The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

What a tawdry, emotionally manipulative phrase 'death panels' is. It's also over-used so I suggest something more invigorating like 'state sanctioned baby killers', just to keep emotional outrage levels set to max, where the pro life community like it.

 

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...octor-arrives-to-examine-terminally/23034664/

Britain's courts have so far backed the doctors' position, ruling that transferring Charlie to the U.S. would prolong suffering without a realistic prospect of success.

But the case was reopened earlier this month at England's High Court after two overseas hospitals approached GOSH with possible evidence of alternative treatments that might help Charlie's condition.

http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/ind...reatment_worth_trying_for_critically_ill.html

An American doctor testifying in the case of a British couple seeking the right to take their critically ill infant to the United States for treatment said Thursday it was worth trying an experimental therapy that has only recently emerged.

The doctor, whose name and institution cannot be named because of a court order, told Britain's High Court that new clinical data has emerged about the effectiveness of the treatment proposed for 11-month-old Charlie Gard, who suffers from a rare genetic condition and is on life support.

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

Too sum everything up. British doctors say that there isn't any hope. Two.....count them two American institutions say "Hey hold on just a minute we have something that might help." American doctor says that there is a 10% chance that this might work on Charlie Gard. While not overwhelmingly good odds a 1 in 10 chance more than merits at least an attempt. British courts say. "**** you, we are the NHS and we know better than American physicians."

 

That's old news. The doctor has since admitted the new clinical treatment is not likely to work for Charlie.
You need to keep up.

 

Could you post a link because the latest ones I found were from 4 days ago and they all say the same thing that a US doctor has been named and flown over to the UK with visitation rights.

The doctor has given it a 1 out of 10 chance of success. That meets your definition of "not likely" but hardly dismisses it outright. If you have a 1 in 10 chance to save your kid any sane person would at least give it a shot. By your logic anyone receive chemo or any kind of cancer treatment that is less than 50% chance of success is wasting their time.

The parents have already stated that if his condition doesn't improve or if he ends up suffering in more in the first week that they would allow him to die. You don't just ignore a 10% chance of improvement.

 

http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/04/docto...ring-just-how-unwell-baby-charlie-is-6552188/

He no longer claims that.

There isn't a 10% chance of improvement. It isn't possible to reverse the damage to Charlie's brain caused by his seizures.

 

As long as they can pay and a doctor is willing and they don't care about how much unnecessary suffering the baby undergoes for treatment that cannot possibly make any significant difference in the baby's quality of life I guess you would be correct under the laws in the US.

Unfortunatly for the parents Britain seems to have laws that do actually take the baby's welfare into account.

 

No the US doctor did not say there is a 10% chance of sucess. The doctor said there was a 10% chance of medically significant improvement which means there is a ten percent chance of a change that can be measured. The difference is that basically the doctor has said there is no chance of making a major change in the baby's quality of life.

 

Are you a credible source?

 

It is actually a fundamental human right. Children do not belong to the state.

Any review of modern European history will find little evidence of "enlightenment".

 

Children are the responsibility of the state when the actions of a parent may harm the child.

 

Have the parents chosen a qualified physician to treat their child? Yes. That should have been the end of the matter.

A state that can put citizens out of their misery is a threat to humanity, and this case demonstrates the total power of a state to do anything it likes to its subjects.

 

That rather absurd standard would allow the state to ban sports - they can all harm a child.
The state has no legitimate power to intervene with parental decisions regarding their children unless a crime or gross negligence is involved. Interfering with a parents choice of licenced qualified physicians is an obnoxious overreach.

Especially given ample evidence that the governments involved cannot even manage their own legitimate responsibilities with any degree of competence, let alone micromanage the responsibilities of millions of individual families.

 

I certainly agree with you on the bolded, but the fact is that this is not what this case is about, normally the parent is allowed to decide, but in this case the doctors believe that the best interests of the child are not being actioned by the parents. This situation is very rare, and this particular case is even more exclusive. In affect the doctors are saying the parents may be causing more suffering to the child by continuing with treatment, another doctor has said this may not be the case, the judge has now given the other doctor access to the child and will review that report.

 

And your point is that instead parents should be able to do anything they want to their children no matter how inhumane. Even in the US we don't allow that.

 

The current doctors may or may not be right, but they should have no standing to question the parents choice of another licensed qualified physician.
The state should only decide when there is no good alternative - the state is a stupid blunt instrument of oppression. Always keep it on tight leash - as long as you can.

 

You just made that up!

Again: "Have the parents chosen a qualified physician to treat their child? Yes. That should have been the end of the matter." Ddy

 

Are you really that ignorant of US laws. Happens all the time in cases of child abuse and neglect.

 

Just curious how many of these people who are "It should up to the parents" believe it should be up to the parents when it comes to vaccinations/immunizations.

 

Why do you waste time in this dishonest way. This child is brain-dead; why should it be given to a foreign crank to torture?

 

Why are you defaming the licensed doctor the parents have chosen to treat their child?

 

You won't read the case so how the **** would you know?

 

Will you read every case I cite for you? If so, tell me why?

 

Every case on any point whatsoever? No. One case cited as the current authority on the link I already gave you? Of course. Now read the ****ing case

 

I see no evidence that it addresses any point relevant to this discussion. Is that why you haven't read it?

 

The only thing that is killing that child is nature/god.

Are you going to say torturing it serves its well being?