The Untimely Death of Charlie Gard

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.

Cardinal Dolan States the Facts!

“If the baby in the womb can be sucked out and left dead, with healthcare workers coerced to perform the hideous procedure and all of us forced to pay for it; if the physically challenged and mentally depressed can pay their doctor to put them to death; …Am I wrong to wonder especially about the toxic effect that the unlimited abortion license has had on the Republic founded on self-evident truths, and the right to life? When what should be nature’s safest sanctuary, the mother’s womb, becomes the most perilous place for the most innocent and fragile life, should we be shocked when any life deemed “in the way” is in hunting season?”

Gun Reform vs. Actual Gun Knowledge

“Common Sense” Gun Control Lies Exposed

Few Words But Lots of Pictures – Think About It

quote-if-history-repeats-itself-and-the-unexpected-always-happens-how-incapable-must-man-be-of-learning-george-bernard-shaw-168845

12963843_1298798753468140_2556813948923951667_n

13082748_1059736300769264_928932130210656430_n

13133095_503880576482122_6395492697048802805_n

13178824_1068205469922347_479166386364348551_n

13164405_1011644538870918_8599621745500513762_n

12963944_1047814245294803_1717378630383560699_n

13173905_10157000056630093_3749169134840833296_n

12717373_1255252874489395_8900992768326086887_n

Theodore Roosevelt Says . . .

Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907. 
‘In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.’ 
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Charlie Brown . . . And a Tree?

For the last almost eight years, there has been an effort to reduce the significance of faith and religion in our country. Home owner associations have been known to ban religious Christmas decorations on private property because they might offend someone. We have to be tolerant. We have to force religious communities to pay for contraceptives and abortion in mandated health insurance because we have to be tolerant. Symbols of faith such as crucifixes around our neck or tee shirts proclaiming our faith are frowned upon in work places because not everyone is in line with that. We have to be tolerant. The president even tried to prevent Christmas trees in government-run hospitals. More tolerance? The country was founded on Godly principles by people escaping societies that felt that anyone who was different had to be hushed. If the erring people wouldn’t comply, they had to be punished for . . . not being tolerant.

This is the 50th Anniversary of A Charlie Brown Christmas. An ever-popular, meaningful animation that, for years, has help put the Christ into Christmas. Until this year . . . The Christian Post pointed this out:

Mr. and Mrs. Obama appeared during the 50th anniversary airing of “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” During the show, Linus explains to Charlie Brown that Jesus is the reason for Christmas in one of the best scenes of the special.

Unfortunately, the Obamas seemed to have completely forgotten that part, because they utterly changed the line to leave out Jesus, as The Christian Post pointed out.

“They teach us that tiny trees just need a little love and that on this holiday we celebrate peace on Earth and good will toward all,” President Obama stated, and Michelle Obama added, “Because — as Linus knows — that’s what Christmas is all about.”

Actually Linus drops his beloved blanket and recites Luke 2:8-14 to explain what Christmas is all about: the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

All these years of enjoying A Charlie Brown Christmas and no one realized how intolerant the show was and the people who enjoyed it. Go figure, huh? Do you suppose obama used the tiny tree scenario to get a plug in for his ‘religion’ of saving the world, one tree at a time? Yes, Michelle, Linus knows what Christmas is all about . . . it is you and your husband that missed the boat.

free-football-clip-christmas-clip-art-black-and-white-soma-san-ramon-valley---a-church-in-danville----news-pictures