Death Panel Rules Baby’s Life Support Must End, Even Though Parents Could Try Other Options

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

life

Imagine discovering your infant is one of only sixteen people ever to be diagnosed with a fatal genetic affliction for which the only shred of hope would entail a flight abroad for experimental treatment; but — rather than simply making the albeit complicated and costly trip — the highest court in the land rules your child must die.

This dystopian nightmare might sound like a cinematic creation, yet it’s reality for parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates, whose nine-month-old son, Charlie, suffers from mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome — a genetic condition affecting cells’ ‘powerhouses’ — inherited when both parents unknowingly carried the faulty gene.

Charlie has been on life support since last October, so his desperate parents sought an experimental therapy procedure in the U.S. to try to save, or at least extend, his life — and raised over £1.3 million (roughly $1.65 million) through online crowdfunding to do so.

life
Image: Featureworld.

Two months ago, the British Supreme Court callously ruled Charlie’s life support at Great Ormond Street Hospital should be withdrawn in order for him to “die with dignity” — so Gard and Yates filed an appeal in hopes of staving off their infant’s imminent demise.

On Thursday, the Court of Appeal shattered their aspirations of saving Charlie’s life — ruling there would be no trip, as prospective treatment could not possibly guarantee improvement.

Connie screamed and wept in anguish, and reportedly ran from the courtroom upon the reading of the decision by a panel of three judges: Lady Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lord Kerr, and Lord Wilson.

“The child’s interests must prevail,” Lady Hale announced, stressing the rights of a child supplant those of the parents, yet coldly denying Charlie’s only prospect for life.

“How can they do this?” Yates sobbed. “They are lying. We are going to America.”

“We have had our parental rights stripped away as if they don’t matter at all,” Yates railed. “The way we have been treated by doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital has been inhuman. Our son is basically being kept as a prisoner at the hospital.”

life
Image: Gavin Rodgers/Pixel.

Life support for Charlie will be terminated at 5 p.m. today — effectively ending his life and dashing his young parents’ dreams the child might survive if only treatment could be procured across the pond — pending an unusual appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

“This is a very sad day for Charlie’s parents and family and our thoughts are with them and Charlie,” a spokesperson for the Great Ormond Street Hospital stated, reports the Guardian.

“We are led by the legal process and when the time comes for a change in treatment, we will support the parents in every way that we can, aiding them through next steps. This would normally take place over at least a number of days. For now, our priority is to ensure Charlie remains well cared for and to offer our support to Charlie’s devoted parents at this distressing time.”

While the parents previously excoriated treatment by the hospital as “inhuman,” stating Charlie has been held “prisoner” to the facility’s whims, Katie Gollop QC (Queen’s Counsel) — who headed Great Ormond Street’s legal team — called the infant’s predicament “sad” but not “exceptional,” adding Gard and Yates have acted arrogantly as if “parents always know best.”

“The [alternative therapy in America] would take time and over the weeks and months Charlie would be forced to remain in his parlous condition: he can’t see, can’t hear, can’t cry, can’t swallow. He has a mechanism that causes his lungs to go up and down. We don’t know whether he suffers pain,” Gollop previously told the Supreme Court.

“There are children whose conditions we cannot cure and whose conditions we cannot ameliorate. It happens very often and the parents of that child don’t want to look back later and think there might have been something they could have done for this child which they left undone.”

Gollop noted the parents have behaved unambiguously as wards over Charlie’s fate — stealing his unutterable voice — as if their wishes supercede the rights of the infant to pass away without interference.

“The parents are deemed to be … the sole and only determiner of what can happen,” Gollop asserted, somehow unironically adding, “[that’s] dangerous and it’s power without end.”

Precisely how denying the only feasible chance at life for Charlie — and greenlighting what amounts to a tacit, cruel death sentence — could not be considered State power without end, counsel did not make immediately clear.

“The issue is whether the state has the power to intrude on decisions the parents have made in order to mandate that child’s death before it might come to an end,”  barrister for the parents, Richard Gordon QC, had contended in opening statements.

“We say there’s a boundary beyond which the state cannot simply go without the strongest justification. These are model parents trying to do all they possibly can for the benefit of their child. Their view on what is best for Charlie differs from the court.”

Indeed, the case of little Charlie Gard might be the penultimate example of the Nanny State gone grievously awry — provoking delicate esoteric questions on the balance between governmental protections and the right to self-determination, with the additional complications of parental rights and consent.

In fact — given that pilot treatment could be had with the necessary funds and a trip overseas — to align with the court in this case, would be to affirm the State has ultimate power over life when it becomes a troublesome burden.

