Charlie Gard

[Robert]

We are pretty much all acquainted with this case and have been listening to the news about whats happening, but it recently hit me that these parents have no control over their own child. I mean really having to go to court to ask where their child can die, come on. The courts at first didnt want to approve a experimental treatment and said to die and now dont want to let the child die at home. Its a known case with medical history documented and they are still going to court.

I see some of this in the US today when we have to answer how we treat our kids or in the fact that we have to have an insurance company approve a procedure that the dr ordered. No one likes abuses of any kind either with children or with health care billing but I can see this happening in the US and it frosts me.

So how do you guys feel about this, is anyone as bothered as me about having to go to court to say where your child will die?

[..]

The UK National Health Service that so many look upon as a shining beacon. Ha!

[old2soon]

The UK National Health Service that so many look upon as a shining beacon. Ha!

          What he said. A judge knows more than a doctor?  Parents just NATURALLY want the very best for their children. Makes one wonder had the judges mommy NOT given a crap bout him.  RIDE SAFE.

[Willow]

I have a lot of problems with government managed medical care but this case includes none of them.

O2S, it was the medical persons (doctors) that the judge supported in this case.  I have no issues with the concerns they raised.

[Robert]

I have a lot of problems with government managed medical care but this case includes none of them.

O2S, it was the medical persons (doctors) that the judge supported in this case.  I have no issues with the concerns they raised.

So if you had a child and knew it was going to die and there was no hope for, you would be ok that it was not your God given right to decide and be ok with going to the courts to ask permission to bring your child home to die?

[Willow]

I have a lot of problems with government managed medical care but this case includes none of them.

O2S, it was the medical persons (doctors) that the judge supported in this case.  I have no issues with the concerns they raised.

So if you had a child and knew it was going to die and there was no hope for, you would be ok that it was not your God given right to decide and be ok with going to the courts to ask permission to bring your child home to die?

Apparently you didn't closely read the article at the link you posted.  The medical team raised issues with whether the home location was capable of giving the care of the dying baby.  There was no question that the hospital had the necessary equipment and environment.

As to your question, I am sixty-six years of age.  It is unlikely that at this time I will have a child born with genetic terminal issues.  We are talking about a child of less than one year of age expected to expire within the next couple of weeks.  Would you have a problem with the parents deciding to just hold a pillow over the baby's face?  I would.  Wouldn't taking the baby home without the perceived necessary care elements be just hastening the death?

I believe it is the government's job to protect humans of all ages.  This is a rather unique situation.

I do question your use of the term "God given right".  Do you have scripture that lists those rights?        

[Gryphon Rider]

I do question your use of the term "God given right".  Do you have scripture that lists those rights?        

"...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Declarations of God-given rights, including the one I've quoted above, are almost always bereft of scriptural support.  There is one notable exception that doesn't really address the issue at hand:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name..." John 1:12

[The emperor has no clothes]

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name..." John 1:12

What does the last part of that scripture mean ? To people who believe in God, but haven't received him in their heart ?

[Robert]

I'm pretty sure that the state did not give birth yet to children, but this may be the real question here isn't it?

I am also pretty sure in the bible there is no scripture that God gave that says the state or government raise your children either, that is unless you look at the passages for slaves.

[Willow]

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name..." John 1:12

What does the last part of that scripture mean ? To people who believe in God, but haven't received him in their heart ?

"Receive Him in your heart" is a sort of euphemism we have adopted.  It's not so much in the scripture that way.  The Greek that refers to "believing" in God implies more than just believing He exists.  It includes accepting Him as in control of all and giving oneself to Him as His servant.

That said, the second portion of the verse is simply restating and clarifying the opening phrase.

[Gryphon Rider]

FYI, I typed my response below before reading Willow's response.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name..." John 1:12

What does the last part of that scripture mean ? To people who believe in God, but haven't received him in their heart ?

The word even was put in there by the translators to better convey the meaning of the Greek, and is used to add specificity to the first phrase, "as many as received him".  Another way to put it might be, "But as many as received him, that is, those who believed in his name, to them he gave the right to become children of God."

I was quoting from the NASB, in this case because I like that it capitalizes Him, He, and His, and that the NASB is a more word-for-word translation of the Greek.  Perhaps the NIV relates the overall thought better by moving the last phrase to be after the first, "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..."

In this verse, John is saying receiving Him also means believing in His name, specifically believing all that John claims Jesus to be in John 1:1-18

[big d]

There are a couple problems I see with this case. England is socialized medicine so the courts are the only way to overturn the boards decision. The board is a panel of people that don't necessarily have any medical knowledge. Welcome to single payer healthcare. It boils down to what is financially expedient, not what is in the best interest of the patient or the patients family. If the medical board had allowed treatment of poor Charlie Gard immediately the outcome might be different. Please note I said might, no guarantee. But the American doctor that last checked Charlie said he had been left untreated for too long. This is what will happen here in America when Obamacare fails, single payer healthcare and medical panels deciding who gets treated and what gets treated, all depends on how old you are and how much you will cost to keep alive and healthy.....

[The emperor has no clothes]

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name..." John 1:12

What does the last part of that scripture mean ? To people who believe in God, but haven't received him in their heart ?

"Receive Him in your heart" is a sort of euphemism we have adopted.  It's not so much in the scripture that way.  The Greek that refers to "believing" in God implies more than just believing He exists.  It includes accepting Him as in control of all and giving oneself to Him as His servant.

That said, the second portion of the verse is simply restating and clarifying the opening phrase.

FYI, I typed my response below before reading Willow's response.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name..." John 1:12

What does the last part of that scripture mean ? To people who believe in God, but haven't received him in their heart ?

