While Charlie Gard’s heartbroken parents ‘let him go,’ the left viciously reacts

[Clementine]

No sooner did time run out for Charlie Gard to obtain potential lifesaving treatment, the left is rolling their eyes at the crazy parents who dared to question the state and attempt to seek medical care for their baby.

Yes, these stupid parents thought they should have a right to do anything possible to save their baby's life. They forgot that they were supposed to allow the state to call the shots, even if it meant disregarding treatment that might allow their child to live. The state is the rightful owner of our children and ourselves. The government is our master. The left would prefer that we all embrace that idea and stop questioning them. Babies should be aborted anyway so why would they want to spend money, in a country with socialized medicine, to save the life of a baby? The left will say it was a waste of money for something unsure. No appreciation for research hospitals and the the fact that there is always a first time something is tried and works to preserve life. I guess that isn't their goal when they cry about losing Obamacare. It's not about lives. It's about feeding Big Pharms and making people feel good because they have insurance. But if it's really life you want, don't ever turn to the left for help or hope.


"Perhaps Ian Kennedy — another writer for The Guardian — most explicitly articulates the Left’s anger that the Gard case has stirred a bit of questioning of the wisdom of “The State” — even when “The State” refuses to allow parents to seek experimental, but potentially life-saving treatment for their 11-month infant.

He argues that parents are not “the last word” when it comes to the welfare of a child, even when the parents are not actively harming the child, but rather seeking potential good for the child.

Kennedy states that for cases in which the parents and the State are in dispute over the welfare of a child, there are steps one must take:

The first is to recognise that children do not belong to their parents.

Second, when a claim is made that parents have rights over their children, it is important to step back and examine the language used. We need to remind ourselves that parents do not have rights regarding their children, they only have duties, the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests. This has been part of the fabric of our law and our society for a long time.

Third, if we are concerned with the language of rights, it is, of course, children who have rights; any rights that parents have exist only to protect their children’s rights.

Kennedy adds that “[t]his process depends of course on acceptance of the supremacy of reasoned argument over passion, and the acceptance of the independence and authority of the courts.”

Kennedy’s urging that we accept “the authority of the courts” over our own passions, even our passion for the welfare of our children, is obviously frightening.

Granted there are cases in which a court should take a child away from an abusive parent. No one would defend a parent who hospitalizes a toddler by arguing that the parent was within his or her right, since the toddler belongs to the parent.

But how many of us would accept it if our child (or spouse, or parent) were to require a new form of radiation therapy for cancer, and told “no,” even if we could to pay for the treatment ourselves? Are we so without rights over the welfare of our children that we must concede all such decisions to the State in the way Kennedy suggests?

Kennedy, like many on the left, requires of us a type of orthodoxical allegiance to the wisdom of government, and the so-called experts that represent the government.

But as Orwell wrote in 1984, “orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

That is not what we, as free people, aspire to."

While Charlie Gard's heartbroken parents 'let him go,' the left viciously reacts

 

[shockedcanadian]

No sooner did time run out for Charlie Gard to obtain potential lifesaving treatment, the left is rolling their eyes at the crazy parents who dared to question the state and attempt to seek medical care for their baby.

Yes, these stupid parents thought they should have a right to do anything possible to save their baby's life. They forgot that they were supposed to allow the state to call the shots, even if it meant disregarding treatment that might allow their child to live. The state is the rightful owner of our children and ourselves. The government is our master. The left would prefer that we all embrace that idea and stop questioning them. Babies should be aborted anyway so why would they want to spend money, in a country with socialized medicine, to save the life of a baby? The left will say it was a waste of money for something unsure. No appreciation for research hospitals and the the fact that there is always a first time something is tried and works to preserve life. I guess that isn't their goal when they cry about losing Obamacare. It's not about lives. It's about feeding Big Pharms and making people feel good because they have insurance. But if it's really life you want, don't ever turn to the left for help or hope.


