"PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: 'IF WE CAN HELP CHARLIE GARD, WE'D BE DELIGHTED TO DO SO'"- Steven Ertelt, July 3, 2017| http://www.lifenews.com/2017/07/03/president-donald-trump-if-we-can-help-charlie-gard-wed-be-delighted-to-do-so/ [AS I SEE IT: You might entitle this article "The Presidential Tweet the Mainstream Press Will NOT Report." Further, while at the G-20 summit the other day with world leaders, President Trump also made a personal appeal to the Prime Minister of Great Britain on Charlie's behalf. Finally, be sure to note the excerpt of the commentary posted in light green below. - Stan]
Leading pro-life organizations and disability rights campaigners have been fighting for Charlie speaking out on social media on his behalf. Now President Donald Trump has joined that chorus.
Trump’s support came after Pope Francis weighed in on their side — offering his prayers for Gard, and asking that his parents’ wishes be respected. “The Holy Father follows with affection and emotion the story of Charlie Gard and expresses his own closeness to his parents,” read a July 2 statement issued by Vatican spokesman Greg Burke.“He prays for them, wishing that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end will be respected.” Pope Francis also used his Twitter account to send a clear pro-life message to the world.
When his parents asked to take their son home to die, their request was denied. Gard’s life support machines were to be turned off Friday, but the courts allowed the parents to have more time with their child before his death. “Baby Charlie,” as he came to be known, cannot breathe on his own, has seizures, and suffered severe brain damage as a result of his disease. In March, doctors told Charlie’s parents that they did not believe that they could do anything further to treat their son, and recommended that they withdraw life support. Despite the grim diagnosis, Charlie’s parents raised over $1 million to move him to the U.S. for treatment, but the European Court of Human Rights ruled against them on Wednesday and will not permit them to treat their son.
The court said that they did not believe that the experimental treatment in the U.S. would benefit Charlie, and that it would cause him “significant harm.” “The domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.”
On Facebook, Charlie’s parents said that they were “heartbroken” and that they were aghast that they were not permitted to choose when or where their son would die. Previously, they have said that they would like their son to pass away at home, not in a hospital. They are not permitted to take him home, and they say that the hospital is “rushing” to turn off the ventilator.
Charlie entered Great Ormond Street Hospital in London in October and was diagnosed as suffering from a form of mitochondrial disease that causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. Subsequently his parents discovered that 18 people in the United States had been treated with an oral medication of naturally occurring compounds to remedy this rare condition. Reports have not identified the doctor who initially agreed to treat Charlie, but it was noted that his parents were aware that no cure was promised.
The main argument offered by the hospital to countermand parental authority was to protect Charlie’s “best interests.” However, attorneys for Charlie’s parents argued that the hospital was basically holding Charlie hostage, violating several articles under the European Convention on Human Rights, including the rights to life, liberty and family privacy.
Terri Schiavo’s brother Bobby Schindler has weighed in on the situation. “Charlie Gard’s life is more valuable than British and European bureaucrats realize,” explains Bobby Schindler, President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network. “The central issue of the Charlie Gard struggle,” continues Bobby Schindler, “is not about rationing, limited resources, or even life support. At issue is whether universal healthcare means that bureaucrats and judges will determine appropriate treatment, or whether parents like Charlie’s with the energy, finances, and physicians to care for their child will be allowed to do so.”
The Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network has served more than 2,500 medically vulnerable patients and families. The Network been instrumental in similar parental rights cases, particularly the case of Jahi McMath who is now home with her family, and baby Joseph Maraachli who was ultimately allowed to die peacefully in his sleep from natural causes at home, surrounded by loved ones.
Schindler added: “We don’t need judges posing as anguished moral philosophers, weighing what makes a life worth living. We simply need them to rule on whether mothers and fathers have an inalienable right to care for their own children. Are we better off in a society where government officials are encouraged literally to separate loved ones from each other? Is it better for Charlie Gard to live and die at home with his family, or in a state institution?”
[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Honor Gard: #LetCharlieLive" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, July 06, 2017; http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20170706/honor-gard
"Charlie Gard’s Mom Won’t Give Up: '“If He’s Still Fighting, We’re Still Fighting'"
- Steven Ertelet, JUL 3, 2017; http://www.lifenews.com/2017/07/03/charlie-gards-mom-wont-give-up-if-hes-still-fighting-were-still-fighting/
"The Tragic Case of Charlie Gard Highlights the Importance of Parental Rights" -
Paul Diamond / July 04, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/04/tragic-case-charlie-gard-highlights-importance-parental-rights/ "...In a recent U.K. case, the social workers backed the right of a four-year-old boy to transition to a girl. Fortunately, the British judge had some common sense and recognized that this was harming the child.
In the case of the Christian foster carers denied registration because of their beliefs, the government-backed Equality and Human Rights Commission argued it was their responsibility to protect vulnerable children from becoming “infected” with Judeo-Christian ethics on sexual conduct. The reader should be aware that they are not mistaken in what they have just read, the Commission did in fact use the term “infected.”
It is time that courts in the civilized world recognized the fundamental rights of parents to rear their children, and that the state is a neutral actor that should not pursue social agendas under the guise of the “best interests of the child.” The state should only interfere where there is clear exposure of harm to a child (violence, abuse, or neglect).
There must be a clear jurisdictional limitation to the actions of a court—namely that the parent is always a better decision maker than anyone else, be it a social worker, hospital, or court. The views of a custodial fit parent must be respected in substance, not merely in the form of platitudes. The parents of Charlie have suffered a great wrong and the consequences will affect many other decent parents.
This arrogance of the elites, who presume to know what is the best for a child over those parents who are deemed too emotive, too uneducated, or who have the wrong religious views, is not a peculiar British problem. This problem that alive and well in the U.S. as well, and must be countered wherever it is found.
No comments:
Post a Comment