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.
It's also not appropriate to keep the child alive through the use of a ventilator and drip feeding, if they are in so much pain and their death is imminent. It would be more humane to just throw the child off a cliff and let them have a quick and painless death.
I think the most appriopriate thing to do and indeed what I would like if it was me in the same situation as Charlie is palliative care, pain relief and being alloewed to just slip away naturally.
I was reading about a woman who had to switch off her childs life support machine recently, and she actually so her child peacefully slip away and it actually helped her deal with the situation.
It's an awful situation for the hospital and parents but you have to ask yourself what would you want if you were this child, to be brain damaged and not have much sense of anything or to peacefully skip away.
I think the most appriopriate thing to do and indeed what I would like if it was me in the same situation as Charlie is palliative care, pain relief and being alloewed to just slip away naturally.
I was reading about a woman who had to switch off her childs life support machine recently, and she actually so her child peacefully slip away and it actually helped her deal with the situation.
It's an awful situation for the hospital and parents but you have to ask yourself what would you want if you were this child, to be brain damaged and not have much sense of anything or to peacefully skip away.
I would be fine with that as well if it is what the parents choose to do. What I am not fine with is a group of humans telling the parents that they can't seek experimental treatment that may, or may not, have any impact on the child's health.
I would be fine with that as well if it is what the parents choose to do. What I am not fine with is a group of humans telling the parents that they can't seek experimental treatment that may, or may not, have any impact on the child's health.
I think the issue here is that the parents (unsurprisingly) cannot see what is the right thing to do, you have to remember that there is nothing anybody can do for the childs health, to 'experiment' on a baby is not the right thing to do in anybodies book, we cant let a baby suffer, we can all understand that the boys parents don't want to let him go, it is awfully tragic but it is the right decision. Also remember that this is no 'clown court', this is an opinion of experts at the top of their field, you can guarantee that at decision like this one is most certainly NOT taken lightly.
I think the issue here is that the parents (unsurprisingly) cannot see what is the right thing to do, you have to remember that there is nothing anybody can do for the childs health, to 'experiment' on a baby is not the right thing to do in anybodies book, we cant let a baby suffer, we can all understand that the boys parents don't want to let him go, it is awfully tragic but it is the right decision. Also remember that this is no 'clown court', this is an opinion of experts at the top of their field, you can guarantee that at decision like this one is most certainly NOT taken lightly.
You're not going to convince me that the court holds the right to make this decision. The child belongs to the parents, not the state (I hope we can all agree on that). Now if they (the state) wanted to bring in doctors to try and dissuade the parents, then by all means go for it, but don't look them in the eyes and say they can't legally fight for their child's life how they see fit.
Last edited by Grizzly Addams; 07-07-2017 at 06:30 AM..
I would be fine with that as well if it is what the parents choose to do. What I am not fine with is a group of humans telling the parents that they can't seek experimental treatment that may, or may not, have any impact on the child's health.
This is a very rare case, usually the parents have full responsibility, however given the unique set of circumstances in relation to the poor quality of life, the pain and suffering issues and given the fact that the treatment is not curative, the hospital has intervened and asked the Court to make a decision.
In the end all four court - The High Court (Family Division), Court of Appeal, UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights were all in agreement and supported the hospitals view.
There is even an FAQ page regarding the case on Great Ormond Streets website, which explains the case in more detail.
I disagree with you, Grizzly. A child, even a baby, is a citizen in its own right. It is not the property of its parents like a cat or a dog. If the parents are acting against the child's best interests, for example by causing it needless pain, it's appropriate for the courts to intervene. Their decision that it's wrong to keep the child artificially alive by having it plugged in to a pile of machinery when there is no hope for it seems sensible to me.
I disagree with you, Grizzly. A child, even a baby, is a citizen in its own right. It is not the property of its parents like a cat or a dog. If the parents are acting against the child's best interests, for example by causing it needless pain, it's appropriate for the courts to intervene. Their decision that it's wrong to keep the child artificially alive by having it plugged in to a pile of machinery when there is no hope for it seems sensible to me.
The Law in relation to domestic UK Law and the Childrens Act 1989, the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, all state that the childs right comes first and foremost before that of the parents. To this end Charlie had his own independent Guardian who advised his Barrister and Legal Team, with the parents and hospital both having seperate legal representation.
Great Ormond Street Hospitals Barristers are Debra Powell QC and Katie Gollop QC, Charlie Gards Barrister who is instructed by an unnamed independent Guardian (as per the 1989 Childrens Act) is Victoria Butler-Cole (a specialist in medical ethics cases) and the Parents who have dispensed with the services of their former solicitors, Bindmans and Barrister Sophia Roper QC who represented them at the initial High Court case, have hired a new legal team, led by eminent Queen's Counsel Richard Gordon who is instructed by a new firm of lawyers, Harris Da Silva Solicitors.
A countries laws and indeed international laws have to be respected in such cases.
Quote:
Firstly, applications such as this are provided for by statute, namely the Children Act of 1989, as well as under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. Both are governed by the same principles. Section 1, sub-section 1 of the Children Act 1989 provides that the welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration in any question concerning the upbringing of the child in any proceedings.
See also Article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says that in any official action concerning the child, the child’s best interests shall be a primary consideration.
Furthermore, where there is a significant dispute about a child’s best interests the child himself must have an independent voice in that dispute. It cannot be left to the parents alone. The guardian agrees with the hospital and with the judge’s decision.
So, parents are not entitled to insist upon treatment by anyone which is not in their child’s best interests. It is in any event likely that Charlie will suffer significant harm if his present suffering is prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement.
Finally, the Strasbourg Court has said that in any judicial decision where the rights under Article 8 of the parents and the child are at stake, the child’s rights must be the paramount consideration. If there is any conflict between them the child’s interests must prevail.
In short, therefore, it is quite clear that the hospital was entitled to bring these proceedings, and the judge was required to determine the outcome of these proceedings. In doing so, he applied the right test.
It should be noted that due to new evidence provided by 7 doctors who are stating there is unpublished data regarding the experimental treatment, and who have added their names to a Vatican letter to Great Ormond Street, that the case is beng heard again at the High Court in London at 2pm BST on Monday 10th July 2017.
Great Ormond Street Hospital reffered the new evidence to the High Court in order that an independent judgement to that of the hospital can be obtained. This being the correct and proper thing to do in the circumstances.
The pope has gotten involved now, the world is now seeing the EU death panels.
Oh really? The titular head of a group of elite religious leaders immune from all of the travails of mankind and more than culpable in covering up and legitimizing the sexual abuse of thousands upon thousands of children by his acolytes is going to wax poetic about the rights of the child? And you think this gives import?
Oh really? The titular head of a group of elite religious leaders immune from all of the travails of mankind and more than culpable in covering up and legitimizing the sexual abuse of thousands upon thousands of children by his acolytes is going to wax poetic about the rights of the child? And you think this gives import?
.
pope Francis is a contemporary.
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.
