Shouldn't the British government allowed the parents of baby Charlie Gard to take him to the states?

@Gumba1000

Interesting ... while your facts are spot on ... I would differ to your conclusion.

It is the Courts, which are in denial ... Charlie's parents have the exclusive RIGHT to care for their child ... [b]not the courts.[/b]

The court is denying them the right to move their child to superior medical care in the US ... or to superior end of life care at the Vatican.

The Vatican has granted Charlie a passport to anywhere in the world.

Charities have fully funded Charlies medical care.

Medical transport planes are at the ready to carry him.

US Congress is in the process of granting Charlie citizenship.

While this is a child the British Courts has deemed unworthy of further British medical treatments ... there are millions outside Britain ... who want to care for this child.

The British High Court, should never have gotten involved ... there was zero basis for the intrusion.

The argument that death is better than life ... makes no sense at all ... and never will.

@questionWeaver Brilliant. But that argument has already been lost to the extent that governments long ago came down in favor of the idea that death is better than inconvenience or responsibility by not only sanctioning abortion "on demand" (how material values have triumphed is so clearly shown by the use of that phrase - it could be the slogan of an ice cream parlor) but sending government funds to organizations that actively promote, thus becoming the greatest ally abortionists have.

The argument is simple - does government (sorry for those too ignorant to understand that the judiciary - the courts - ARE a branch of government) have the right to deny anyone the chance at life no matter how slim when such a decision in no way effects the functioning of government? If you think it does in this case and are also for government-paid and thus controlled healthcare who still have your mother living ought to take a good long look at her now and think what your position could one day mean in her life...and yours.

@Abrienda Well summarized

@Gumba1000 The Judiciary IS a part of "government". What ever led you to think otherwise? AND since the British have government health care (the NHS) so, too, are the life and death decisions that should be part of the private world of the individual, not the mob.

@Abrienda No way. Our legal, Government and healthcare systems do not work like that.


The Judiciary and the NHS are both part of the state but they are not bodies which connect.

There are rules in place which prevent government from influencing the decisions of healthcare professionals and judges. The implied conspiracy doesnt stack up and there is no evidence for it at all. In fact I don't think it's even been floated in our media.

87%+ Brits support full NHS anyway so and Government healthcare is not a controversial issue here like it is in the states. We currently have a Conservative Government in charge who have become more unpopular because they have cut and privatised parts of the NHS so there is no way they would want to act as you suggest, even if they could. Which they couldn't.

@Burnley123 Of course I would not argue with someone who knows the system much better than I because they are British. However, they are government entities, which was my point.

@Gumba1000 You are right about the kid's health, and that's why the parents should have every chance to help their son. How is that being selfish?

@GunSmoke9 That is what has come down too..."parents" are "selfish" when they think stupidly think they love their children more than the "government" does.

@questionWeaver Of course the courts have the right, we as a nation employ such a system to make decisions, especially the hardest of all decisions. If a parent is negligent of their children then medical professionals can cite this and aply to the courts to do what is best for a child.

I sincerely doubt you would want to live a life where you could never see or hear. Where you would be stuck in a bed on life support forever in pain.

Charlie is not going to get better from this, these are medical facts. At best the experimental treatment will allow him to breathe unaided.

It is selfish keeping the poor boy alive when he will never ever know he is alive. He will never even be able to comprehend his own name. It is kinder to let him die in dignity.

@Abrienda The government is not every national institution. By your logic the schools and hospitals are government too. They are not. They are instruments of society and society is us. Just like government is an instrument of society. All these instructions were invented and built by us. The government is not the top of the tree, the people are. In the UK anyway.

@Gumba1000

I can respect your preference for death over life.

I do not share it ... I have always chosen life over death, believing all life precious ... without applying any standard to measure the quality of life.

Am sure you can respect that.

I do not seek to change the way British subjects are governed.

I make note, that in 1776, Thomas Jefferson identified that ALL men were created EQUAL ... and had 3 natural rights ... America was founded upon those three rights ... in the intervining years, the British empire neither recognized those rights ... nor adopted similar conventions.

