Human Rights Court Rules Life Support Cut for Infant — Needlessly Signing His Death Warrant

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


Two parents will lose their beloved 10-month-old son to what could arguably deemed State execution — so avoidably vile, the imminent killing, Charles Dickens undoubtedly rolls in his grave.

Charlie Gard — ruled the (unironically named) European Court of Human Rights in determining the last appeal by his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, “inadmissible” — will not be permitted transport to the United States to undergo experimental nucleoside bypass therapy to treat a rare disease, of which the infant’s is only the sixteenth recorded case.

Instead, medical staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London will shut off Charlie’s life support — death with dignity, apparently, as doctors surmise the baby must be suffering horribly to be kept alive, while off ventilator, palliative care would be viable.

Gard and Yates were “utterly distraught” about today’s ruling — and for good reason.

Charlie will die.

Image: Press Association.

What this amounts to, say the parents and their attorneys, among others, is cold-blooded murder — since perhaps the lone shred of hope for Charlie lies just across the pond, in the U.S.

Suffering brain and muscle damage common to mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, inherited only when both parents carry the rare gene, Charlie Gard took the spotlight as his case puts State power versus parental rights on shameful display for the planet — particularly as extenuating circumstances seemingly should mitigate strictures in government books.

“Indeed,” The Daily Sheeple previously reported, “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.”

Image: Featureworld.

Gard and Yates have, in fact, raised nearly £1.4million (roughly $1.82 million) through crowdsourcing from more than 83,000 people — believed to be enough to fund air hospital transport and the experimental therapy — but even that did not mollify the human rights court’s concerns Charlie “die with dignity,” as it was ruled therapy “would be of no effective benefit.”

Negating that argument all along, neither parent has ever championed nucleoside bypass therapy as a cure-all or miracle treatment for the condition; rather, simply that therapy could prolong and vastly improve quality of life for Charlie.

“We have had our parental rights stripped away as if they don’t matter at all,” Yates railed after the last ruling by the British High Court. “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.”

Image: Featureworld.

“This case is different from others because the parents have found a reputable alternative hospital that is prepared to provide treatment,” Charlie da Silva, a barrister for the family, noted prior to the hearing, for which the ECHR ruled in favor on appeal. “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.”

“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 [in the U.K.] 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.”

For readers in the U.S. and elsewhere, outside the U.K., that warrants bold emphasis.

Parents in the U.K. whose children enter the hospital in circumstances like Charlie’s are bereft of control in determining their child’s care when medical personnel find a certain course of treatment — or, in this case, termination of certain care — would be in the better interest of the child.

Whether or not Charlie experiences severe pain seems to be a matter of some debate, but Gard and Yates wish only for the chance to see their son improve. Because the parents have obtained funding for every step were the infant to be released, this case dramatically departs from any argument of burdens on the system — plainly, the courts and State insist acting with Charlie’s welfare in mind, while hypocritically stonewalling an albeit fringe treatment simply because it proffers no guarantees.

Image: Gavin Rodgers/Pixel.

“There’s a hospital ready and waiting,” lamented supporter of the family, Michelle Standen, outside the court in Westminster during a previous proceeding. “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.”

Gard, Yates, and innumerable supporters had remained confident the ECHR would prevent life support for the tiny child from being halted, but Thursday’s decision was the last barrier to his inevitable demise.

“That cannot possibly be right,” da Silva opined upon the British court’s decision earlier this month. “It strikes at the core and offends the very essence of parenthood.”

Unfortunately, the case of Charlie Gard intimately highlights the folly of coddled society’s ardor to sign away right after right to the Nanny State — whether due to fear, a quest for security, or protection from whatever evil government currently targets — rather than champion personal responsibility.

Indeed the British law responsible for this nightmarish dystopian Hell likely made the books in the interest of protecting children from irresponsible, negligent, or uninformed parents — but the authors could not have foreseen this authoritarian interpretation, or imagined it would sign an infant’s death warrant.

Image: Gavin Rodgers/Pixel.

Charlie’s shocked and traumatized parents will now be left to wonder for time immemorial whether an albeit difficult journey to America might have saved or sustained his life, and blessed them with additional months together.

If this case follows the law, the rules, the guidelines, policy, then we — even those of us outside the U.K. — would be well-advised to examine our priorities as a species, lest we dismiss, entirely, our humanity for the sake of ill-begotten legislation.

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:
  • This is a very poorly written article.

