Set to Have Life Support Cut, Charlie Gard Gets a Reprieve: Assessment by US Specialist

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

charlie gard

Subject of massive controversy on the limits of State power and imperative questions concerning human and parental rights, the parents of 11-month-old Charlie Gard have been offered a tentative reprieve from a factious High Court ruling that will otherwise see the infant’s life support severed.

Having endured brain damage and unable to breathe on his own, little Charlie suffers from mitochondrial depletion syndrome and has been under the care of medical personnel at Great Ormond Street Hospital since October — which isn’t equipped to treat the rare condition.

There have only been fifteen other cases of the mitochondrial disease — which Charlie inherited when parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard both carried the faulty gene — and specialists in the U.S. seemed like the only option.

A crowdfunding campaign quickly amassed over £1.4 million (roughly $1.8 million) in hopes of providing proper medical air transport for Charlie to the United States — but, because the infant is under the hospital’s care, British law mandates the hospital and doctors have the final say in whether or not he should be permitted to leave.

Physicians and specialists have repeatedly lamented Charlie’s bleak prognosis and that traveling, alone, could cause the child pain — an opinion challenged, but seconded, by the High Court — meaning his life support will cease, likely causing death.

Citing no better outcome were Charlie to travel to the U.S., the aspirations of travel to appropriate specialists in the states effectively waned — until today.

“High Court Judge Nicholas Francis said Friday he is ‘open-minded about the evidence’ to come after the visit of Dr. Michio Hirano of Columbia University,” the Associated Press reports.

“Hirano will assess Charlie, meet with his current immediate care team and other specialists, including a doctor from the Vatican children’s hospital. Charlie’s mother, Connie Yates, fought to attend and was given permission.”

charlie
Image: Featureworld.

Neither Yates nor Gard have claimed specialized care would grant their son an ordinary life, or impart vast improvement to his condition — rather, they feel treatment could provide some improvement, or perhaps prolonged life.

As a battle for State-run health care plays out in the U.S., a cursory examination of Charlie Gard’s case clearly evinces perilous pitfalls when government is given an extended invitation into our lives and personal choices — particularly, given the parents acquired sufficient funds to cover the entire cost, through donations, to no avail.

According to the AP, the judge seeks to rule in the matter by July 25.

In the meantime — unbeknownst to him — Charlie’s life hangs in the balance and in the hands of Dr. Hirano.

As the judge flatly noted,

“We’ll have to wait and see the evidence.”

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:
  • TrevorD

    Let the poor guy go. They said the treatement would maybe give a10% chance that his little life would improve and still there is no proof that he is not suffering right now. For sure I know its the parents decision that need to let him go, not the Establishment. For me it`s gone too far. This is about him and only him.

    • If the parents have the money to provide his treatment, it should be allowed to proceed.

  • Tatiana Covington

    Have him frozen by Alcor in Scottsdale AZ!

    http://www.alcor.org

    • He could get the neural rate, but the profusion would be rather difficult.

  • SP_88

    A lot of people have their own opinion about whether the baby should continue to be treated or if he should be disconnected from life support and allowed to die. And that’s to be expected. And everyone has their reasons for what they believe, and people on both sides have come up with compelling reasons.
    But regardless of which side we are on, the real problem here is the government. Because of socialist medicine, government run healthcare, whatever you want to call it, the government, not the parents, have the final say in whether their baby lives or dies. And nothing could be more wrong. Even people who believe the baby should be taken off life support need to understand that it’s not the government’s job to determine who gets to live, and who needs to die.
    Once the government gets the power to determine life and death, a lot of people are going to end up watching their sick and elderly family members die simply because the government didn’t believe it was cost effective to treat them.
    Today it’s a baby who’s prognosis is not good. Tomorrow it will be someone who would otherwise be fine but for the cost of treatment. The next day it will be someone who isn’t even sick, they’re just too old or the government just doesn’t think they need to live.
    And don’t think for a minute that this nonsense won’t come to America, because it certainly will. Especially since the government can’t even find a way to create a healthcare bill that works. They already tried forcing everyone to buy health insurance hoping that the healthy people would end up covering the sick and the elderly who would use their health insurance more frequently (Obamacare). Obviously that was a miserable failure. And who knows what they’ll come up with next. But whatever it is, if the government has any control over it, they will cut corners and do whatever they can to lower the cost of healthcare, and in the process, lower the quality with it.
    And the end result of that sort of thing is going to be death panels. These groups of unelected bureaucrats, who have no emotional attachment to the people who’s lives they will be ending, will decide the fate of our family members as if they were discussing whether to fix an old washing machine, or throw it away and buy a new one.
    And making these decisions should be up to the person being treated or their family, not some unelected bureaucrats.
    And some people make the argument that because the government is paying for it, they should get to decide these things, especially in countries with socialist medical systems. But that’s no excuse to give the government the authority to decide whether someone lives or dies, because even though the government is paying for it, they are using the people’s money to do it. It’s not the government’s money, so they still shouldn’t be making such decisions. It shouldn’t be up to the government, no matter how you look at it.
    And it certainly seems like these people have the support of the people to treat their baby, as well as the money to pay for it. So I see no reason not to let them take their baby out of that hospital and go somewhere else for treatment.
    In my opinion, I don’t think the baby will benefit from any further treatment at this point. But that’s their decision. And I hope I’m wrong. I would love to be wrong about this. I wish that their baby would get the chance to have a long and happy life. They should at least get the chance to try. That way, if it doesn’t work out, they can at least put him to rest without having any regrets about what could have been.
    If they don’t get to take their baby out of there, and the hospital lets him die, his parents are going to spend the rest of their lives wondering if the treatment would have worked, and wondering if their child could have improved. These people will spend the rest of their lives punishing themselves with the “what if” questions.

    • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

      +10

  • cmb

    This child is dead, let him go. No treatment will give him a real life