There has always been something to be said about using your parental ‘outside voice’. Perhaps, if more parents exercised this gift in raising their children, Jesus might have a few more moments to enjoy His coffee!
Like many in the world today, we are still reeling at the heartless treatment of little Charlie Gard. Another child’s name may soon become a household name and elicit the prayers from Christian people around the world. Fourteen-month old Alphie Evans is in a Liverpool hospital in England, on life support, and has doctors strongly advising his life support be removed. To his parents objections, they suggest they get a lawyer. These parents also want to take their little boy to America for treatment. Given how the doctors in the UK seem to view the ‘do no harm’ of their medical vows, do we have to wonder how this case is going to turn out?
You have to wonder, what do these doctors really care? The parents are more than happy to transfer their son to another medical facility yet the doctors appeal to the courts to insure an outcome for Alphie the same as Charlie. Are they ashamed they couldn’t help the little boy? Is their pride at stake? You would think that at this point when they obviously are not helping the child, they would be more than happy to have another doctor possibly find a remedy and rejoice with the family if it does help. Nope, they take away the rights of the parents, get the courts involved and another little life is blotted out.
Nothing lights up the argument channel than a difference of view on the vaccination issue! I’ve actually lost friends because they couldn’t give me enough solid information to make me even consider not providing my children with all the available help in the world. Unfortunately, few people will bother to read the article or take into serious consideration the documented facts included.
There is a complacency in the anti-vaxx people of that world that childhood diseases are not really that bad and certainly don’t need the ‘dangers’ involved with vaccinations to stop them from happening. The article:
should put a lot of these fears and misconceptions to rest . . . but it probably won’t until one of the seriously anti-vaxx people have a child who is seriously impacted by catching one of these ‘minor’ diseases. The following excerpt from the article shows exactly how much impact the pre-vaccination years were in the world.
Vaccine-Preventable Diseases Aren’t Really That Serious
This is one of the more dangerous ideas of the anti-vaccine movement.
The only reason that they get away with it is because vaccines have done such a good job! Since vaccines have eliminated and reduced most vaccine-preventable diseases, few people actually remember just how devastating these life-threatening diseases can be.
It is important to remember that in the pre-vaccine era:
there were regular outbreaks of polio in the United States causing 13,000 to 20,000 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis each year and about 1,000 deaths. In even larger polio epidemics in the 1940s and 1950s, there were up to 3,145 deaths.
there were about 500,000 cases of measles in the United States, with at least 500 to 1,000 deaths and 500 cases of measles encephalitis. As late as 1989-1991, there were 55,622 cases and 123 deaths in the US.
there were up to 200,000 cases of diphtheria and 15,000 deaths each year.
the Haemophilus influenzae type b bacteria caused life-threatening infections, including meningitis, epiglottitis, and pneumonia, in up to 20,000 young children each year. Many were infants, and up to 5 percent died. Among those who survived their Hib infection, up to 30 percent had hearing impairment or neurologic complications.
there were about 270,000 cases of pertussis and 10,000 deaths each year in the United States.
20,000 babies were born with congenital rubella syndrome during a severe epidemic of rubella in 1964 (12.5 million cases). An additional 2,100 newborns died and there were at least 11,250 surgical and spontaneous abortions in women with rubella while pregnant. The 1964 rubella epidemic is thought to have affected at least 1 percent of all pregnancies. These severe rubella epidemics were thought to have occurred every six to nine years, with smaller epidemics in two to four-year cycles.
Even today, about 200,000 children die each year from pertussis, and at least 122,000 die from measles around the world.
Vaccine-preventable diseases are clearly serious. We should also not overlook the fact that they would be just as deadly today if we stopped vaccinating our children and allowed them to come back in the United States.
A baby died in England this week. This baby’s death shouldn’t go unsung because a tiny infant showed the world what becomes of the humans of the world when the ways of the world have come to a pass that full-term, living babies can be deprived of necessary treatment and not allowed a chance at life.
Although little Charlie Gard seemed in perfect health his first couple of months of life, he suddenly started failing and ended up in a hospital with a diagnosis that could be considered a definite death sentence if left untreated. Although it was a chance, at best, Charlie’s parents researched options, begged for financial help, and got in touch with an American doctor who said he would examine the baby. Seems like a ray of home in what was being touted as a no-win situation.
Even with money in hand and a place to take their baby, the United Kingdom’s courts and doctors refused to allow the parents this option. There would have not been a single charge to the hospital for taking the baby to that one chance of help but the doctors said an adamant, unexplained ‘NO!’ and the courts backed them up on their say so. The time line for saving Charlie began in January when first diagnosed. At that point in time, the treatment just might have been beneficial giving the parents a feeling of hope in doing all they could for their first child. The doctors dragged on the process and the court trials didn’t get the immediate hearings you would think the situation merited so we end up seven months later with a baby slowly deteriorating in health.
Even in the condition he was in this month, the American doctor made the trip over to examine the baby and met with the UK doctors. A doctor in Rome offered his help on this as the Pope was also anxiously watching this turn of events. Everything was rejected and the courts sided with the doctors.