"Perhaps Ian Kennedy — another writer for The Guardian — most explicitly articulates the Left’s anger that the Gard case has stirred a bit of questioning of the wisdom of “The State” — even when “The State” refuses to allow parents to seek experimental, but potentially life-saving treatment for their 11-month infant.

He argues that parents are not “the last word” when it comes to the welfare of a child, even when the parents are not actively harming the child, but rather seeking potential good for the child.

Kennedy states that for cases in which the parents and the State are in dispute over the welfare of a child, there are steps one must take:

The first is to recognise that children do not belong to their parents.

Second, when a claim is made that parents have rights over their children, it is important to step back and examine the language used. We need to remind ourselves that parents do not have rights regarding their children, they only have duties, the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests. This has been part of the fabric of our law and our society for a long time.

Third, if we are concerned with the language of rights, it is, of course, children who have rights; any rights that parents have exist only to protect their children’s rights.

Kennedy adds that “[t]his process depends of course on acceptance of the supremacy of reasoned argument over passion, and the acceptance of the independence and authority of the courts.”

Kennedy’s urging that we accept “the authority of the courts” over our own passions, even our passion for the welfare of our children, is obviously frightening.

Granted there are cases in which a court should take a child away from an abusive parent. No one would defend a parent who hospitalizes a toddler by arguing that the parent was within his or her right, since the toddler belongs to the parent.

But how many of us would accept it if our child (or spouse, or parent) were to require a new form of radiation therapy for cancer, and told “no,” even if we could to pay for the treatment ourselves? Are we so without rights over the welfare of our children that we must concede all such decisions to the State in the way Kennedy suggests?

Kennedy, like many on the left, requires of us a type of orthodoxical allegiance to the wisdom of government, and the so-called experts that represent the government.

But as Orwell wrote in 1984, “orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

That is not what we, as free people, aspire to."

While Charlie Gard's heartbroken parents 'let him go,' the left viciously reacts

What I find astounding is that the same people who say that this child has rights and it is not the parents choice, are the same who say that an unborn child does not have rights and it is solely the choice of the mother.

Just some hypocrisy I have noticed.

 

[toobfreak]

You just can't look too close or all you'll find is staggering contradictions with the Left. The very thing that prevents them from seeing the totally messed up state of their ideals is bad wiring from birth.

What is most sad though is it never was the state's business to decide if a sick baby could be taken elsewhere for a possible cure or not. The kid is not property of the state, a piece of meat, what was their reasoning: Outside the UK for a cure? Why, we'd prefer he rather DIE than be cured in another country!?

On every level that is just so PLAIN F---ED UP that it is almost as incredible as the very people who delayed the child SINCE LAST NOVEMBER getting experimental treatment were the SAME ONES who the other day said that the kid had been in this state for SO LONG that he was now brain dead and with irreparable muscle atrophy, so there was no way they could ever sanction the treatment. SCREW YOU ENGLAND.

THAT IS ROYALLY F---ED UP. Hard to believe a civilized country could even think that way.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****SAD SMILE*****

 

[Clementine]

You just can't look too close or all you'll find is staggering contradictions with the Left. The very thing that prevents them from seeing the totally messed up state of their ideals is bad wiring from birth.

What is most sad though is it never was the state's business to decide if a sick baby could be taken elsewhere for a possible cure or not. The kid is not property of the state, a piece of meat, what was their reasoning: Outside the UK for a cure? Why, we'd prefer he rather DIE than be cured in another country!?

On every level that is just so PLAIN F---ED UP that it is almost as incredible as the very people who delayed the child SINCE LAST NOVEMBER getting experimental treatment were the SAME ONES who the other day said that the kid had been in this state for SO LONG that he was now brain dead and with irreparable muscle atrophy, so there was no way they could ever sanction the treatment. SCREW YOU ENGLAND.

THAT IS ROYALLY F---ED UP. Hard to believe a civilized country could even think that way.

