking their child to the American hospital If there was no hope whatsoever of improving the quality of the child’s life. Surely they are under the impression the hospital is offering to try experimental treatment. That comes with no guarantees of course.

I would hope not hospital would take exorbitant sums of money for worthless treatment simply for monetary gain. .

Mary.
Click to expand...
Read the links on my post (#22) which are quite detailed and DeniseNY’s post (#27).

Why are they considering taking the child to the American hospital?

Because they’re grief-stricken and desperate for the vaguest hope as anybody would be in their situation.
 
This changes my opinion considerably. I pray every morning for an end to euthanasia but subjecting a child to quackery out of grief only compounds the pain. We need to learn how to let loved ones go.
 
Here’s a comment by a church spokesman on the UK’s Independent Catholic News site.

“The decision made today by the European Court of Human Rights definitively ruling that baby Charlie Gard cannot undergo any further treatment is heartrending, most particularly for his parents and family. In this difficult case, all sides have sought to act with integrity and for Charlie’s good as they see it. Understandably, Charlie’s parents wish to do everything to save and improve Charlie’s life. We hope and pray that in the wake of this decision, they are able as a family to find peace over the coming days and weeks. We also encourage the Catholic community to pray for Charlie, his parents, and all those that have been caring for him.

“Sadly, prolonged terminal illness is part of the human condition. We should never act with the deliberate intention to end a human life, including the removal of nutrition and hydration so that death might be achieved. We do, sometimes, however, have to recognise the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs.”
 
Kaninchen said:
Here’s a comment by a church spokesman on the UK’s Independent Catholic News site.

“The decision made today by the European Court of Human Rights definitively ruling that baby Charlie Gard cannot undergo any further treatment is heartrending, most particularly for his parents and family. In this difficult case, all sides have sought to act with integrity and for Charlie’s good as they see it. Understandably, Charlie’s parents wish to do everything to save and improve Charlie’s life. We hope and pray that in the wake of this decision, they are able as a family to find peace over the coming days and weeks. We also encourage the Catholic community to pray for Charlie, his parents, and all those that have been caring for him.

“Sadly, prolonged terminal illness is part of the human condition. We should never act with the deliberate intention to end a human life, including the removal of nutrition and hydration so that death might be achieved. We do, sometimes, however, have to recognise the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs.”
Click to expand...
Thank you for this, Kanichen.

Your interventions have been most informative!
 
Kaninchen said:
When the parents didn’t agree with the doctors, the Hospital (Great Ormond St Hospital For Children) referred the matter for the Courts to decide so, in the sense you mean, the Courts ‘own’ the child.

This is what the Hospital said before the ECHR referral. Their FAQ page on the case is here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but courts are made up of people too. So if the parents have no other choice, then I’d say, perhaps, that alternative types of pressure should be reapplied to the judges and then see if they are of the same mind.

But maybe that’s just the Sicilian in me.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
I don’t get it. Does the British hospital system own this child? How can you deny parents the right to have their child treated how and where they see fit? It should be no skin of the NHS’s nose.

He is a cute little bugger…😦
Click to expand...
I don’t know the answer to this… Would little Charlie get to come to the US for treatment if he and his parents were from one of Donald Trump’s 6 Muslim countries if he and his parents did not already have US family or ties to the US through a job or school?
 
EIF5A said:
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?
Click to expand...
We thought we defeated the Nazis. Instead, like the Sith, they went into hiding.
 
Kaninchen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Subsidiarity would be letting the parents, who have raised the money for the treatment, make the decision.

Obviously, the entity which pays for health care would be the one to make the final decision, which is one reason Americans do not like the idea of government-funded health care.
 
Kaninchen said:
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”)
Click to expand...
I was not saying it was a cop-out on your part, but on the court’s.

Also, it doesn’t make a difference which court’s decision was the final one, I just happen to disagree with the final decision. The parents wanted to try this one last hope for their son, they had the money to do it, and some other entity was able to overrule their decision. I do not think that is right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top