I remind Americans that the British do not have the same rights as Americans ... thus, the British court having a right to supercede a parent's rights ... can rationally exist there.

Saying that, the British High Court has managed to showcase the ugliest vantage of a supposedly well-ordered society.

There exists absolute dismay here at the British Aristocracy ... and charitable feelings for the British subjects.

In my life, I have never seen so much shock and dismay, as this court has brought forth.

We say when digging yourself into a hole ... stop digging

@GunSmoke9 Because there is no help for the baby. The best this experimental medical intervention will manage is getting him to breathe on his own. He will still be blind and deaf afterwards. As well has being paralysed and have ill functioning liver and kidneys. He will still be brain damaged and in pain. There's no cure for all of that. Therefore keeping him alive on life support is cruel to the baby.

@Abrienda You have lost sight of the medical facts of Charlie's problems. Look them up.

@Gumba1000

As far as what is cruel to the baby ... let the parents decide ... there is no reason to burden the courts with that judgement.

Personally, I find it cruel that you could even consider ignoring the parents ... you would never be a neighbor I would want to have.

DON'T patronize me! I am FULLY AWARE of them ...just as I am aware of your cheap attempt to deal with your inability to adequately respond to my position. It is a variation of the "appeal to authority" argument - look THAT up!

What YOU don't seem to understand but the Pope does (unless you wish to educate the Pope by telling him to "look it up" too?) is this issue is larger than the parameters of this case. It transcends them. But then if you are happy with oher people deciding what you can do regarding the life of your child that is not my problem but may one day be yours.

I refer you to he Vatican's position on this case...look it up!

@Gumba1000

You know ... this has exposed that there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between the United States and Britain

One offers everyone a right to life, liberty and happiness.

The other offers life, where it is under acceptable conditions.

Small wonder the word Totalitarianism was first minted to describe the British Aristocracy

@Abrienda The Vatican is actually against further treatment. The Pope says that there should be 'reasonable limits' to medicine.

@questionWeaver So you think it's fine if parents abuse their children? Smack them about? Do you? Your answer is 'no' because you are sane. This circumstance we would advocate the courts ruling against the parents wishes.

My point why the decision has to be taken out of this baby's parents hands. They would have him on life support forever if they could. That is not life.

@Abrienda good reply ... wish I could write like you!

@Gumba1000 You make a good case. Interesting.

@questionWeaver It's not a preference for death over life. Charlie would be dead naturally if doctors with medicine and medical inventions had not interceded. Charlie would have died naturally just after birth. The decision for death was made by his unfortunate circumstance, not by anyone else. This debate here is only about when he will die.

@Gumba1000

Loving your child ... and seeking medical care is neither a sin nor a crime ... in any society ... except maybe yours.

Of course we protect the living from harm ... but death is never a solution.

Hey ... remember ... we already went through this Lord Cornwallis gave up at Yorktown ... and the British empire disappeared.

We have STARKLY different opinions on life than what you and the British High Court are expressing.

Get use to it ... Americas influence in the world is growing ... the British leadership, long ago crested.

@Gumba1000 YOU decide for people you never met what the quality of life is? I hope you are reading this Mr. Burnley - this is the kind of fascistic mentality that is being deployed against the Gard family's position. You want someone like Mr GUMBA deciding what is or is not life? Will YOU pull the plug Mr. GUMBA, you being so sure of when life is worth living or not?

I am glad it took so little time for you to show your real self, Mr GUMBA...you take upon yourself the very definition of life itself: not for yourself, but for OTHERS!

You have made my case better than I could. My thanks.

@Abrienda Wow you are triggered. Its just a difference of opinion

@Abrienda

If we had a High Court in Fort Worth Texas ... and mr Gumba had a cold where he needed the respirator ... I am sure we could find somebody to roll him out into the corridor ... so we could use the oxygen tent to improve the quality of life for 3 rabbits.

Particularly, now that we know that is how the game is played in Britain