British baby at end of life support draws in pope, Trump

British baby at end of life support draws in pope, Trump

A terminal child British has attracted the attention of the President of the United States and the Pope. More than 1.3 million pounds ($ 1.68 million) have been raised to help Charlie Gard, aged 11 months to go to the United States for treatment.

However, little has changed for the baby Charlie, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder that left him brain damaged and unable to breathe without assistance.
Vital support soon received at a London hospital will be out of objections from his parents, who want to run the United States for experimental therapy they believe may extend their life.

A succession of expert judges supported the Great Ormond Street Hospital who say that the treatment will have no effect on Charlie and could make him suffer. The British Supreme Court ruled that it is in the interest of the child to be able to die with dignity. The European Court of Human Rights rejected last week appealed to the parents of Charlie, Chris and Connie Gard Yates, exhausting their legal options.

They spent time with Charlie before being removed from life support.

Upon entering the case in recent days, President Donald Trump and Francis Pope gave Gard Yates and a new hope and cast an international focus on the ethical debate between the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children against Authorities to ensure that people who do not speak to themselves receive the most appropriate attention.

“The world is watching,” reads the headline at the top of charliesfight.org, the website dedicated to Charlie’s cause. “Two of the most powerful men in the world want to give Charlie Gard their chance.”

Great Ormond Street Hospital said on Tuesday there were no new changes in Charlie’s attention.

Trump criticized Monday that he would be “delighted” to help Charlie, who suffers from mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which causes progressive muscle weakness. The president’s comment came after Francis has issued a statement saying that the rights of parents to treat their son “to the extreme” should be respected.

The hospital for the Vatican’s children investigated whether it was possible to transfer Great Ormond Street Charlie in Rome. But the president of the Bambino Gesú Hospital, Mariella Enoc, said he had been informed that the London hospital board said Charlie could not move for legal reasons.

However, the problem was always discussed on Tuesday.

“I got in touch with the mother, who is a very decisive and decisive person and will not stop for anything,” Enoch told reporters.

The Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, said that the Holy See will do its utmost to overcome legal obstacles to bring Charlie Child Jesus for treatment.

“Overcoming these problems? If we do, we will do it,” Parolin said.

The fight to keep Charlie in life is not about money. Charlie’s parents used a crowdfunding website to raise money to pay for treatment in the United States. Instead, it revolves around an ethical debate about what is best for the child.

Under British law, it is normal for courts to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the treatment of a child – such as cases where the parents’ religious beliefs prohibit blood transfusions.

The rights of the child are the rule more than the rights of the parents to make the call. It is a principle that applies even in cases where the parents have another point of view, according to the British Court of Appeal.

And the British courts have been consistent in this case. Three cuts have agreed that experimental treatment would be useless and could “cause a lot of pain, suffering and distress to Charlie.”

The parents appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which has refused to intervene and approved the decision of the British judges.

“It was a decision on what is best for this child,” said Claire Fenton-Glynn, a University of Cambridge University studying Children’s Rights. “It’s a very difficult decision for the court, and that’s not what doctors or the court have taken lightly.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *