Can someone explain to me why exactly the parents had to go to court in order to take their own son for experimental treatment? The way most articles explain things, they don't provide much legal explanation except for saying that an intervening party was preventing them from seeking medical care, but I don't understand if it was the hospital, or the government, or the NHS, or another party.
Either way, why couldn't they just go and get the care they wanted for their son? This just seems like another nanny state type bullshit move by (((democracy))).
>Blind >Deaf >Quadriplegic >Cannot breathe without life support
Yep, let the parents remove the potato and see it die. I agree, why did anyone stop them?
Caleb Morris
>"Socialist healthcare won't lead to death panels. We swear goyim"
Blake Lewis
Because we need open borders except when it comes to sick white babies.
Elijah Roberts
That's part of the point. Either way the kid is fucked, so why not let the parents try? And from what I've been able to ascertain, this only occurred because the legal fight prevented them from getting the treatment they wanted months ago.
Thomas Myers
F
Colton Sullivan
I absolutely agree, let them try. Worst case scenario they've found out another thing about the trial cure.
Henry Williams
The parents wanted to subject the child to a procedure that would prolonge pain and suffering with no chance of recovery
In the UK we are not allowed to abuse children terminal of not, is it allowed in the US?
Bentley Hill
They allow it as long as doctors can charge for it.
Brandon Torres
>no chance So no new treatments should be tried ever? Speaking from a purely logical and scientific standpoint since the parents agreed it should have been allowed to happen simply to be able to study what happens with the treatment.
Leo Gomez
Pain and suffering is debatable, in that no one can say for sure if he's in pain or suffering. Besides, if the child is now brain dead as a result of delaying the experimental treatment, how much pain and suffering can he possibly be feeling?
Mason Wilson
This.
James Reed
There's so much misinformation around this case. It's desperately sad all around but I think we've come to the right place now.
I feel awful for the child and parents, who have been strung along on false hope by the pro-life mob, and the absence of the US doctor until this weekend. Maybe slightly willingly; for example Charlie had not had an MRA scan in months because his parents did not wish him to, perhaps because it would show evidence of a lack of brain growth, which they have protested.
The US doctor was invited to the UK back in January by the hospital, Great Ormond Street, but did not respond; and the nucleotide therapy he was proposing in the media had already been considered by the team and used in other patients by them in the past, but due to the massive seizures it caused for very limited chance of improvement in his case, it was not deemed suitable.
Even at his most optimistic, the US doctor was only saying he could possibly halt the mitochondrial damage with his experimental technique, and made no mention of reversing his brain damage or his other awful conditions. Now he's seen Charlie this week, he has suddenly gone silent. He was simply the glimmer of hope that the parents of a terribly sick child needed.
The fucking EU is a socialists beaucracy and communists and any left winged scum love to control who lives and who dies. Fuck the EU, hard brexit pls!
Mason Gutierrez
"They made the decision because a US doctor said it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy."
He hasn't gone silent, he's said it was now too late.
It was most likely too late a long, long time ago though.
Carter Ward
But what of the legal grounds? Who exactly was carrying the legal case against the parents? What's bothering me about this whole thing is how the parents wanted their son to undergo the experimental treatment months ago, but they were prevented from doing this? But by whom? It just screams of overreach.
Landon Roberts
You're not british, you don't get to ask for a hard brexit.
It also went through the UK court systems before it got to the EU court, so we also agreed to let the kid die.
Liam Jackson
>Charlie dies >Claire and Lola live on
There ain't room for any more sissy retards in these parts, bucko.
Angel Thomas
A victory of tyranny. I hate this nanny state hellhole I live in
Ethan Miller
Why is there a court process? When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.
What is the legal process? GOSH applied to the High Court for judges to decide whether withdrawal of ventilation and providing palliative care instead of experimental treatment was in Charlie’s best interests.1
The High Court ruled this was in Charlie’s best interests on 11 April 2017.
Charlie’s parents then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled on 25 May 2017 that the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.
The parents have applied to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled on 8 June 2017 that the Court of Appeal and the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.
Why has the legal process lasted so long? Legal processes take time and the courts are doing their best to expedite the process. All parties are adhering to the legal process.
The parents have raised money for the treatment, why can’t it take place? The High Court and the Court of Appeal have ruled it is not in Charlie’s best interests to receive the experimental treatment in the US.
Even if the treatment does not work for Charlie, won’t it help other children in the future? The courts base their decisions for treatment on what is in Charlie’s best interests, not what is in the best interests of medical science.1
What about the parental rights? Although Charlie’s parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is by law vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests.1
For more details on parental rights during medical treatment, please access the British Medical Association website.
Jesus fucking Christ
Carter Gomez
>parental 'rights' override law
Americans everybody
Levi Butler
Same way the CPS can take a child off you in the US, even in your country if it is deemed a parent's decisions are affecting the quality of life your child, they can seek to override you legally. This is an extreme case on similar principles.
Bentley Turner
just another fake distraction don't tell me you fell for it
Grayson Long
>window of opportunity to treat him passed
Fucking healthcare you've got there Brits. Basically, the doctors and lawyers strangled the legal system long enough until he was too far gone.
Owen Gomez
The window of opportunity had passed before any of us had heard his name fucktard.
