The baby was born with a rare genetic condition that left him severely brain damaged, but his parents seeking an experimental treatment has sparked international debate.
Well what if Charlie Gard would rather experience some pain than be put to death? Since when was death a better option than pain? The world has gone mad!
The point to takeaway here is: Government healthcare is slavery. It doesn't matter whether or not the American doctors could have saved Charlie. Charlie's parents should have been able to take Charlie wherever the hell they wanted to. This is pure evil. Ben Carson, the pediatric neurosurgeon who became a front runner in the 2016 election, was right when he said that Obamacare was the worst thing since slavery. Ben Shapiro said it right when he said, "the government sucks at everything". Government is but a necessary evil that should be in charge of maintaining the "minimal state" and nothing more. We the American people are funding, through our tax dollars, the very thing that is diminishing our freedom. We must destroy the nanny state at all cost otherwise our ancestors died in vain establishing this great republic. If you are with me thumbs up this comment.
"...government healthcare is slavery..." well I suppose that depends on your circumstance - how your government and society views its citizens. Maybe we should extend your ideas to other public services, decouple them from government control/regulation - maybe all states should be completely independents, and any service they provide sold into the private sector. Start with roads, police, fire and other federal infrastructure. But what do yo think needs to be done for those without insurance right now, eg: Persons in US under age 65 uninsured 28.2 million (10.4%) and increasing, percent of children under age 18 uninsured 5.1%, percent of adults aged 18-64 uninsured 12.4%.
Alan West It could be considered that the courts, apart from being the voice of reason, are the voice of Charlie. I'll now wait for the torrent of idiotic "it's the parents decision", but this argument is flawed, given the majority of child abuse is from parents and relatives. This is difficult time for the parents, but there are thousands of children in similar dire situations, and as much as possible should be done for them, however, in this case, an offering of a future with a 10% at best improvement over what's essentially a child who is deaf, blind and severally brain damaged - it's hard to quantify what the benefit to Charlie would be and for how long.
This situation is a tricky one. I really feel for the parents of these babies. I understand where the doctors are coming from with the child suffering and all that, but every patient has a right to choose what treatments they wanna do, and when the patient is a young child who can't make the decision themselves, that right falls on the parents. Everybody has the right to life. But this disease leaves the child unable to talk, having to use a feeding tube, on life support basically and leaves them without the ability to have a healthy childhood. It's just a horrible situation to be in.
I am from the UK 🇬🇧 and I am also a parent to a beautiful 8 year old little girl. The hospital that Charlie is currently at is the "BEST HOSPITAL IN THE UK" and has some of the best doctors in the world and is one of the best childrens hospitals in the world and I know the doctors there would not have taken the decision to let him die with dignity lightly. They are looking out for little Charlie's best interests, but also as a parent I can empathise and sympathise so so much with his parents. I can understand it from both sides. But unfortunately the country we live in gives the government more rights than anybody else. It's not really a free country then is it if the government get to decide if Charlie can try a new experimental treatment over his parents! 😔
+Emily senior You are truly the voice of reason. However, are the parents fighting for the child or for the bigger picture? If they are, good for them. If they're fighting for the chld, how long will they stay the course? I wouldn't be able to do it. This is a difficult call and, to be honest, I would let the child go.
Dear Alan, 1.the baby has NOT received any treatment in this so called hospital he has been left to vegetate for over 8 months where he could have been treated in the USA. 2. maybe he will be used as a "guinea pig" but already one child has been helped and all treatment starts with "guinea pigs". 3. his parents state he is not suffering, and how do you know that he will suffer? 4. "won't improve his life" so just exterminate him like in Dr. Who!!! 5. my nephew 43 years old since birth paralyzed from the neck down, cannot feed himself but with his carer he travels around Europe giving lectures on disabilities according to you he also should have been "exterminated" at birth 5. and by the way I am Anglo-Swiss and not Americans fortunately my nephew was born in Switzerland in a country which looks after its own!!!!!!
The people chose euthanasia themselves and can take a pill, but through the NHS the Doctors or Judges decide and the person is dehydrated and starved to death. My nephew was so called EXPERIMENTALLY treated, by the way he cannot speak only through a computer, but he has a full intensive life helping others not so handicapped as he is, his brain functions but as a baby he was similar to Charlie. And please remember Charlie's parents have the money donated by good people !!!! but through self-righteous doctors and judges he has lost 8 months !!!! and it may be to late now which these self-righteous people probably want if this were not the case why wasn't he allowed to go in the first place??????? and another point all treatment in the first instance is experimental (a good book is "Brother Surgeons" by Garet Rogers about the Hunter brothers in London)
In the US we have some of the best doctors in the world, that are always inventing new procedures. Just because they call it an experiment procedure, doesn't mean it's not good. My elderly mother caught a C-diff infection that kept coming back. The mortality rate is very high when elderly people get this infection, so I started searching and found a new experimental procedure to cure it, called fecal transplant. They took the feces from a person with a healthy gut flora and transplanted it into my Mom. The procedure was done like a colonoscopy and they pushed the liquid feces through a tube into her intestines. She was instantly cured and the Dallas doctor that did the procedure said so far he has a 100% cure rate. It's still classified as experimental, because it's a relatively new procedure, but it works.
jim jackle this baby is terminally ill. No it's, ands, or buys about that. If they can't help babies born in the U.S with the same condition, what makes you think this child is better off? He has a mitochondria deletion. Faulty genes and nothing can be done. He cannot eat on his own, breathe on his own, move on his own. The kid is blind, deaf and severally brain damaged. The latest scans were even worse. On top of that, the kid is having seizures and had to be placed on a morphine drip. He wouldn't even make the flight over to the United States.The kid will die. Even the doctor that is claiming he had a 10 percent chance of clinical improvement was disappointed by the latest scans. Also it is CLINICAL improvement, meaning the kid will still be on a ventilator but the only difference is that he will not be getting worse and they would essentially be prolonging his suffering. The baby is going to die. The parents are just selfish and won't let the baby die with dignity. Charlie doesn't need to be some lab rat. Nothing else can be done and when will people realize that.
What happens to Art Jr once his parents are no longer around? To me it looks like the mother is depressed. As sad as it is sometimes it is better to let a loved one go.
The fact that they couldn't even bring him home to die peacefully, alone with them is the highest insult of all. They are much stronger than I. I would abandon the very government that abandoned my family and I by dying along side my son's side in their shoes. Screw continuing to contribute to a government that would dictate where, when AND HOW my own son should pass?!
I'm afraid each country has varying laws, on who has the most say. Here in the UK, the parent normally does get the final say, even when decisions aren't necessarily the absolute 'best' decision for the child. But if there's a concern the parents' decision might cause significant harm and/or suffering to the child, the state can step in. And that on its own, isn't a bad thing - giving birth doesn't guarantee having the best judgement, and plenty of parents have caused lifelong psychological or physical harm to children, despite the best of intentions. Parents can obviously be swayed by emotion, psychological defence mechanisms like denial, etc. But I would say, this is very far from clear, that the parents are making bad decisions, and it is a bit of a nightmare, deciding what should happen here. The child is likely suffering every day, and the majority of doctors worldwide believe this treatment can't help, and would only prolong Charlie's suffering. But it can't be ignored, a few doctors think it could work. It's a hellish decision for the judge to have to make.
There are worse things than death. This is a very cruel lifestyle. And to think tax payers are paying for this inhumane lifestyle. The parents are ONLY thinking about themselves...
It's really gross, whenever you see desperate and delusional parents who are willing to medically torture their children in a sad attempt to get a little more time for themselves. And that older boy in the wheelchair? What on earth was the point of saving his life?
Can someone explain to me why the media keeps reporting that he was "born with a rare genetic condition", when up until just after he was 2 months old, he was developing normally? What happened to him at 2 months old that caused his genetic disease to flare up?
Andy B Idk about this particularly disease but other genetics disease are present at birth but doesn’t occur until some sort of stimulus which we don’t know what causes this trigger.
I think it is cruel to force Charlie into any treatment. And that lady said there is no sign that Charlie is in pain or distress...he cant move, speak, cry, or even breath on his own. She cant know Charlie isnt suffering. But I can see both ways, so sad for these parents.
@Toori Baba No, im not his parent. But I am a parent. And yes, I can see both sides. There's good argument for both sides; do whatever it takes to save your child, or don't and keep his misery to a minimum by letting him die. Edit: typos
Parents know their children best. Sure. In this case it was impossible to know him. That poor baby literally had no quality of life let alone could he have the capability to express pain. It’s extremely difficult. I don’t like the government imposing on parents but with this one…..love and selfishness walked a fine line. If that baby could’ve had a say, I’m sure he wouldn’t want to live as a zombie. That’s not a life.
As a healthcare provider, it is important to respect the autonomy of patients and ensure that they are fully informed of their treatment options. In the case presented in the video it is important to remember that the healthcare providers provide the patient with all of the information needed to make an informed decision, while also considering the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. In terms of autonomy, it is the patient's right to make decisions about their own health and well-being. As a doctor, it is important to provide patients with all the information they need to make an informed decision, including the risks and benefits of all available treatment options, even selecting and using their own autonomy from their prior experiences and knowledge for what is the best practice for treatment. However, healthcare providers must also consider the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. In this scenario, the doctor needs to ensure that the decision made is not harmful to the patient’s overall health and well-being. This may require the healthcare provider to recommend certain treatments over others, based on the individual patient's health status and medical history. Also, healthcare providers must adhere to the laws of ethics, which require them to obtain informed consent from the patient before any medical procedures are performed. This includes ensuring that the patient understands their treatment options and the potential risks and benefits associated with each option. It is also important to provide the patient with the support they need to make an informed decision, such as access to educational materials or referrals to other healthcare providers for second opinions. Overall, healthcare providers must respect the autonomy of patients while also considering the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. This requires providing patients with all of the information they need to make an informed decision, while also ensuring that the decision made is not harmful to the patient's overall health and well-being. By adhering to the laws of ethics and providing patients with the support they need, healthcare providers can ensure that patients receive the best possible care, despite what happened with this case.
Charlie’s Case is of vast importance in regard to medical ethics because it sets a precedence on whether the state has the primary medical authority above legal guardianship. It is interesting that one of the core values of medical ethics is non maleficence which means to do no harm. In Charlie’s case the state is arguing that his quality of life is so poor that it is in his best interests to not seek potential treatments to extend his life. The ethical dilemma seems to frustrate itself because the solution the state is proposing is arguably the worst kind of harm, ending the life of an individual without giving them a fighting chance. How can we deem an individual’s quality of life not worthy of living? It becomes very ominous that the state has the authority over who is worthy of existing based upon their own assessment of quality of life. I think it is of vast importance to respect the decisions of caring and competent parents. If a family has the means to fight for the survival of their child by all means they should be able to seek for therapeutic remedies that have been approved by a medical review board. It is important to understand that philosophically the family unit existed long before the state. For the state to assume ownership over decisions of the family is a large overstep. It is important That we remember the state was built to support a society of families. Now this is not saying every parent is competent, it is also important to consider that each case should be investigated individually because parents are not always acting in their child’s best interests. In Charlie’s case it is obvious that the parents are caring and competent; their efforts to organize such a large world awareness of their case is evidence that they care. By letting the government control this case who is to say how much further they will go as medicine becomes more complex and ethical dilemmas become increasingly arrays of grey. It is hard to argue that taking away Charlie’s right to exist is acting in his best interest. Hopefully we can learn from Charlie’s Case and do all we can to protect parents’ rights to medical decisions for their children.
I'm a mother of a little baby the same age as Charlie. If there was something wrong with him and there was even a 10% chance of improvement I would go to the ends of the Earth for my child. These parents obviously try to do that. Holding up a child's treatment for months while fighting in court to undermine a parent's right to choose is an absolute miscarriage of Justice and blatant disregard for human life. Bureaucracy killed Charlie Gard and it is a total tragedy. My thoughts and prayers are with the family today.
The point to takeaway here is: Government healthcare is slavery. It doesn't matter whether or not the American doctors could have saved Charlie. Charlie's parents should have been able to take Charlie wherever the hell they wanted to. This is pure evil. Ben Carson, the pediatric neurosurgeon who became a front runner in the 2016 election, was right when he said that Obamacare was the worst thing since slavery. Ben Shapiro said it right when he said, "the government sucks at everything". Government is but a necessary evil that should be in charge of maintaining the "minimal state" and nothing more. We the American people are funding, through our tax dollars, the very thing that is diminishing our freedom. We must destroy the nanny state at all cost otherwise our ancestors died in vain establishing this great republic. If you are with me thumbs up this comment.
The parents have little right to choose what;s best for the child. The doctors know far better. Genetic problems like the one this child have can never be cured. The fatal flaw is in every single one of his cells and no pill or scalpel can ever remove it and those who say otherwise are lying. Have you noticed why it's only chavs and council estate mothers that protest about ill children being taken off life support? The reason why is because most of the protesters failed to obtain even the most basic of education and as a result everything the doctors say just goes in through one year and out the other. They lack the basic educational foundations to even begin to comprehend what doctors are saying. As far as the protesters are concerned, all his problems can be solved with a pill. For anyone with more than GCSE's, it's terminal.
The hospital and the specialist now claim he was never made fully aware, even right from the start, of how serious Charlie's condition was, and that if he had been, he would never have reccomended treatment in the first place. I call absolute BS on this. GOSH claimed they had multiple conference calls, multiple disciplinary ones involving all his specialists etc sharing info in real time with the man. And yet we are expected to believe NOT ONE OF THESE 'EXPERTS' thought to privide something so basic as his up to date tests and scan results?? The whole case stinks. Also the hospital said he was too ill to be moved to go to USA for assessment etc. Well, why the hell did they not fly over the specialist to see him amd work from there?
Same as Indi Gregory, the UK courts are baby killers, the case of Tafida Raqeeb in the UK they decided she should be left to die but they were lucky to be able to take him to Italy, she is still alive, and improving, she woke up from her coma.
I can understand the parents point of view. Any parent wud do the same and cling onto any hope to save their child. But on the other hand, its a case of taking up an ICU bed which costs money and if my child needed that ICU bed and it was being used up by a child that had no chance of survival then i wud be fighting for him to be removed of it to give my child a fighting chance. Moral of the story is that everybody is out for themselves in this life.
They had every right, you have no understanding of law and are just acting on emotions. It's truly tragic that this child is in the situation that it is but without any treatment that would have a realistic chance of improving his situation terminating ventilation is a better alternative to suffering needlessly
@@maarten9222 The fact that you believe the government is the humanitarian tells me you have no idea what government is and how far it would be willing to go. Your life and welling being is not its first priority. It said very clearly in the news cast that there was experimental treatments ongoing for his condition. The parents were denied that chance and he was removed from life support. Whether or not it would have worked is not the matter. It is better take a 10% chance on life than none. No parent would stop until all possibilities could be exhausted. It is obviously an ethical dilemma to keep a child alive suffering. But the chance for life, however small, is worth fighting for and the parents felt it was worth the child’s pain. No one can understand the agony of that choice those parents went through. And because of a government body, they will live and carry that pain for the rest of their lives. I find that to be cruel and inhumane
The child is theirs, not the hospital’s. Why can’t they do what they feel right for their baby? Of course they want the best for him. Pulling the plug on him is not what they want for Charlie. Your family is in my prayers. God bless!
This has turned into a political issue, and the UK government is afraid their pride will be hurt if they let little Charlie come to America and we save his life. It'll make their NHS look inferior to America's healthcare, and they don't want this embarrassment. Time to stop worrying about your image, and start worrying about saving this child's life.
It's disgusting the media coverage of this. This is a private issue and a sign of what is wrong with our society that people can kick up so much dust around this issue. I just don't get how people aren't objecting to all these camera shoved in the families faces? There is a story like this every year and the coverage gets worse and worse each time. The story here has stopped being about a baby boy and is more about politics and ethics of medicine. Poor kid. Poor family.
But if it hadn't been covered we would not have known about it and therefore be unable to speak up in defense for Charlie Gard. Something like this needs to be spoken of. Otherwise it will continue and more people will die.
TheRemainingFaithful I agree with the sentiment that people need to know about this. The problem is when the more money hungry members of the media start to intrude into this families' private lives and offer biased coverage whilst leveraging in political and socioeconomic issues. On top of that, remember the judicial system is involved and such media coverage will easily sway a judge. This is an issue that in this day and age of online activism ( and the very fact we can have a conversation like this over the internet ) would be better suited to online forums, petition sites, scientific communities and NOT headline news. Maybe a page four story instead of dragging everyone in from Trump to His Blooming Holiness the Pope. See what I mean? I've got all political now. That's not what this story should be about.
imma X imma X They don't WANT news coverage and fame specifically, they want people to actually understand this issue, care, and rally to their cause. Depressingly the only way to do that is to tip off the press, who will then profit off a little boy who is dying, slowly and miserably, whilst having no quality of life. It's not the family I have a real problem with, it's the fact that first the media and then politics has gotten involved. Trump and May and Popey Mc Popeface have all gotten involved in an issue that should have been a page four story/local news headline at its peak. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion and this media coverage is only going to bias the judge into making a bad decision under pressure. This is an issue of science and medicine and, perhaps, ethics. Not politics. Oh and who are you to try to assault my right to disagree?