The word even was put in there by the translators to better convey the meaning of the Greek, and is used to add specificity to the first phrase, "as many as received him".  Another way to put it might be, "But as many as received him, that is, those who believed in his name, to them he gave the right to become children of God."

I was quoting from the NASB, in this case because I like that it capitalizes Him, He, and His, and that the NASB is a more word-for-word translation of the Greek.  Perhaps the NIV relates the overall thought better by moving the last phrase to be after the first, "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..."

In this verse, John is saying receiving Him also means believing in His name, specifically believing all that John claims Jesus to be in John 1:1-18

Thanks guys. I have a hard time understanding scripture. (I have a hard time understanding a lot of things)

[Robert]

Joh 1:11  He came to his own homeland, yet his own people did not receive him.

Joh 1:12  But to as many as did receive him, to those who put their trust in his person and power, he gave the right to become children of God

That may shed some light on your question

[Moonshot_1]

I can't say that this story about this kid is an indictment of the UK's health system.
From what I've read though it is an indictment of government and bureaucracy.

The child is born with a condition that is likely terminal. There are treatments and experimental therapies that may be of promise but the window for the success of such therapies and treatments rapidly closes while the bureaucracy and government slowly and coldly grinds on in it's quest to approve such things.

 The windows of opportunity are dependent on government approval and the windows close at a rate that exceeds the government bureaucratic means. In this agonizing process all hope fades. Not that there was any real hope to begin with, but now, even the last glimmer of any hope is gone.

Now the parents want to bring their child home with the medical folks denying the request.

To me the issue is now the difference of the quantity of life vs. the quality of life.
For me, the child, whether he is cognizant of it or not, should experience home. The sounds, smells, feel, and other experiences to the ability he is able. Even if this means taking days off his life in the process.
If the medical folks would deny the parents this because they believed that giving the child more time would lead to more hope for a better quality of life, I'd be on the side of the medical folks. But that is not the situation that is presented to us.

Every side on this issue has the child's best interest at heart. The problem resides in defining what is the best interest.

The best interest is to send the child home to his family and support them with the best medical support till the demise of the child at home with a caring family at his side as opposed to a demise in a cold, clinical, antiseptic room as a patient and statistic.

[Oss]

Just a century ago I will wager most people were born at home and most people died at home or where they were stricken down  Many many kids did not make it to adulthood because of diseases

I sincerely believe that young people today, and even myself, have been  removed from the stark reality of the true cycle of life, All that is born will perish, all that has been created will eventually end of this world.  Its good that parents dont have to watch their children die in large numbers through eradication of so many childhood diseases

These parents, from what I see, did attempt to save their child's life but became caught up in the buzz saw of medical/political  machine

My heart goes out to them

I can only offer as to scripture...  The first life created was Adam      0ne soul yet how soon was another slain?

Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world. Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Yerushalmi Talmud 4:9, Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 37a.

I have wondered why it doesnt translate as destroy a life, I think I understand the answer as there are many ways to die without death
as in a coward dies a thousand deaths, heartbreak is like death, crushing a soul through abuse etc

[MP]

I have a lot of problems with government managed medical care but this case includes none of them.

O2S, it was the medical persons (doctors) that the judge supported in this case.  I have no issues with the concerns they raised.

So if you had a child and knew it was going to die and there was no hope for, you would be ok that it was not your God given right to decide and be ok with going to the courts to ask permission to bring your child home to die?

Apparently you didn't closely read the article at the link you posted.  The medical team raised issues with whether the home location was capable of giving the care of the dying baby.  There was no question that the hospital had the necessary equipment and environment.


I believe it is the government's job to protect humans of all ages.  This is a rather unique situation.

I do question your use of the term "God given right".  Do you have scripture that lists those rights?        

The baby is dying.  Home is where he should be.  Do they have EVERYTHING the hospital has?  Heck no.  Who cares.  The baby is dying. At home, surrounded by love, is where he should be.  So, he dies a few hours earlier, AT HOME.  As it should be.

This should be the PARENTS decision, not some nameless board deciding.  PARENTS.

I know I would rather die at home.  If possible.

Welcome to Single Payer.  A Board decides that NO TREATMENT will be given, even to allow him to go to another country, FREE of charge!  The Board sentences him to DEATH.

Then, when the parents want to take him home to die, surrounded by love, The BOARD says NO!  Why, because they cannot give him the best medical care!  Who cares?  The BOARD has already given him a DEATH SENTENCE, but now says care at home is not good enough?

Welcome to SINGLE PAYER.

[Serk]

Charlie Gard is now at peace.

[old2soon]

Even though this young man has passed I feel the debate will rage on for awhile yet. May he FOREVER R I P.   RIDE SAFE.

[big d]

My thoughts and prayers go out to his heart broken parents.

[Robert]

Ethics Professor On Charlie Gard: 'Children Do Not Belong To Their Parents'

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18956/guardian-charlie-gard-children-do-not-belong-their-amanda-prestigiacomo

The story of 11-month-old U.K. baby Charlie Gard is equally heartbreaking, maddening, and terrifying. The boy's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, were barred from pursuing experimental but potentially life-saving treatment in the United States on their own dime by European bureaucrats who said it was in Charlie's best interest to die, in their hospital, on their terms.

The story triggered a strong reaction here in the United States and abroad; President Donald Trump, Pope Francis, and hundreds of thousands of petition-signing Americans and Brits were all appalled by the horrors of a court mandating parents (who had not forfeited their rights because of neglect or abuse) pull the plug on their infant son and stop fighting for his life.

RIP Charlie Gard Hopefully we will not let this death mean nothing to those that want to take the parents role away from them.

[..]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/02/surprise-question-puts-thousands-premature-end-of-life-nhs-footing/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_null