SIGN UP

Charlie Gard

Avatar Image
fbg40 | 10:39 Fri 30th Jun 2017 | News
47 Answers
Heard on the news that this poor little soul will have his life support turned off today - the "powers that be" have also said that the parents will not be allowed to take him home to die. How insensitive is this. Who will it harm ?? Can't imagine how the parents feel. If it were the child of one of the high court judges, would the outcome be the same ? I wonder ? Expect this will bring responses from both sides - I wait with baited breath.
FBG40

Answers

41 to 47 of 47rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Avatar Image
Surely a parent's wishes should be paramount?
11:18 Fri 30th Jun 2017
PP - suggest you read s1 of the Children's Act 1988. The interests of the child should be paramount in a decision by a court of law. It does not apply otherwise.

I have and they do - or it does

oo-er and I seem to recollect that Charlie Gard was a supreme court ( yes COURT) case and also ECJ
but as so often I am accused of making things up when I of course would think I am not

[ This is akin to saying "Theft is not Theft until you get to court" - to which I would agree ( being an agreeable fellow) and if you were in the house - start counting the silver ( R W Emerson) ]
I agree with ladybirder at 4pm too x
Thank you too Smow. x
poor wee mite, he must be allowed to pass in peace without pain with his parents in attendance ...have to agree that hospital is probably the best equipped to allow him that dignity...very very sad
Agree, Minty. These things happen. Very sad.
“If it were the child of one of the high court judges, would the outcome be the same ?”

If it were the child of one of the High Court judges, the said judge would not be hearing the matter.

“People have the right, and should have the right for their children, to get a second opinion. they did so and got one which conflicted with GOS. The result of that was that the hospital swung into full on attack mode….”

Not quite correct as you missed a bit out. The conflict was examined by the High Court, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. All three determined that taking the child to the USA would be futile and subject him to even greater distress than he is already suffering.

Apparently the child cannot move, cannot swallow, is almost certainly in pain and has suffered severe and irreversible brain damage. His prognosis is that his suffering will increase as his condition deteriorates. If he was an animal and its owner attempted to keep it alive in such a condition the owner would almost certainly be prosecuted for causing unnecessary pain and suffering. The needs of the child – not the parents - are paramount. The parents, understandably, are not in a position to make a reasoned and rational decision so the legal system must take over.

“…yet [the parents] have never done anything except act in his best interests.”

I disagree profoundly. The parents have not acted in his best interests. The boy is suffering and will almost certainly not survive whatever treatment he receives. The parents are acting irrationally (but understandably) and with scant regard for his interests at all. Yes there is always a chance (probably 0.000001%) that he may survive. Judges have to weigh that slim chance with the potential suffering the child will endure. This is a deeply sad business but I’m confident that three panels of judges have got it right.
I agree with NJ.

Whilst I sympathise with the plight of the parents, several courts have looked at the evidence and concured with each other.

A very sad business but the balance that NJ described of the chances of the child recovering against the risk of further continued suffering, makes the court's decision correct in my view.

41 to 47 of 47rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Charlie Gard

Answer Question >>