It is totally fucked up. I don't know why the parents had to fight for this from the start. They should have had the option of seeking care where ever they wanted. But the state said no and delayed everything by making the parents go through the courts. Insane doesn't begin to describe this. If any of the leaders there needed treatment not available in the UK, they'd be on a plane to one of the Mayo clinics here in the states. Happens every day as socialist and communist leaders ensure that they have the best of care from all over the world. For the people, well, they are at the mercy of the state because the government controls healthcare. Libs want that here. The argument is that our current system isn't fair to everyone. So, their answer is to make sure they take away options from those who can afford it. It's not about improving things for everyone. Socialism is about bringing everyone down to the same level so the suffering is even. Except for the leaders who will always be above the people.

McCain has my sympathies for his condition, but he won't be going to the VA for care like many who served with him.

 

[DJT for Life]

The actions arte not surprising. Notice that the MSM hardly covered
this story for the most part.

If they would have sent that youngster to America from a single payer system
and that US doctor had been able to help him, that narrative would have blown
up in their face.

The Left is breathing a sigh of relief tonight.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Under socialized medicine all innovation, all research, all development stops. Even if the patient can and is willing to pay out of pocket, under single payer it's prohibited.

That's why there are no inventions from socialist countries.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You just can't look too close or all you'll find is staggering contradictions with the Left.

pretty amazing actually

 

[Clementine]

The actions arte not surprising. Notice that the MSM hardly covered
this story for the most part.

If they would have sent that youngster to America from a single payer system
and that US doctor had been able to help him, that narrative would have blown
up in their face.

The Left is breathing a sigh of relief tonight.

That's a good point. And they never talk about the leaders of those single payer system countries who do come here to get the best treatment available. That is how it always goes in socialist and communist countries. Leaders have it all and the masses get whatever the tyrants feel like giving them.


The left is all about making big government look like the answer to everything and they'll NEVER discuss the failure of leftist policies. Their answer is to make everyone equally miserable, not encourage everyone to elevate and improve their lives. They appeal to those at the bottom.

 

[deanrd]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

And apparently neither do you

 

[Carter Malone]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

They cared about this baby because he didn't get food stamps.

And because he was a convenient cudgel.

Poor parents. They did what any parent would do and ended up being used as a club by the right, to do they only thing they ever do.

 

[BULLDOG]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

 

[Carter Malone]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

That poor baby suffered so and there was never any possibility of treatment or a cure. Just more pain and suffering.

His welfare should have been the primary concern. Reading the link in the OP showed bloody little of that. But consider the source: Screwy Allen West.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped him. Grrr, this just pisses me off the dirty bastards.

 

[BULLDOG]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

That poor baby suffered so and there was never any possibility of treatment or a cure. Just more pain and suffering.

His welfare should have been the primary concern. Reading the link in the OP showed bloody little of that. But consider the source: Screwy Allen West.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I have no animosity toward the parents. I would hang on to any possibility to save my child too. My heart hurts for them. The political jerks that hijacked this tragic situation should be horse whipped.

 

[BULLDOG]

Charlie Guard is a tragic case, and I extend my sympathies to his parents, but it is worth while to read at least part of the judges ruling
Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
"I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

"However, the US doctor made it clear that, were Charlie in the US, he would treat him if the parents so desired and could pay for it. As I have already said, funding in this case is not in issue. The US doctor also confirmed during this telephone conversation that he had never treated with nucleoside therapy anyone who had encephalopathy, therefore he was unable to indicate from any scientific basis whether a patient with encephalopathy would respond positively.

"Charlie suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever treated this form
of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy, with some recorded benefit. In mouse models the benefit to TK2 patients was put at 4% of life expectancy. There is no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier, which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the hope that it might do so. There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie's best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him.
"The GOSH team believe that Charlie can probably experience pain, but is unable to react to it in a meaningful way. Their evidence was that being ventilated, being suctioned, living as Charlie does, are all capable of causing pain. Transporting Charlie to the USA would be problematic, but possible. Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory, for it has never even been tested even on mouse models, but it may (or may not) subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations. But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?

