Baby Charlie in England

[wdmso]

this issue has zero to do with healthcare , or the Government wanting to pay .. or Pro life

its about the law it was re newed recently saying the welfare of the child was to be considered over anything else

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

This is a sad case for all sad that the baby has this sickness sad that people dont see quality of a future life as a consideration for Charlie or his parents , Sad that the Parents must Face theses choices of do I let him go or do I go my whole life with an unanswered question Would it have worked ? Each of us will look at this thru a color lens .. but to say its a right or wrong choice . I am to far away to say

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7828776.html

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

this issue has zero to do with healthcare , or the Government wanting to pay .. or Pro life

its about the law it was re newed recently saying the welfare of the child was to be considered over anything else

wel·fare

noun
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
synonyms: well-being, health, comfort, security, safety, protection, prosperity, success, fortune;

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

this issue has zero to do with healthcare , or the Government wanting to pay .. or Pro life

its about the law it was re newed recently saying the welfare of the child was to be considered over anything else

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

This is a sad case for all sad that the baby has this sickness sad that people dont see quality of a future life as a consideration for Charlie or his parents , Sad that the Parents must Face theses choices of do I let him go or do I go my whole life with an unanswered question Would it have worked ? Each of us will look at this thru a color lens .. but to say its a right or wrong choice . I am to far away to say

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7828776.html

So the parents desperately want him to be treated. Hospitals in the us and the Vatican have agreed to treat him, but the British government won't allow its subject- a baby- to leave the country to seek treatment. And you have no opinion about that. Nothing to do with being pro life? The hell it doesn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So the parents desperately want him to be treated. Hospitals in the us and the Vatican have agreed to treat him, but the British government won't allow its subject- a baby- to leave the country to seek treatment. And you have no opinion about that. Nothing to do with being pro life? The hell it doesn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your issue is with the Law its an english law... read the article on the link it explains a lot

So who's suffering to you side with the parents or the Child.. since you would like me to choose I will ..

This child is living which currently he cant do on his own,, and if by chance he could breath on his own after this treatment if it even worked .. what life would he have sure he would be alive only clinically .. I would not want my child to suffer I dont doubt their love of their child but allowing a child to just be alive is a selfish act no different then a Child wanting there 98 year old parent to be a full code in a nursing home (All live saving measures) These are all hard choices for anyone to make no one wants to lose a love one .. I fault no one for their choices in theses matters .
But for me I would say my goodby be at their side until they passed and never forget and life will continue hard at times but it will continue

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

Is that the case here? I thought both parents desperately wanted to get any treatment available.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is that the case here? I thought both parents desperately wanted to get any treatment available.

Pretty sure he means when the "parents" as a pair don't agree with the decision of the hospital / doctors / centralized health care consortium

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Pretty sure he means when the "parents" as a pair don't agree with the decision of the hospital / doctors / centralized health care consortium

Thanks, I bet you are correct.

Fine, the parents cannot force the hospital to do that which they don't want to do.

But there are other hospitals (in the US and the Vatican) willing to treat this kid, for Christ's sake. All the British have to do, is agree to let him go. And they won't.

Can you IMAGINE how that makes the parents feel?

What would you do in that situation, John? All the British have to do is agree to let this kid go. And they won't, which is denying him a chance, however small it may be, at life.

Trump should send in Seal Team 6 to get that kid out of that goddamn hospital.

I cannot believe that a western nation is taking this position, and that people aren't outraged.