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

[MaryT777]

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?

Why did you bring Donald Trump into this? Not everything is a Donald Trump issue.

 

[Kaninchen]

Subsidiarity would be letting the parents, who have raised the money for the treatment, make the decision.

I have a feeling that ‘subsidiarity’ means what people want it to mean.

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.

Since they could afford to pay (having raised so much money) and since private health care is available in the UK, this argument is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Kaninchen]

I was not saying it was a cop-out on your part, but on the court’s.

I knew that.

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.

I suggest you read the rest of the thread.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

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?

This has literally nothing to do with US immigration policy, so I am not sure what your point is.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.”

I wonder why there is no name provided for the person who made this statement?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

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

Comment worthy of repeating.

 

[Kaninchen]

I wonder why there is no name provided for the person who made this statement?

You’re CAF’s expert on the media-trawling, why don’t you ask them?

 

[St_Francis]

I have a feeling that ‘subsidiarity’ means what people want it to mean.

Subsidiarity means that the level closest to the problem which is capable of taking care of it; thus, Charlie Gard’s parents should have been allowed to seek additional treatment for their son.

Since they could afford to pay (having raised so much money) and since private health care is available in the UK, this argument is entirely irrelevant.

My point was that the fact that it would be legitimate for a third party to dispute a health decision if the third party were paying for it is why many Americans do not like the idea of government-funded health care.

In this instance, it was *not even *the case that someone else was going to pay for the treatment; how is it that the court could overrule the parents’ decision?

 

[Kaninchen]

Comment worthy of repeating.

Except the UK has private medicine available, they have the money . . . but that rather ruins the “evil secularist marxists kill innocent baby” narrative.

 

[Kaninchen]

Subsidiarity means that the level closest to the problem which is capable of taking care of it; thus, Charlie Gard’s parents should have been allowed to seek additional treatment for their son.

I think you need to ponder on the ‘level closest to the problem’ argument because I can see glaring issues with it for somebody with your set of paradigms. If you don’t see them, I’ll give you a nudge as they arise on this forum.

My point was that the fact that it would be legitimate for a third party to dispute a health decision if the third party were paying for it is why many Americans do not like the idea of government-funded health care.

I’m glad that insurance companies in the US are prepared to pay whatever it takes, no matter how much.

In this instance, it was *not even *the case that someone else was going to pay for the treatment; how is it that the court could overrule the parents’ decision?

I realise that the idea that the courts decide issues such as disputes between doctors and patients is entirely alien to Americans but we benighted people outside the borders of the US are hugely unfortunate.

 

[St_Francis]

I think you need to ponder on the ‘level closest to the problem’ argument because I can see glaring issues with it for somebody with your set of paradigms. If you don’t see them, I’ll give you a nudge as they arise on this forum.

I’m glad that insurance companies in the US are prepared to pay whatever it takes, no matter how much.

This is irrelevant as the parents were not relying on insurance.

I realise that the idea that the courts decide issues such as disputes between doctors and patients is entirely alien to Americans but we benighted people outside the borders of the US are hugely unfortunate.

No, we have had court cases like this too. In fact, I can remember when families had to take hospitals to court to allow removal of extraordinary means to maintain life. Things have certainly changed…

 

[Kaninchen]

This is irrelevant as the parents were not relying on insurance.

Not irrelevant in the slightest, just awkward.

No, we have had court cases like this too. In fact, I can remember when families had to take hospitals to court to allow removal of extraordinary means to maintain life. Things have certainly changed…

Meanwhile, given your expertise on the subject of American medicine, perhaps you can tell us just what benefit the American hospital/doctors expect to provide for this baby?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Why did you bring Donald Trump into this? Not everything is a Donald Trump issue.

This has literally nothing to do with US immigration policy, so I am not sure what your point is.

My point was merely if a European court keeps parents from taking their child to the US for treatment, how is that any different than if a US President’s policy or US court were to keep the parents of another sick child from entering the US. It was actually more of question than a point though as I merely asked about whether such a family and child could now enter if they were from one of the 6 Muslim countries. But nevernind. Carry on.

 

[St_Francis]

Not irrelevant in the slightest, just awkward.

Meanwhile, given your expertise on the subject of American medicine, perhaps you can tell us just what benefit the American hospital/doctors expect to provide for this baby?

I understand there was little hope for a decrease in the speed of the disease, much less any sort of turnaround. Nevertheless, I do not see how the courts should take this decision out of the parents’ hands.

 

[St_Francis]

My point was merely if a European court keeps parents from taking their child to the US for treatment, how is that any different than if a US President’s policy or US court were to keep the parents of another sick child from entering the US. It was actually more of question than a point though as I merely asked about whether such a family and child could now enter if they were from one of the 6 Muslim countries. But nevernind. Carry on.

The Gard court case ruled on the specific situation. That particular situation is now closed. However, a travel ban can have exceptions in cases similar to this if needed.

 

[ARSpade]

Meanwhile, given your expertise on the subject of American medicine, perhaps you can tell us just what benefit the American hospital/doctors expect to provide for this baby?

Probably none.

But there’s been recent law changes in the US even about using experimental drugs and treatments on terminal patients that bypasses the usual FDA process because (1) it might work, (2) they’re gonna soon die anyway if it doesn’t (or it it makes things worse) and (3) scientists get data either way that can be used to help others.

Plus, as a parent, they get the benefit of knowing they tried everything. Knowing your child died and you left stones unturned will be an awful feeling. They will forever wonder if it would have worked.

The doc’s don’t think like that because, heck, they’ve probably had somebody die on them because the doc stayed up late the previous night watching football.

 

[Kaninchen]

I understand there was little hope for a decrease in the speed of the disease, much less any sort of turnaround. Nevertheless, I do not see how the courts should take this decision out of the parents’ hands.

What does the doctor/hospital involved say?

 

[Kaninchen]

Probably none.

But there’s been recent law changes in the US even about using experimental drugs and treatments on terminal patients that bypasses the usual FDA process because (1) it might work, (2) they’re gonna soon die anyway if it doesn’t (or it it makes things worse) and (3) scientists get data either way that can be used to help others.

Plus, as a parent, they get the benefit of knowing they tried everything. Knowing your child died and you left stones unturned will be an awful feeling. They will forever wonder if it would have worked.

The doc’s don’t think like that because, heck, they’ve probably had somebody die on them because the doc stayed up late the previous night watching football.

What does the American doctor/hospital involved say?

 

[St_Francis]

What does the doctor/hospital involved say?

*Not the point. *

 

[Kaninchen]

*Not the point. *

Let’s build up the situation in stages - what do the American doctor/hospital say?