    • Undecider

      Would you rather have professional writers who demand large paychecks and tell lies or sloppy underpaid patriots who just care enough to get the word out?

      • I’d prefer to have writers of whatever economic setting that they can manage that can write well enough to communicate effectively and accurately. Considering the number of degreed people that are working in fast food, income isn’t a major determinant, if the skill is already there. There doesn’t seem to be anything like a glut of competent writers regardless of political orientation.

  • anonymous4u4me

    No court has the right to make that decision. This is a decision that can only be made by the parents. But the court is using this to demonstrate and exercise its power of the people, and if the people allow it, then they have won and the people slide ever deeper into the well of satanist.

  • Phil_Ossifer

    AGAIN with the clickbait headlines. How difficult would it have been to say, “European Human Rights Court Rules Life Support Cut For Infant” without the embellishments? This is getting beyond annoying.

    • 𝕔𝕄𝕔

      Would you have read it if it said that, i doubt it.

    • BraveNewWhirled

      Government orders the death of a small child. Somebody complains about the headline.

    • Clementine

      I agree Phil!

    • You’re here aren’t you? Must’ve worked! If you hate “click-baity” headlines, why click on them – this one was OBVIOUS by those standards! I clicked on it because I read the first part, not the last, so my opinion of this articles differs radically from yours. Still, I ask – you’re here aren’t you? Who’s the sucker then? The other folks who may be here for the same reason I am…or you?

  • Patricia Schenck-Santangelo

    The parents are willing to get their child treatment. The parents raised the funds. WHAT RIGHT DOES THE GOVT HAVE TO DENY THIS CHILD??

  • dav1bg

    Welcome to Obama care.

    • Ahhhh, wrong country?? Der. Although if you’re looking to the future, you’re absolutely correct. Even spoken as a (reluctant) Republican/would-love-to-be Libertarian, the Repub’s law miiiight be even worse!! I hold my breath in fear.

      (Reluctant in the nth degree, on account, in MD you HAVE TO BE an R or D just to vote. Can’t be anything else, go figure. I “ain’t lettin” some chowderhead take my vote from me!! Grrrr…)

  • RMS1911

    Death panel alert
    Somebody once said those weren’t real.
    Socialized medicine at its finest absurdity.

  • Bob

    May God strike dead that judge and may he burn in hell where he belongs

  • Undecider

    The baby’s death warrant was signed the moment the parents subjected him to the hospital. The moment you surrender yourself or your loved one, you’ve just given them a license to kill. I blame the parents.

  • weewilliewacko

    This is how the Holocaust started; with the infirmed and disabled!!!

  • Kathleen Carter

    The British citizens needs to overthrow there

    • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

      Which government where?

    • their = possessive. You want to make a point, make it intelligently.

  • TrevorD

    Normally this sort of issue would bring huge debate but its not happened. I would guess that this is such an emotive heart rendering issue that many will stand on the fence. On one hand every child must be given a chance at life and it should not be Government that decides its fate. On the other hand this is a very, very sick child, which nobody knows is suffering or not and then going to face `experimental` treatment in another country. However if I were the child maybe I would just want to go in peace and if I were the parent I may want to fight like hell. I am still on the fence but understand the ethical, emotional and political conflictions. Sad story indeed.
    RIP Charlie

  • Undecider

    Here’s the solution using 20/20 hindsight and recognizing easily discoverable history. Study what’s going on in the world. Keep your kids out of hospitals. Have them born at home, if possible.

    Always keep note. The moment you submit yourself or your child to a hospital, you lose all rights to autonomy. You’ve already lost the battle. These parents put the hospital in charge of their child, with contracts signed allowing them to do so. They then expected the hospital to release the child? Yeah, right!

    The key is to never walk in their doors unless absolutely necessary and being resolute in the idea the hospital can legally commit murder. Don’t take their drugs, vaccines and possibly their advice. They feed off the ignorant. Their favorite prey are the dumb idiots who can’t kick the habit of the MSM.

    Let’s hope that somehow the outcome changes.

  • I thought the UK was no longer part of the EU?!?! Why then, should THAT court have a bearing on what happens to a citizen of the UK? (Or his parents?) Isn’t this what they were trying to get AWAY from? (Tho, I’d guess it was more mercenary a reason why they wanted Brexit, but still…) God will set this one straight, for sure!! I don’t mean to sound so simple minded about it, I mean this just as terribly and fiercely as God Himself does.