And to UNDERSTAND it, it has to be covered. You talk through both sides of your face at once. Prove he has no quality of life. He's not being given a chance to live. Did you even watch the footage of the older child who was given a chance playing with his parents ipad? Just because it's not something you deem to be the quality of life you would choose you don't get to choose for others. Get off your soap box & stfu. You are not his parent & they are ultimately the ones who should decide what is in their child's best interest .
The baby suffered while lawyers and judges decided his fate. They could have taken him to the US before all this to try to save his life. This society does not understand the sanctity of life. We ought to do everything we can to ensure life. But in a society that is okay with murdering their own babies in the womb, what can we expect? God will judge the judge who kept Charlie from help, and God will judge all these nations who kill the unborn. I think there will be the harshest judgement for those who actually commissioned the death of their children. But there is hope yet. As long as you are living, repent and follow Christ.
I know i will get some people saying i don't know what i am talking about but is my opinion and everyone got a opinion. I the a act of a meter is if this won't take until a week ago to make a final decision and made it June with out dragging this out I rally think he could of gone to the USA for treatment. Look great ormond street hospital and the staff are one of the best but even doctors get stuff wrong. If the same or similar situation come a round again will the decision be a same or different because to me we should look beyond this country and ask for others doctor from other countries for treatment that can save lifes for the better.
Anthony Cottam They didn't get it wrong. He had no quality of life. He was blind, couldn't cry at all or breath on his own. His parents were in denial. No other country could have helped. The doctors knew he was suffering but his parents wanted him alive for them not because anything could help him.
People are forgetting the simple fact that this is a legal battle between the Gard family and the Great Ormand Street Hospital. The hospital has a vested interest in the death of Charlie Gard: their reputation. If Charlie seeks treatment abroad and gets better, their reputation as one of the best children's hospital worldwide will be in tatters. Don't kid yourself that this hospital has Charlie's best interests at heart, children die every day in that hospital. At the end of the day they are still a business. Albeit non-profit, they still need to breakeven like any other organisation and that relies on their reputation.
Your comments are nonsense, life, save lives , quality of life are the main concerns doctors have when making decisions r unless they are Harold Shipman. You have not clue what you are talking about
The parents should think about the long term consequences re; pain this boy will go through if he lives. I think his parents are inconsiderate, maybe seeking attention from the public. They are young and could have more healthy children why subject this boy into what would be a longterm disability which will require a longterm care for the rest of his of life.
I think you need to read more about the case. There is no evidence that the child is in any pain or suffering, and none to say that he will be if he acquires treatment. They also are unlikely to have any more healthy children together. They both carry the faulty gene that caused Charlie Gard's disease. Furthermore, why is it presumed that death is a better option than living life with a disability?????
I feel like those doctors who have been caring for the child shouldn't be allowed to care for him anymore. This is because they don't understand how much an experimental treatment can potentially save the kid's life. They must educate themselves about this because it's unethical to claim that the treatment would only worsen the condition and not improve the quality of life. Also the government should not be allowed to get into a situation like this, it's the parents decision that is the most important, not the government's decision. Also the hospital has to reconsider the fact that others want to help this young boy, denying him better treatment is just a very bad idea.
Alan West- My mother was saved by one of these so called "experimental procedures", and the doctor that did the procedure told me he has a 100% cure rate. My mother contracted a c-diff infection which has a high mortality rate in elderly people. The antibiotics the doctors gave her didn't cure it, and it continued to come back. After suffering with this for over a year, I found a new experimental procedure called "fecal matter transplant" where they take the feces from a healthy person with a healthy gut flora and transplant it. The procedure was done in the same manner as a colonoscopy and they used a tube to push the liquid feces into her intestines. She was instantly cured and most likely wouldn't be alive today if not for this procedure that is still classified as experimental. Your commie rat NHS probably looks down on experimental procedures because of the cost. It's all about money, and when the government controls your healthcare it's a scary thing. When it's cheaper to pull the plug than to treat someone and keep them alive, you can bet the government is going to be pulling the plug.
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 24 วันนี้!! “จาร์เร็ด vs กุสตาโว”](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ENNA-fsT67c/mqdefault.jpg)
If another hospital somewhere else is willing to keep him alive and give him alternative treatments they should be able to do that. ??????????? wtf
Well what if Charlie Gard would rather experience some pain than be put to death? Since when was death a better option than pain? The world has gone mad!
Yes but he may not be well enough to be moved.
The point to takeaway here is: Government healthcare is slavery. It
doesn't matter whether or not the American doctors could have saved
Charlie. Charlie's parents should have been able to take Charlie
wherever the hell they wanted to. This is pure evil. Ben Carson, the
pediatric neurosurgeon who became a front runner in the 2016 election,
was right when he said that Obamacare was the worst thing since slavery.
Ben Shapiro said it right when he said, "the government sucks at
everything". Government is but a necessary evil that should be in charge
of maintaining the "minimal state" and nothing more. We the American
people are funding, through our tax dollars, the very thing that is
diminishing our freedom. We must destroy the nanny state at all cost
otherwise our ancestors died in vain establishing this great republic.
If you are with me thumbs up this comment.
"...government healthcare is slavery..." well I suppose that depends on your circumstance - how your government and society views its citizens. Maybe we should extend your ideas to other public services, decouple them from government control/regulation - maybe all states should be completely independents, and any service they provide sold into the private sector. Start with roads, police, fire and other federal infrastructure.
But what do yo think needs to be done for those without insurance right now, eg:
Persons in US under age 65 uninsured 28.2 million (10.4%) and increasing, percent of children under age 18 uninsured 5.1%, percent of adults aged 18-64 uninsured 12.4%.