Neither Gard nor Yates have touted nucleoside bypass therapy as an absolute miracle for the brain and muscle damage associated with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome  — Charlie will never be capable of cavorting through childhood with peers — rather, adding a simple powder to his food could improve and prolong his life.

life
Image: Featureworld.

But the British high court instead aligned with Great Ormond Street Hospital — as well as a hospital in Spain, through which a second opinion had been sought — in dictating the slim chance for improvement not sufficient to warrant what would be a difficult journey to the U.S.

Indeed, no one has claimed the trip, itself, would be inherently harmful to Charlie’s condition — meaning the court is literally denying the child’s only shot at life because treatment in America cannot unassailably ensure improvement.

“At the heart of the legal case is the right of relatives to have a say in how doctors treat a loved one,” Charlie da Silva, a second barrister for the family, asserted prior to the hearing.

“This case is different from others because the parents have found a reputable alternative hospital that is prepared to provide treatment. If a hospital is not prepared to carry out a particular treatment then it should not be able to prevent another hospital which is ready, willing and able to provide the treatment from doing so.”

Citing the draconian British law which led to this existential gordian knot, da Silva and the family’s entire legal team took the case on a pro bono basis.

“Unless their decision will cause or is likely to cause significant harm to their child, parents should be the final decision makers,” da Silva continued. “However, as the law currently stands as soon as a child is admitted to a hospital the parents immediately lose their parental responsibility.

“The doctors become the final decision makers on what is in the best interests of the child. The doctors decide what treatment the child should or should not have and in the final analysis whether the child lives or dies.”

Charlie’s case cleaved a rift in the U.K., highlighting extreme control by the State over the rights of parents who — for whatever reason — might not feel their child can attain paramount treatment through normal channels.

“There’s a hospital ready and waiting,” lamented supporter of the family, Michelle Standen, outside the court in Westminster. “It’s disgusting. Why not allow him to go? The funds are there. He’s not in pain. All the time they have been doing the court cases, they could have been treating him.”

life
Image: Gavin Rodgers/Pixel.

Sarah Fisher, another supporter and familiar with friends of the family, added, “I have not seen any evidence that the doctors are right. The doctors seem to have made an early clinical decision and don’t want to back down.

“He’s left in limbo for five or six months. It’s not fair. We should listen to the parents in this country rather than looking down our nose at them. They are the ones who spend all their time with the child.”

With mere hours remaining before life support is withdrawn, Charlie — a child so new to the world he will likely never know the historic significance of his existence — will soon be forced to endure death, even as the tantalizing prospect for extended life lies just out of reach overseas.

Outrage over the untenable life and death of Charlie Gard demands we all examine how readily we fork over innate rights to the government — particularly in the name of protection, security, and fear.

Bewildered, da Silva mourned the court’s disputatious decision, stating, “That cannot possibly be right. It strikes at the core and offends the very essence of parenthood.”

life
Image: Press Association.

“He deserves this chance,” Gard pled tearfully to the court as the hearing began.

Clutching Charlie’s toy monkey, the desperate father appealed to the sentiments of the court, attesting, as any loving parent would,

“My son is the apple of my eye and I would do anything for him.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Claire Bernish of The Daily Sheeple.

Claire Bernish is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Claire’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

    Quality of life vs Quantity. . .

    Too many people selfishly assume that quantity of life is of primary importance.
    Hogwash, poppycock, and horsefeathers. Quality of life is at least equally as important.
    “…he can’t see, can’t hear, can’t cry, can’t swallow…”
    Quality of life approaching zero.

    If the parents were responsible, they’d have let the child die long before now.

    That being said. . . the “court” needs to mind it’s own frelling business.

    The parents crowdfunded the trip to the US for alternative therapy. The state – meaning, the taxpayers – isn’t/aren’t paying the million-and-a-half or so for the trip. The state spent more money tying up the court than it would spend for the family to travel.

    • If they wanted their child to live, why did they give it defective genes? On the other hand, nature usually spontaneously aborts those that aren’t viable. If they can raise the money from private sources for the experimental treatment, they should be allowed to pursue it without interference by any government. As a result of their bringing the whole thing before the court, they would probably find their passports cancelled or their visas blocked.

      • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

        ” If they can raise the money from private sources for the experimental
        treatment, they should be allowed to pursue it without interference by
        any government.”

        Absolutely.

  • Clementine

    “will soon be forced to endure death”… isn’t he being forced to endure (a tortured) “life” since he would have passed away peacefully long ago had they not hooked him up to the man made machines that are forcing artificial life? Poor little guy…

    • What is the difference between artificial life and artificial intelligence?

