The reason we can’t and shouldn’t put aside the Charlie Gard case is that it isn’t an isolated event. If we put it aside and ‘go on with our lives’, it will only empower the hospitals and courts to make more and more decisions for our lives and not usually for the betterment of our lives.
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.
The University of Berkeley Campus lit up in self-righteous indignation recently as protesters made it known that they disagreed with the scheduled talk by Milo Yiannopoulos. Violent protests actually shut down Milo’s talk and security had to get him and his crew safely away as there were threats of possible bodily harm. You have to wonder exactly what these student ‘intelligentsia were, in reality, protesting and how would Milo Yiannopoulos’ talk deny them of any personal rights.
According to the United States First Amendment to the Constitution, we are allowed:
1. Freedom of speech which means the right to give a talk on just about any subject without threat of violence or being shut down.
2. We have a right to peaceably assemble which is what Milo and his audience were attempting to do in a civilized manner.
Basically, in all things except physical or character harm to another, Milo’s talk should have been able to proceed as planned. If you follow the news, this did not happen and the Berkeley Campus was battered, burned, and property destroyed even after the talk was cancelled. The University of California Berkeley – the site of the student Free Speech Movement of the 1960’s protested free speech. Whatever strength the Berkeley students might have evidenced in the 1960’s was certainly watered down to nothing during their rabid protest against another person’s right to speak and fellow students to listen.
Along with the First Amendment rights so blatantly disregarded on the Berkeley Campus, many other personal rights were ignored.
There were no arrests during the protest even as property was damaged and well-being of others threatened. Don’t people have an unbiased right to police protection?
Freedom from bodily harm was threatened. There is video of a young woman who was attacked and sprayed with pepper spray because she supported the President of the United States. Isn’t she allowed to support the standing President of the United States? What right does someone have to hurt another person because they disagree with them?
What about the people who wished to listen to Milo Yiannopoulos’ talk? Doesn’t every citizen have a right to do so without threat?
What about the administration of the college? Parents who send their children to college do expect there to be some element of safety there.
Strange, too, that so many protesters aka rioters appeared so quickly and with so much organization. It’s almost like they had been paid to do it . . Of course, that could have been determined early on if the police had started making arrests and checking student ID cards.
If you stop to think about the situation, it might be a civil liberties case needed to rectify the Berkeley problem. We do have the First Amendment but everyone has civil rights guaranteed to them, too.
A great one found on the Internet and shared by a friend:
I was born white, which now, whether I like it or not, makes me a racist. I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which by today’s standards, makes me a fascist. I am heterosexual, which according to gay folks, now makes me a homophobe. I am non-union, which makes me a traitor to the working class and an ally of big business. I am a Christian, which now labels me as an infidel. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, which now makes me a member of the vast gun lobby. I am older than 70 and retired, which makes me a useless old man. I think and I reason, therefore I doubt much that the main stream media tells me, which must make me a reactionary. I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive American culture, which makes me a xenophobe. I value my safety and that of my family and I appreciate the police and the legal system, which makes me a right-wing extremist. I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair compensation according to each individual’s merits, which today makes me an anti-socialist. I (and most of the folks I know), acquired a fair education without student loans (it’s called work) and no debt at graduation, which makes me some kind of an odd underachiever. I believe in the defense and protection of the homeland for and by all citizens, which now makes me a militant. Please help me come to terms with the new me… because I‘m just not sure who I am anymore! I would like to thank all my friends for sticking with me through these abrupt, new found changes in my life and my thinking! I just can’t imagine or understand what’s happened to me so quickly!