Alan West
It could be considered that the courts, apart from being the voice of reason, are the voice of Charlie. I'll now wait for the torrent of idiotic "it's the parents decision", but this argument is flawed, given the majority of child abuse is from parents and relatives.
This is difficult time for the parents, but there are thousands of children in similar dire situations, and as much as possible should be done for them, however, in this case, an offering of a future with a 10% at best improvement over what's essentially a child who is deaf, blind and severally brain damaged - it's hard to quantify what the benefit to Charlie would be and for how long.
This situation is a tricky one. I really feel for the parents of these babies. I understand where the doctors are coming from with the child suffering and all that, but every patient has a right to choose what treatments they wanna do, and when the patient is a young child who can't make the decision themselves, that right falls on the parents. Everybody has the right to life. But this disease leaves the child unable to talk, having to use a feeding tube, on life support basically and leaves them without the ability to have a healthy childhood. It's just a horrible situation to be in.
I am from the UK 🇬🇧 and I am also a parent to a beautiful 8 year old little girl.
The hospital that Charlie is currently at is the "BEST HOSPITAL IN THE UK" and has some of the best doctors in the world and is one of the best childrens hospitals in the world and I know the doctors there would not have taken the decision to let him die with dignity lightly. They are looking out for little Charlie's best interests, but also as a parent I can empathise and sympathise so so much with his parents.
I can understand it from both sides.
But unfortunately the country we live in gives the government more rights than anybody else. It's not really a free country then is it if the government get to decide if Charlie can try a new experimental treatment over his parents! 😔
+Emily senior You are truly the voice of reason. However, are the parents fighting for the child or for the bigger picture? If they are, good for them. If they're fighting for the chld, how long will they stay the course? I wouldn't be able to do it. This is a difficult call and, to be honest, I would let the child go.
Dear Alan, 1.the baby has NOT received any treatment in this so called hospital he has been left to vegetate for over 8 months where he could have been treated in the USA. 2. maybe he will be used as a "guinea pig" but already one child has been helped and all treatment starts with "guinea pigs". 3. his parents state he is not suffering, and how do you know that he will suffer? 4. "won't improve his life" so just exterminate him like in Dr. Who!!! 5. my nephew 43 years old since birth paralyzed from the neck down, cannot feed himself but with his carer he travels around Europe giving lectures on disabilities according to you he also should have been "exterminated" at birth 5. and by the way I am Anglo-Swiss and not Americans fortunately my nephew was born in Switzerland in a country which looks after its own!!!!!!
The people chose euthanasia themselves and can take a pill, but through the NHS the Doctors or Judges decide and the person is dehydrated and starved to death. My nephew was so called EXPERIMENTALLY treated, by the way he cannot speak only through a computer, but he has a full intensive life helping others not so handicapped as he is, his brain functions but as a baby he was similar to Charlie. And please remember Charlie's parents have the money donated by good people !!!! but through self-righteous doctors and judges he has lost 8 months !!!! and it may be to late now which these self-righteous people probably want if this were not the case why wasn't he allowed to go in the first place??????? and another point all treatment in the first instance is experimental (a good book is "Brother Surgeons" by Garet Rogers about the Hunter brothers in London)
In the US we have some of the best doctors in the world, that are always inventing new procedures. Just because they call it an experiment procedure, doesn't mean it's not good. My elderly mother caught a C-diff infection that kept coming back. The mortality rate is very high when elderly people get this infection, so I started searching and found a new experimental procedure to cure it, called fecal transplant. They took the feces from a person with a healthy gut flora and transplanted it into my Mom. The procedure was done like a colonoscopy and they pushed the liquid feces through a tube into her intestines. She was instantly cured and the Dallas doctor that did the procedure said so far he has a 100% cure rate. It's still classified as experimental, because it's a relatively new procedure, but it works.
jim jackle this baby is terminally ill. No it's, ands, or buys about that. If they can't help babies born in the U.S with the same condition, what makes you think this child is better off? He has a mitochondria deletion. Faulty genes and nothing can be done. He cannot eat on his own, breathe on his own, move on his own. The kid is blind, deaf and severally brain damaged. The latest scans were even worse. On top of that, the kid is having seizures and had to be placed on a morphine drip. He wouldn't even make the flight over to the United States.The kid will die. Even the doctor that is claiming he had a 10 percent chance of clinical improvement was disappointed by the latest scans. Also it is CLINICAL improvement, meaning the kid will still be on a ventilator but the only difference is that he will not be getting worse and they would essentially be prolonging his suffering. The baby is going to die. The parents are just selfish and won't let the baby die with dignity. Charlie doesn't need to be some lab rat. Nothing else can be done and when will people realize that.
What happens to Art Jr once his parents are no longer around? To me it looks like the mother is depressed. As sad as it is sometimes it is better to let a loved one go.
The fact that they couldn't even bring him home to die peacefully, alone with them is the highest insult of all. They are much stronger than I. I would abandon the very government that abandoned my family and I by dying along side my son's side in their shoes. Screw continuing to contribute to a government that would dictate where, when AND HOW my own son should pass?!
it is up to the parents not the government. but we must to what is right for the child as parents. what type of life can they live?
I'm afraid each country has varying laws, on who has the most say. Here in the UK, the parent normally does get the final say, even when decisions aren't necessarily the absolute 'best' decision for the child. But if there's a concern the parents' decision might cause significant harm and/or suffering to the child, the state can step in. And that on its own, isn't a bad thing - giving birth doesn't guarantee having the best judgement, and plenty of parents have caused lifelong psychological or physical harm to children, despite the best of intentions. Parents can obviously be swayed by emotion, psychological defence mechanisms like denial, etc. But I would say, this is very far from clear, that the parents are making bad decisions, and it is a bit of a nightmare, deciding what should happen here. The child is likely suffering every day, and the majority of doctors worldwide believe this treatment can't help, and would only prolong Charlie's suffering. But it can't be ignored, a few doctors think it could work. It's a hellish decision for the judge to have to make.
There are worse things than death. This is a very cruel lifestyle. And to think tax payers are paying for this inhumane lifestyle. The parents are ONLY thinking about themselves...
Beautiful Boy,it’s so sad you lost your life baby boy, love to you forever xxxxxx
It's really gross, whenever you see desperate and delusional parents who are willing to medically torture their children in a sad attempt to get a little more time for themselves. And that older boy in the wheelchair? What on earth was the point of saving his life?
Can someone explain to me why the media keeps reporting that he was "born with a rare genetic condition", when up until just after he was 2 months old, he was developing normally?
What happened to him at 2 months old that caused his genetic disease to flare up?
Andy B Idk about this particularly disease but other genetics disease are present at birth but doesn’t occur until some sort of stimulus which we don’t know what causes this trigger.
I think it is cruel to force Charlie into any treatment. And that lady said there is no sign that Charlie is in pain or distress...he cant move, speak, cry, or even breath on his own. She cant know Charlie isnt suffering. But I can see both ways, so sad for these parents.
@Toori Baba No, im not his parent. But I am a parent. And yes, I can see both sides. There's good argument for both sides; do whatever it takes to save your child, or don't and keep his misery to a minimum by letting him die.
Edit: typos
There is no both ways...he was their child PERIOD
Better to give a shot at it then none at all. You're a bad person
@@generalsalami8875 no, im empathetic. I know what true suffering is. You clearly dont; u equate my empathy to being a bad person.
@NickNock he suffered either way. This decision should be left with the parents, not you. If there is a chance of helping, *why not try?*
He died on my birthday 😢😢
Parents know their children best. Sure. In this case it was impossible to know him. That poor baby literally had no quality of life let alone could he have the capability to express pain.
It’s extremely difficult. I don’t like the government imposing on parents but with this one…..love and selfishness walked a fine line. If that baby could’ve had a say, I’m sure he wouldn’t want to live as a zombie. That’s not a life.
At Junior doesn't look like a zombie to me. It doesn't look like he would rather be dead.
He is gorgeous it is so sad that he died
As a healthcare provider, it is important to respect the autonomy of patients and ensure that they are fully informed of their treatment options. In the case presented in the video it is important to remember that the healthcare providers provide the patient with all of the information needed to make an informed decision, while also considering the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. In terms of autonomy, it is the patient's right to make decisions about their own health and well-being. As a doctor, it is important to provide patients with all the information they need to make an informed decision, including the risks and benefits of all available treatment options, even selecting and using their own autonomy from their prior experiences and knowledge for what is the best practice for treatment. However, healthcare providers must also consider the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. In this scenario, the doctor needs to ensure that the decision made is not harmful to the patient’s overall health and well-being. This may require the healthcare provider to recommend certain treatments over others, based on the individual patient's health status and medical history. Also, healthcare providers must adhere to the laws of ethics, which require them to obtain informed consent from the patient before any medical procedures are performed. This includes ensuring that the patient understands their treatment options and the potential risks and benefits associated with each option. It is also important to provide the patient with the support they need to make an informed decision, such as access to educational materials or referrals to other healthcare providers for second opinions. Overall, healthcare providers must respect the autonomy of patients while also considering the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. This requires providing patients with all of the information they need to make an informed decision, while also ensuring that the decision made is not harmful to the patient's overall health and well-being. By adhering to the laws of ethics and providing patients with the support they need, healthcare providers can ensure that patients receive the best possible care, despite what happened with this case.
This is so sickening, these parents have the right for their son to get treated
Baby Charlie is so beautiful I hope there is any chance to save him!
YOU CAN DO THIS CHARLIE
Charlie’s Case is of vast importance in regard to medical ethics because it sets a precedence on whether the state has the primary medical authority above legal guardianship. It is interesting that one of the core values of medical ethics is non maleficence which means to do no harm. In Charlie’s case the state is arguing that his quality of life is so poor that it is in his best interests to not seek potential treatments to extend his life. The ethical dilemma seems to frustrate itself because the solution the state is proposing is arguably the worst kind of harm, ending the life of an individual without giving them a fighting chance. How can we deem an individual’s quality of life not worthy of living? It becomes very ominous that the state has the authority over who is worthy of existing based upon their own assessment of quality of life. I think it is of vast importance to respect the decisions of caring and competent parents. If a family has the means to fight for the survival of their child by all means they should be able to seek for therapeutic remedies that have been approved by a medical review board. It is important to understand that philosophically the family unit existed long before the state. For the state to assume ownership over decisions of the family is a large overstep. It is important That we remember the state was built to support a society of families. Now this is not saying every parent is competent, it is also important to consider that each case should be investigated individually because parents are not always acting in their child’s best interests. In Charlie’s case it is obvious that the parents are caring and competent; their efforts to organize such a large world awareness of their case is evidence that they care. By letting the government control this case who is to say how much further they will go as medicine becomes more complex and ethical dilemmas become increasingly arrays of grey. It is hard to argue that taking away Charlie’s right to exist is acting in his best interest. Hopefully we can learn from Charlie’s Case and do all we can to protect parents’ rights to medical decisions for their children.
I'm a mother of a little baby the same age as Charlie. If there was something wrong with him and there was even a 10% chance of improvement I would go to the ends of the Earth for my child. These parents obviously try to do that. Holding up a child's treatment for months while fighting in court to undermine a parent's right to choose is an absolute miscarriage of Justice and blatant disregard for human life. Bureaucracy killed Charlie Gard and it is a total tragedy. My thoughts and prayers are with the family today.
The point to takeaway here is: Government healthcare is slavery. It
doesn't matter whether or not the American doctors could have saved
Charlie. Charlie's parents should have been able to take Charlie
wherever the hell they wanted to. This is pure evil. Ben Carson, the
pediatric neurosurgeon who became a front runner in the 2016 election,
was right when he said that Obamacare was the worst thing since slavery.