      • g.johnon

        within the framework of this issue, they are equally irrelevant, so….no difference.

        • They are both artificial. I guess it was harder than I thought.

          • g.johnon

            that would be a similarity, not a difference. so i guess it was harder than you thought.

          • They are similar except on planet.

    • Cynical Old Bastard

      Agreed. 100%

      • g.johnon

        god dammit! this is not an issue of what is the right thing to do for the child. what is at issue here is, simply, who gets to make the call.

        • Cynical Old Bastard

          Relax, G. I’m quite aware of the issue, as is @tanaberrys:disqus, it’s just that I’m a suspicious, cynical old bastard. The entire story is suspicious to me. Not the court part. The rest of it.

          Something is not adding up and that’s because something is missing. None of this should have ever happened. Those parents should have quietly got on a plane, done their thing, then come home to bury their child… secure in the knowledge that they did everything possible to save him.

          Instead, there’s courts, cameras, and reporters involved.

          Why? What’s the missing piece/s? Something got ’em on the radar. What?

          • g.johnon

            bastard, think the missing link could be the uk medical community’s fear of coming across as a failure? (just a guess)

          • Cynical Old Bastard

            Brother, I’d really rather not discuss this story anymore. It was depressing enough to read it.

            People posted their opinions or thoughts on the matters as they felt or saw fit. I questioned no one else’s right to do so. In fact, I interacted with no one other than Clementine and SP nor did I try to debate any one’s particular thought on the subject. It was their opinion. I respected that.

            Now, you explain this to me, my friend, because I am a bit confused… at what point did I stop deserving any less respect than I give others? I agreed with a sentiment evoked by a comment. Nothing more than that. What did I do wrong to be the target of what I perceive to be an unwarranted attack on your part?

          • g.johnon

            bastard, the only thing that i can see you did wrong was to perceive yourself being attacked.
            at no point did you stop deserving respect.
            you usually show up with a bit more juice in you. must have been having an off day i am thinking.

          • Cynical Old Bastard

            Sorry, g. It’s more like a bad month so far. I don’t know what it is you do for a living but I’m a roofer. The real deal, not just some kid who nailed on a few shingles one time and calls himself a roofer.

            I’m a roofer and it’s been hot and I’ve been having help problems. But that’s not all of it. Sometime within the past few weeks I just got sick to death of arguing with folks over every little thing. I got sick of talking when nobody listens and writing when nobody reads or comprehends what I wrote anyway. It’s kinda all pointless, ya know?

            I got sick of people making the same mistakes over and over (in politics and real life) and the preppers fighting amongst themselves over who’s personal methods are correct.

            Look, you know I love a good debate as much as any of us here. A good debate with good, valid viewpoints presented can change my mind quicker than a gun to my head will. What I don’t like is entering into a debate knowing that it is hopeless before I even open my mouth. The minds are already made up and the ideas firmly set in stone. No matter what you say, how many actual facts you present… your boat doesn’t even get off the launch ramp before, like a stone, it plummets to the hidden depths of the bottomless sea of ignorance.

            It’s kind of like with my solar system. It’s small, but it’s in it’s infancy and everything has been carefully thought out and designed with future expansion in mind. Last week a guy Iknow wanted to get some ideas for his own planned system, but that’s not what he really wanted. What he really wanted was to come over and try to belittle me, my system, and everything I know about wind, water, and solar energy.

            All of this from a man who doesn’t have any experience whatsoever in alternative energy directed at a man who has literally lived off grid for more than half his life.

            See what I’m getting at, my friend?

            It’s everywhere you go, too.

            And there’s a whole lot more tying into it. 56 years of it. It either broke me or somehow completely fixed me. My “fuck” barrel has been scraped clean and I have none left to give, nor have I any plans of restocking.

  • Mike

    government run healthcare to a T.

    • If it were actually run by the government. The VA is the only major health care system actually run the government. For the most part, the government just makes the rules that professionals use to screw everything up.

      • Mike

        only so far, obamacare was created to make HC fail so they could push single payer (government run) HC.

        • The question is whether the market will fail before or after, since both are inevitable. Obamacare is driving a lot of medicos out of medicine, so they might have to give nurses prescription authority like they did PAs.

      • g.johnon

        in this country obamacare nor trumpcare are at issue here. in the good old usa this would be, and is on a daily basis, all in the realm of “child protective services” which are also quite adept at kidnapping and murdering other people’s children.

