The Two Californias
We Need to Talk About How the Brown University Presser Was a Complete...
We Have More Details on the Killing of Rob Reiner and His Wife...
Australia's Prime Minister Vows More Gun Restrictions After Terrorist Attack
What This Muslim Man Did During the Australia Shooting Will Shock You
House Republicans Just Dropped a Bombshell About DC Crime Rates
FBI Says It Foiled Planned New Year's Eve Terrorist Attack in This City
Police Make an Arrest in the Death of Rob Reiner and His Wife
President Trump Reacts to Rob Reiner's Death
Australia Proves Gun Control Doesn't Work
Islamic Preacher Vows to Take Germany Back to the Stone Age
NBC News Stirs the 'Systemic Racism' Pot With Update on Once-Inaccessible Activities
Little Sisters of the Poor Have Filed Yet Another Appeal to Protect Themselves...
In Wake of Islamic Terror Attack, Australian PM Albanese Warns of Rising Threat...
It Was Islam… Again!
Tipsheet

Charlie Gard's Life Support To Be Withdrawn After Parents Lose Appeal

UPDATE: Charlie's parents will be "allowed" to spend more time with him as the hospital continues to make plans to shut off his life support.

Advertisement

---Original Post---

Charlie Gard, the 10-month-old baby in the United Kingdom who is afflicted with a rare mitochondrial disease, will have his life support withdrawn after his parents lost their appeal to transport their son to the United States for an experimental treatment. 

"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.”

Advertisement

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. 

It's absurd that a court can claim to know what's in Charlie's best interest. His parents are neither negligent nor incompetent, and they should not be prohibited from trying a last-ditch effort to try to improve their son's life. Further, the fact that they're not allowed to choose when and where to withdraw life support on their terms is maddening. This is a sickening violation of basic humanity.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement