Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Call your insurance provider ask if they'd be willing to pay for experimental, non curative treatments in the U.K. Then get to us about "death panels."
The British and European Courts have made their final decision.
The case has been to the Family Division of the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Surpreme Court of the UK and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and all have made the same ruling.
It doesn't matter what Donald Trump offers or believes, he can not disregard British and European Law or our legal process.
The Courts have heard from numerous medical experts and the child is terminally ill with no prosoect of getting better, and with very little quality of life.
The European Court of Human Rights is the final Court of Appeal and administers Human Rights Legislation for the 47 Countries which are members of the European Convention on Human Rights and this has to be respected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECtHR
European Court endorses decisions by the UK courts in Charlie Gard case
In its decision in the case of Gard and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 39793/17) today the European Court of Human Rights has by a majority endorsed in substance the approach by the domestic courts and thus declared the application inadmissible.
The decision is final.
Consequently, the Court also considered that it was appropriate to lift the interim measure under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court.
The case concerned Charlie Gard, a baby suffering from a rare and fatal genetic disease.
In February 2017, the treating hospital sought a declaration from the domestic courts as to whether it would be lawful to withdraw artificial ventilation and provide Charlie with palliative care. Charlie’s parents also asked the courts to consider whether it would be in the best interests of their son to undergo experimental treatment in the U.S.A.
The domestic courts concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely that Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect ofimprovement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.
In the proceedings before the European Court, Charlie’s parents argued – on their own behalf and that of their son – under Article 2 (right to life) that the hospital has blocked access to life sustaining treatment (in the U.S.A.) for Charlie and under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that, as aresult, he is unlawfully deprived of his liberty. They further alleged under Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that the domestic court decisions amounted to an unfair and disproportionate interference in their parental rights.
The Court bore in mind the considerable room for manoeuvre (“wide margin of appreciation”) left to the authorities in the sphere concerning access to experimental medication for the terminally ill and in cases raising sensitive moral and ethical issues, reiterating that it was not for the Court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities. From this perspective, the Court gave weight to the fact that a domestic legal framework – compatible with the Convention – was available governing both access to experimental medication as well as withdrawal of life sustaining treatment.
Furthermore, the domestic court decisions had been meticulous, thorough and reviewed at three levels of jurisdiction with clear and extensive reasoning giving relevant and sufficient support for their conclusions;
The domestic courts had direct contact with all those concerned (notably, they had heard from all the medical experts involved in the treatment as well as experts instructed by the applicants, from Charlie’s parents themselves and from an independent professional appointed as the child’s guardian, had received expert reports from other doctors of international standing in the field and had visited the hospital);
It was appropriate for the hospital to approach the courts in the UK in the event of doubts as to the best decision to take; and, lastly, the domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.
The full text of this decision will be available tomorrow on the Court’s website.
Call your insurance provider ask if they'd be willing to pay for experimental, non curative treatments in the U.K. Then get to us about "death panels."
Chance of your simple, all inclusive response that should end this thread, actually ending it, because right wing robots won't let anything get in the way of their agenda: Zero.
For those citing insurance... people from all different countries come to the U.S. for special medical treatment. This family would be no different.
We're citing insurance companies because you made the claim in your OP that this is the result of a single payer system, implying that private insurance is better. We're pointing out to you that it's not. It's actaully worse in that regard, because it's all based on greed.
Call your insurance provider ask if they'd be willing to pay for experimental, non curative treatments in the U.K. Then get to us about "death panels."
Non-issue - the family has raised $2 mil to cover the cost.
Next
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