        • CPS can only do what they do because we entrust our children to them, legally, and they just proceed as the law says they are to. There are very few differences between the people who work at CPS and the people who work at Riker’s Island. The biggest difference is the uniform they wear.

          • g.johnon

            sorry, but…huh? i have interviewed many parents who have had their children stolen from them by cps. in none of these cases was there even a scintilla of “entrusting” occuring, but, in virtually every case, the children were taken at the point of a gun. purely and artlessly kidnapped.
            the “law” that cps proceeds by is the unconstitutional color of law. they are apparently off limits to new reportage, for the most part. and their track record of finding the best solution for the child is beyond abysmal.

          • So, you are telling me that none of those children were registered with social security. None of them had ever attended a federally-funded school, church, daycare, youth group, summer camp, health fair, or received any benefit from any program? That, plus they were totally compliant with all growth and development standards? If you can answer no to all of these, they were raised by wolves, who protect their wards better than humans do.

          • g.johnon

            no i am not telling you any of that happy horseshit. read and retain please. pretty sloppy job of dissembling, even for you. now try again, only stick with the topic at hand this time.
            “federally funded church” really?

          • They get federal subsidies to run their daycare centers, among other things.

          • g.johnon

            disqo boy, always good to know that we can count on you for a least one good non-sequitur a day.

          • I’m handing that one back to you.

  • Cynical Old Bastard

    I know I’m gonna get a lot of hate mail for this, but let the little guy go.

    There’s a reason there are so few folks like that in the first place. They have genetic anomalies which do not allow them to function properly and thus… they die.

    Ain’t no sense torturing the little guy. Ain’t his fault he drew a bad hand in life. Poor little fella.

    • SP_88

      I just posted a comment that is basically the complete opposite of yours, but I can’t help but agree with your comment as well.
      Basically I said that the parents should decide, not the government. And also, even if the baby doesn’t make it, they could learn from the experience, and perhaps increase the chances of saving the next baby, or at least get closer to a cure for it.
      But I also happen to agree with your statement that sometimes people just don’t make it, and we can’t save them all.
      So now I’m stuck on the fence between letting the parents decide what to do, and saying that enough is enough and just let him go.
      And I have a feeling that in the end, there is no easy decision, and there most likely will not be a happy ending.
      It’s a sad and tragic circumstance no matter how you look at it. And I truly feel bad for the parents.
      Having lost a child myself, I can understand their desire to want to do whatever it takes to save their baby. I never had that choice. But they do. And there is also the possibility that they are doing all this to save themselves from the pain of losing their baby, no matter what the baby has to endure as a result. And I certainly hope that the baby doesn’t suffer through this, and I’m sure that the parents don’t want that either. But sometimes that can get lost in the fight to save him.
      The right thing to do is probably to just let him go. But my feeling is to do everything possible to save him.
      Sometimes the right thing to do just doesn’t feel right.

      • Cynical Old Bastard

        Sometimes the right thing is also the hardest choice we ever have to make in our lives.

        Ya know… comments like the one you just made are what keep me coming back here.

        Thank you for writing it.

        • SP_88

          Your welcome. Often times I get more out of the comments section than the article itself. Many people write comments that are full of wisdom and truth.
          It’s easy to get tied up in the details, but then I’ll read a well written comment that brings me back to the basics. And just like that the truth becomes clear as day.
          And yes, very often the right decision is the hardest decision to make. And it hurts so much to make it. I really do feel bad for those parents. Nobody should be stuck in that position. It’s bad enough to have to make a decision like that. It’s even worse to have that choice taken away.

          • Cynical Old Bastard

            The details are how “they” operate. They obfuscate the story… they mire it down and hide it beneath layers of emotion… knowing all the while that people will see what they want to see and that they have the power to manipulate opinions through those emotions.

            For most, this was a battle between parental rights and the over-reaching power of the evil court system. For some it is about those folks torturing that baby. I’m one of the latter. Fuck the parent’s rights. Fuck the courts. This should have never made it to the courts… much less the news.

            You’re correct on the comments. To be honest that’s all I’m here for. Except for a few, most of the writing is shit; full of errors and opinions. In effect, they are the MSM with a slant to our side of the canyon.

            The comments are where the gold is. Ya just gotta dig through a mountain of lead to find ’em.