Ben Shapiro said it right when he said, "the government sucks at
everything". Government is but a necessary evil that should be in charge
of maintaining the "minimal state" and nothing more. We the American
people are funding, through our tax dollars, the very thing that is
diminishing our freedom. We must destroy the nanny state at all cost
otherwise our ancestors died in vain establishing this great republic.
If you are with me thumbs up this comment.
The parents have little right to choose what;s best for the child. The doctors know far better. Genetic problems like the one this child have can never be cured. The fatal flaw is in every single one of his cells and no pill or scalpel can ever remove it and those who say otherwise are lying.
Have you noticed why it's only chavs and council estate mothers that protest about ill children being taken off life support? The reason why is because most of the protesters failed to obtain even the most basic of education and as a result everything the doctors say just goes in through one year and out the other. They lack the basic educational foundations to even begin to comprehend what doctors are saying. As far as the protesters are concerned, all his problems can be solved with a pill. For anyone with more than GCSE's, it's terminal.
The hospital and the specialist now claim he was never made fully aware, even right from the start, of how serious Charlie's condition was, and that if he had been, he would never have reccomended treatment in the first place.
I call absolute BS on this. GOSH claimed they had multiple conference calls, multiple disciplinary ones involving all his specialists etc sharing info in real time with the man. And yet we are expected to believe NOT ONE OF THESE 'EXPERTS' thought to privide something so basic as his up to date tests and scan results??
The whole case stinks. Also the hospital said he was too ill to be moved to go to USA for assessment etc. Well, why the hell did they not fly over the specialist to see him amd work from there?
There is no quality of life here! for both this kids.
It's cruel to keep him alive ITS CRUEL NOT TO TRY
Demi Demon he is dead. He has already died
"he knows the code,he enters it and off he goes to youtube"....._i bet he's a jake pauler_
00:34,"he's a little fruit pie and he's a soldier"? WTF?
Sarcastamus Raconteur TROOPER not fruit pie SMH good grief lol.
Charlie's parents are truly inspirational!
I hope my message is still appropriate.
To this point I saw that Charlie died
The only reason the UK's government didn't allow Charlie and Alfie to get help for their diseases is because they were afraid of losing their power!
of course not, theres a law that doesn’t allow sick people to continue more suffering especially in this rare case of charlie.
Same as Indi Gregory, the UK courts are baby killers, the case of Tafida Raqeeb in the UK they decided she should be left to die but they were lucky to be able to take him to Italy, she is still alive, and improving, she woke up from her coma.
I can understand the parents point of view. Any parent wud do the same and cling onto any hope to save their child. But on the other hand, its a case of taking up an ICU bed which costs money and if my child needed that ICU bed and it was being used up by a child that had no chance of survival then i wud be fighting for him to be removed of it to give my child a fighting chance. Moral of the story is that everybody is out for themselves in this life.
This is so depressing
God Bless Charlie X
And that ladies and gentlemen, is why the government has no right to be in the business of healthcare
They had every right, you have no understanding of law and are just acting on emotions. It's truly tragic that this child is in the situation that it is but without any treatment that would have a realistic chance of improving his situation terminating ventilation is a better alternative to suffering needlessly
@@maarten9222 The fact that you believe the government is the humanitarian tells me you have no idea what government is and how far it would be willing to go. Your life and welling being is not its first priority. It said very clearly in the news cast that there was experimental treatments ongoing for his condition. The parents were denied that chance and he was removed from life support. Whether or not it would have worked is not the matter. It is better take a 10% chance on life than none. No parent would stop until all possibilities could be exhausted. It is obviously an ethical dilemma to keep a child alive suffering. But the chance for life, however small, is worth fighting for and the parents felt it was worth the child’s pain. No one can understand the agony of that choice those parents went through. And because of a government body, they will live and carry that pain for the rest of their lives. I find that to be cruel and inhumane
The child is theirs, not the hospital’s. Why can’t they do what they feel right for their baby? Of course they want the best for him. Pulling the plug on him is not what they want for Charlie. Your family is in my prayers. God bless!
Hi from Azerbaijan,how can the government decide to kill the boy ?it is not their right cause God gave him life not the government,it is a terror.
Are the parents millionaires now?
His father is handsome
This has turned into a political issue, and the UK government is afraid their pride will be hurt if they let little Charlie come to America and we save his life. It'll make their NHS look inferior to America's healthcare, and they don't want this embarrassment. Time to stop worrying about your image, and start worrying about saving this child's life.
I'm rich and owe you nothing, Great Ormond street hospital is one of the best in the world.
It's disgusting the media coverage of this. This is a private issue and a sign of what is wrong with our society that people can kick up so much dust around this issue. I just don't get how people aren't objecting to all these camera shoved in the families faces? There is a story like this every year and the coverage gets worse and worse each time.
The story here has stopped being about a baby boy and is more about politics and ethics of medicine. Poor kid. Poor family.
But if it hadn't been covered we would not have known about it and therefore be unable to speak up in defense for Charlie Gard. Something like this needs to be spoken of. Otherwise it will continue and more people will die.
The parents WANT their baby's story out there . Who are you to tell anyone they need to sit back & stay quiet?