It got worse even after the parents realized that time had run out on treating their baby due to the doctors’ lack of action. They allowed that their son’s little life was fast running it’s course and only asked that they could take him home to die. This was refused. From what I read, they took the baby to an undisclosed place where the doctors removed him from his life support and Charlie died.
I only wonder how much celebration was enjoyed by those grown men who fought so hard for the death of this baby. I wonder if the judges breathed a sign of relief to have this pesky situation finally put to rest being glad little Charlie was finally being put to rest.
To basically recap: The parents of a sick baby had the wherewithal to transport him to the United States for experimental treatment. There would be no further cost to the UK hospital. The doctors refused to give the baby this once chance and regulated the time the parents could spend with the baby. When the parents persisted, the courts stepped in and took away their parental rights to do the best they could for their son.
You have to ponder what was going through these people’s minds to constantly refuse to move an inch on possibly saving this innocent child. Do these doctors have children? Would they appreciate a stranger telling them they couldn’t decide what was good for their own children? Yet, the doctors involved and the courts thought nothing of depriving this little family of their God-given free will and rather than have their word contradicted and take an ego bruising, felt it was better to get rid of the evidence . . . little Charlie Gard.
I’m thinking there are a great many people in the world today shedding tears for this family and not thinking well of how the helpless are treated under the medical guidelines of the medical health care system of the United Kingdom. A doctor vows to do no harm. I didn’t see any evidence of compassion in the events of the last few months.
Over the years, so many atrocities have been committed under the guise of medical treatment, especially in what unborn get to live and who are thrown away. It seems to follow, in a way, that if you get used to dumping aborted babies into the trash that helping a live baby to their demise would just be another day’s work. AND, if you have the backing of the court, it looks like one takes a huge chance in trusting their health and eventual outcome to the powers that be who want to run our lives.
Unfortunately, this is not isolated to the UK. People might remember Terri Schiavo who was deliberately starved to death because that was her husband’s wish with the backing of doctors in spite of her having a family who wanted to save her. Another case was the teenager, Justina Pelletier, who held by the Boston Children’s Hospital based on a doctor’s view that she wasn’t being properly treated medically. She went in a healthy young lady and finally left in need of much health care and rehabilitation from her time in that hospital.
Many prayers needed, today, for Charlie Gard’s family as well as other people/children who might be in similar situations and not allowed their freedom of choice.
I’ve participated or observed a lot of Easter Egg hunts in my life and can’t say that I’ve ever come away with a particularly good memory of any of them. The public or even church-sponsored Easter Egg hunts seem to turn into a survival of the fittest with many parents helping with the pushing and grabbing of eggs for their darlings.
When I was growing up, the first year our parish was completed and up and running, the pastor decided to have an Easter Egg hunt behind the church in the large grassy area of property. There was to be a hunt after each Mass with volunteers happily replenishing the eggs during the next Mass. Seems that even though we were quite rural, word got out and many neighbor children raided the grassy fields and the usual prejudice they usually had against us ‘encroaching Catholics’ didn’t mar the desire for ‘Catholic’ goodies set out for the parish children. Even with chasing off the interlopers, the onslaught of children from Mass disregarded blessings recently received there and laid siege to the field. There wasn’t another such event ever in the church after that.
Fast forward to when I had my own children: There was an Easter Egg hunt at our parish at the time, the first ever! My children were under five years old and very excited. The parish thought they had it figured out and set aside a lawn for the under five set with plenty of eggs in plain sight. Their flaw in the theory? When they sounded the beginning of the hunt, the older children ran across this area on their way to their hunting grounds . . . scooping up eggs as they went leaving the little ones standing in a harvested patch of grass, empty baskets in hand. I don’t think that parish ever hosted one again. And, yes, aggressive parents raced around with their children ‘helping’ them find the eggs. Something wrong with an event when children near shaving age have an overflowing bucket of eggs. It makes one wonder why people would fight so hard for hard-boiled eggs?
I recently read that a fire department in the US decided to cancel their plans for an annual Easter Egg hunt because the cost of possible lawsuits would be expensive. Again, the parents were the reason as they had had incidents of parents helping to push aside other children in order for their own ‘darlings’ to grab the most and best of any finds.
It must be something in the air once the world ‘Easter Egg Hunt’ is said out loud. I had a small family gathering, years ago, and thought that I could oversee a fun, safe, and Christian Easter Egg Hunt. I carefully schooled my children in being fair and charitable and not be greedy as they had already received generous baskets earlier in the morning from the Easter Bunny. Relatives arrived and the slightly older cousin whose mother bragged about being a near-saint in the making, pushed aside everyone ready to hunt, gathered up treats by the handful and had a great blocking mode to keep anyone else from getting anything. I guess you can say the kid won the event as he was the only one who got any treats. Guess who else never hosted an Easter Egg Hunt ever again?
Say to think that the ‘helpful’ parents at these events only provided them children with momentary treats while raising parents who would probably act the same way when they had their own children.