Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho is Charlie Guard?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/29/against-his-parents-wishes-this-terminally-ill-infant-will-be-allowed-to-die/?utm_term=.6b42f2cd66d9
A British couple have been given more time with their terminally ill son after an emotional court battle and uproar over when and where Charlie Gard would be disconnected from machines helping to keep him alive.
Charlie has a rare genetic condition and resulting brain damage that has robbed him of his ability to move his arms and legs, eat or even breathe on his own.
His parents had said doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London were planning to remove the 10-month-old from life support Friday but have now decided to postpone it.
Together with Charlies parents we are putting plans in place for his care, and to give them more time together as a family, a spokesman for Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust confirmed in a statement to The Washington Post. We would ask you to give the family and our staff some space and privacy at this distressing time.
Charlie's parents and their attorney could not immediately be reached for comment, and the hospital said it could not provide specific details about Charlie's case.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 5614 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who is Charlie Guard? (Original Post)
HipChick
Jul 2017
OP
sarah FAILIN
(2,857 posts)1. I feel bad for the parents
I don't know if I could do that to my child . Either choice is horrible. Living trapped in your body unable to even breathe or making the choice to go out quietly. How does a parent deal with either? Sounds l Ike the brain damage is severe. If he is unaware, I think I'd let him die peacefully on our terms.
B2G
(9,766 posts)2. Doctors in the US think they might be able to help
with an experimental treatment. They have raised enough money to bring him here.
They should be able to try. I cannot believe the government has the power to say no.
sarah FAILIN
(2,857 posts)3. I agree they should get to try
Such a sad situation. I hope the US doctors aren't getting their hopes up for nothing.
B2G
(9,766 posts)4. I can't imagine they would be or are making any promises.
What possible reason can the UK have to deny them this? I can't think of one bloody thing.
blogslut
(38,002 posts)7. From a Guardian story:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/02/pope-shows-solidarity-with-charlie-gards-parents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
His parents, from Bedfont in west London, want to take him to the US to undergo an experimental treatment but doctors at GOSH said that, given Charlies condition, the therapy was unlikely to have a beneficial outcome.
British courts ruled that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life-sustaining treatment because it was highly probable Charlie would suffer significant harm if his life was prolonged without realistic prospect of an improvement. They cited established human rights law, which dictates that the rights of a child should take precedence over the rights of a parent.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
His parents, from Bedfont in west London, want to take him to the US to undergo an experimental treatment but doctors at GOSH said that, given Charlies condition, the therapy was unlikely to have a beneficial outcome.
British courts ruled that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life-sustaining treatment because it was highly probable Charlie would suffer significant harm if his life was prolonged without realistic prospect of an improvement. They cited established human rights law, which dictates that the rights of a child should take precedence over the rights of a parent.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
HipChick
(25,485 posts)6. Trump is politically trying to use to his advantage
To change media coverage of homself
B2G
(9,766 posts)8. Who really cares if it helps? nt
oberliner
(58,724 posts)5. Maybe spell the kid's name right?
The last name is in the article.