TheRemainingFaithful I agree with the sentiment that people need to know about this. The problem is when the more money hungry members of the media start to intrude into this families' private lives and offer biased coverage whilst leveraging in political and socioeconomic issues. On top of that, remember the judicial system is involved and such media coverage will easily sway a judge. This is an issue that in this day and age of online activism ( and the very fact we can have a conversation like this over the internet ) would be better suited to online forums, petition sites, scientific communities and NOT headline news. Maybe a page four story instead of dragging everyone in from Trump to His Blooming Holiness the Pope. See what I mean? I've got all political now. That's not what this story should be about.
imma X imma X They don't WANT news coverage and fame specifically, they want people to actually understand this issue, care, and rally to their cause. Depressingly the only way to do that is to tip off the press, who will then profit off a little boy who is dying, slowly and miserably, whilst having no quality of life. It's not the family I have a real problem with, it's the fact that first the media and then politics has gotten involved. Trump and May and Popey Mc Popeface have all gotten involved in an issue that should have been a page four story/local news headline at its peak. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion and this media coverage is only going to bias the judge into making a bad decision under pressure.
This is an issue of science and medicine and, perhaps, ethics. Not politics.
Oh and who are you to try to assault my right to disagree?
And to UNDERSTAND it, it has to be covered. You talk through both sides of your face at once.
Prove he has no quality of life. He's not being given a chance to live. Did you even watch the footage of the older child who was given a chance playing with his parents ipad? Just because it's not something you deem to be the quality of life you would choose you don't get to choose for others. Get off your soap box & stfu. You are not his parent & they are ultimately the ones who should decide what is in their child's best interest .
The baby suffered while lawyers and judges decided his fate. They could have taken him to the US before all this to try to save his life. This society does not understand the sanctity of life. We ought to do everything we can to ensure life. But in a society that is okay with murdering their own babies in the womb, what can we expect? God will judge the judge who kept Charlie from help, and God will judge all these nations who kill the unborn. I think there will be the harshest judgement for those who actually commissioned the death of their children. But there is hope yet. As long as you are living, repent and follow Christ.
Those parants are crazy !!!!
I know i will get some people saying i don't know what i am talking about but is my opinion and everyone got a opinion. I the a act of a meter is if this won't take until a week ago to make a final decision and made it June with out dragging this out I rally think he could of gone to the USA for treatment. Look great ormond street hospital and the staff are one of the best but even doctors get stuff wrong. If the same or similar situation come a round again will the decision be a same or different because to me we should look beyond this country and ask for others doctor from other countries for treatment that can save lifes for the better.
Anthony Cottam They didn't get it wrong. He had no quality of life. He was blind, couldn't cry at all or breath on his own. His parents were in denial. No other country could have helped. The doctors knew he was suffering but his parents wanted him alive for them not because anything could help him.
People are forgetting the simple fact that this is a legal battle between the Gard family and the Great Ormand Street Hospital. The hospital has a vested interest in the death of Charlie Gard: their reputation. If Charlie seeks treatment abroad and gets better, their reputation as one of the best children's hospital worldwide will be in tatters. Don't kid yourself that this hospital has Charlie's best interests at heart, children die every day in that hospital. At the end of the day they are still a business. Albeit non-profit, they still need to breakeven like any other organisation and that relies on their reputation.
Your comments are nonsense, life, save lives , quality of life are the main concerns doctors have when making decisions r unless they are Harold Shipman. You have not clue what you are talking about
Well they turned a LOT of people against them over this case. I know many people who swore they would never donate a penny to it again.
Save Charlie!
Medicare for all
I'd rather die than be a vegetable
The parents should think about the long term consequences re; pain this boy will go through if he lives. I think his parents are inconsiderate, maybe seeking attention from the public.
They are young and could have more healthy children why subject this boy into what would be a longterm disability which will require a longterm care for the rest of his of life.
I think you need to read more about the case. There is no evidence that the child is in any pain or suffering, and none to say that he will be if he acquires treatment. They also are unlikely to have any more healthy children together. They both carry the faulty gene that caused Charlie Gard's disease. Furthermore, why is it presumed that death is a better option than living life with a disability?????
redhot663. I respect you opinion.
Your opinion
Akosua Poku
When it's your kid, you think about it. Till then, just zip it.
I have four boys and wouldn't put them through this torture. I love them to bits but what life would they have?
BABY CHARLIE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE STATE...WHY ARE THEY PLAYING GOD.....DISGRACE,
How would you know if god wanted the baby alive or dead. You don't know whats going to happen so all you can do is wait and see.
Spot on
Exactly
#save Charlie Gard😉❤
If I was Charlie.. I wouldn't want to live. It would be cruel to let me suffer all my life.
SORRY. REALITY IS BETTER THAN FANTASY SOMETIMES.
My dad is friends with charlies uncle :c
Trump peace
Save him
I feel like those doctors who have been caring for the child shouldn't be allowed to care for him anymore. This is because they don't understand how much an experimental treatment can potentially save the kid's life. They must educate themselves about this because it's unethical to claim that the treatment would only worsen the condition and not improve the quality of life.
Also the government should not be allowed to get into a situation like this, it's the parents decision that is the most important, not the government's decision. Also the hospital has to reconsider the fact that others want to help this young boy, denying him better treatment is just a very bad idea.
Alan West- My mother was saved by one of these so called "experimental procedures", and the doctor that did the procedure told me he has a 100% cure rate. My mother contracted a c-diff infection which has a high mortality rate in elderly people. The antibiotics the doctors gave her didn't cure it, and it continued to come back. After suffering with this for over a year, I found a new experimental procedure called "fecal matter transplant" where they take the feces from a healthy person with a healthy gut flora and transplant it. The procedure was done in the same manner as a colonoscopy and they used a tube to push the liquid feces into her intestines. She was instantly cured and most likely wouldn't be alive today if not for this procedure that is still classified as experimental. Your commie rat NHS probably looks down on experimental procedures because of the cost. It's all about money, and when the government controls your healthcare it's a scary thing. When it's cheaper to pull the plug than to treat someone and keep them alive, you can bet the government is going to be pulling the plug.
This is why we need to get rid of Obama Care NOW!!!!
firstS You do realize that's not what Obamacare is right?
but it will come to this
firstS Talk about story's like this all you want, the fact is children die more often in the US because they're family's can't afford treatment.