"It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie's best interests, that I find it is in Charlie's best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.

"I want to thank the team of experts and carers at GOSH, and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provide to this family. Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie's parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born."

But it's not the judges place to take that choice away from the parents......or it shouldn't be. They don't know if it would have helped him. Grrr, this just pisses me off the dirty bastards.

The parents did what any parent would do for their child, no matter how futile it might have been.
The judge didn't choose to rule on this case. It was assigned to him, and his duty was to decide what was best for Charlie. Several doctors testified that treatment was extremely unlikely to improve his condition, and would probably cause him more pain.
The US doctor offering the experimental treatment, after conferring with Charlie's doctors, told the judge

Read full summary of judge's ruling over baby Charlie Gard's life support
'Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.'

 

[Two Thumbs]

No sooner did time run out for Charlie Gard to obtain potential lifesaving treatment, the left is rolling their eyes at the crazy parents who dared to question the state and attempt to seek medical care for their baby.

Yes, these stupid parents thought they should have a right to do anything possible to save their baby's life. They forgot that they were supposed to allow the state to call the shots, even if it meant disregarding treatment that might allow their child to live. The state is the rightful owner of our children and ourselves. The government is our master. The left would prefer that we all embrace that idea and stop questioning them. Babies should be aborted anyway so why would they want to spend money, in a country with socialized medicine, to save the life of a baby? The left will say it was a waste of money for something unsure. No appreciation for research hospitals and the the fact that there is always a first time something is tried and works to preserve life. I guess that isn't their goal when they cry about losing Obamacare. It's not about lives. It's about feeding Big Pharms and making people feel good because they have insurance. But if it's really life you want, don't ever turn to the left for help or hope.


"Perhaps Ian Kennedy — another writer for The Guardian — most explicitly articulates the Left’s anger that the Gard case has stirred a bit of questioning of the wisdom of “The State” — even when “The State” refuses to allow parents to seek experimental, but potentially life-saving treatment for their 11-month infant.

He argues that parents are not “the last word” when it comes to the welfare of a child, even when the parents are not actively harming the child, but rather seeking potential good for the child.

Kennedy states that for cases in which the parents and the State are in dispute over the welfare of a child, there are steps one must take:

The first is to recognise that children do not belong to their parents.

Second, when a claim is made that parents have rights over their children, it is important to step back and examine the language used. We need to remind ourselves that parents do not have rights regarding their children, they only have duties, the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests. This has been part of the fabric of our law and our society for a long time.

Third, if we are concerned with the language of rights, it is, of course, children who have rights; any rights that parents have exist only to protect their children’s rights.

Kennedy adds that “[t]his process depends of course on acceptance of the supremacy of reasoned argument over passion, and the acceptance of the independence and authority of the courts.”

Kennedy’s urging that we accept “the authority of the courts” over our own passions, even our passion for the welfare of our children, is obviously frightening.

Granted there are cases in which a court should take a child away from an abusive parent. No one would defend a parent who hospitalizes a toddler by arguing that the parent was within his or her right, since the toddler belongs to the parent.

But how many of us would accept it if our child (or spouse, or parent) were to require a new form of radiation therapy for cancer, and told “no,” even if we could to pay for the treatment ourselves? Are we so without rights over the welfare of our children that we must concede all such decisions to the State in the way Kennedy suggests?

Kennedy, like many on the left, requires of us a type of orthodoxical allegiance to the wisdom of government, and the so-called experts that represent the government.

But as Orwell wrote in 1984, “orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

That is not what we, as free people, aspire to."

While Charlie Gard's heartbroken parents 'let him go,' the left viciously reacts

the left is nothing but a bunch of evil monkeys that are conditioned to beat anyone that reaches for the fruit.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

you cheered as one was sentenced to death.

 

[BULLDOG]

Oh please. Republicans don't care about a baby.

you cheered as one was sentenced to death.

Yep. You're nuts. Why don't you learn about what actually happened, instead of just spouting more crazy right wing crap?