  • Shay

    Every country is being smothered right now in this silent war on human consciousness by the global Khazarian Jewish Mafia. They want to openly demonstrate now how they have full control of and over us, including in our most personal aspects of life.In the UK, the (Deep) State demonstrates they control decision-making over your ill infant, in the US they want it known they have the right to take your life/imprison you, when you are an innocent victim in a criminal situation. Here in SA, KJM’s Deep State would have us believe that our country’s been ‘captured’ by a family called Gupta working in cahoots with our president zuma. Revelations about their corrupt hand in every industry are weekly MSM revelations. So they’re openly telling us the same here: we are helpless and totally in their control. They forgot about one thing, though. They are being allowed to continue doing this for a while longer by higher authorities than them! When the time is right, certain whistleblowers/journalists here who know the book written about this ‘capture’ and the weekly media ‘leaks’ were a contrived and paid-for campaign (of attempted psycho terror), will come forth to educate the public about the Truth. As they will in each and every country. Like this little baby, a lot of life has been and will continue to be sacrificed, while we give our power unknowingly away to the KJM.

    • TrevorD

      Good stuff indeed.

    • Roy Hobs

      Every country is being smothered right now in this silent war on human consciousness by the global Khazarian Jewish Mafia
      AMEN. So great to see more and more waking up to the JQ. If we don’t get the Jewish Question back into public discourse as in the days of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, we will slowly continue to fade into oblivion.
      WAKE UP WHITE MAN!

  • Fearthenut

    The court knows nothing of the child’s rights. Limey ghouls. Hope you all die a hideous death.

    • You are aware of the fact that this is happening in Britain, which is a democracy without a constitution, where rights are assigned by the majority, none of which are babies suffering from genetic disabilities? Americans have become adept at putting themselves into the same ghetto, by default.

    • g.johnon

      you need to to a bit of research on the track record of “child protective services” in the good old usa to understand that this is not about nationalities, but about murderous, self serving morons being allowed to position themselves to have such power. they need “unpositioning” ASAP!

  • renee ciccioni

    It sounds like the baby isn’t able to be saved it has nothing to do with socialism running a fowl because an insurance company would have made the same choice in order to protect their bottom line because businesses are there to make money not there because they care .

    • SP_88

      Just because they are unable to save the baby doesn’t give them the right to refuse to let someone else try, especially since there is another hospital that is willing to take them in and offer a treatment that could work.
      And even if the baby doesn’t make it, the experience of trying could greatly increase the chances of the next baby being saved.
      It’s bad enough that they have decided to arbitrarily kill this baby without letting them try another treatment that is clearly available, but to take away the opportunity to learn from this is outrageous.
      There is nothing right about this stubborn government’s decision.

  • dav1bg

    These are the same guys who wrote Obama Care.

  • SP_88

    This sounds more like the state refusing to let the parents determine their child’s fate because they don’t want to let go of their power trip than anything having to do with what’s best for the child.
    The hospital is clearly unable to offer the necessary treatment, but the parents have already secured another hospital that can, as well as the funds needed to do so. So why not let the parents at least try to save their baby? Even if the baby doesn’t make it, it’s a learning opportunity to perhaps increase the chances of saving the next baby with this illness. To simply refuse because of the stubbornness of the government is an outrage and there is nothing about their decision that makes sense. It’s not their child, it’s not their money and it’s none of their business.
    So what’s the problem?
    This is what happens when the government has too much power and not enough accountability to the people.

    • G’ma G

      I see the State’s interference with parents paying for legal medical treatment in this case as an act of kidnapping that will absolutely result in a homicide.

  • Joe Clam

    Send in Seal Team 6, TAKE that baby, and his parents, and provide protective escort to the U.S., while telling that hospital, its bought-and-paid for court system, and that supercilious Queen’s Counsel Gollop, that they can please go and sweetly fuck themselves. International incident? …Too goddamn bad.

    • OldSilk

      That’ll do; works for me.

    • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

      Not on my dime.

  • OldSilk

    They will band together and do whatever it takes to avoid anyone being successfully treated in America. Insurance companies have been pressuring doctors in suicide states to kill patients for $50 instead of covering treatment. Under a national health system, the government will tell people that they don’t want their tax dollars going to treat people. So far, all of the people the insurance company deemed to be worth $50 have gone outside of their suicide states for treatment elsewhere and have recovered nicely.

    • Clementine

      That is simply not true…
      And, “So far, all of the people the insurance company deemed to be worth $50 have gone outside of their suicide states for treatment elsewhere and have recovered nicely”, this is absolutely not true.

      • OldSilk

        Oh, whine on, honey. Those patients of the physician who was told to counsel his patients to kill themselves and the insurance companies would pay $50 went elsewhere, got treated and recovered nicely. Do you think the information is not available outside of your dark world?

        • Clementine

          Since I am highly educated on this subject… I will not argue with you, honey…

          • OldSilk

            Being highly educated means nothing. Big insurance did what they did, and it is on the record now.