On the international front, from the Front Page Sections, translated…
The British infant boy with a rare condition, Charlie Gard’s parents, on the 13th, went to London’s High Courts with new evidence, demanded that the judge release their son who’s living on an ventilator to allow him to head to the U.S. for treatment.
here’s the young baby, hooked up to the machines, photo from online…
Charlie’s parents didn’t agree with the hospitals call to treat their eleven months old infant son. This most well-known British Children’s Hospital’s medical team of experts believed, that the experimental treatments available in the U.S. can’t help Charlie, instead, it’d make him suffer even more. Charlie was diagnosed with mitochordrial DNA depletion syndrome, causing him to suffer brain damage, which made him unable to breathe on his own. The hospital stated, that the condition is currently terminal, that turning off the machines would be in the best interests for the infant.
On the 13th, Charlie’s parents after the judge questioned how they were inconsistent in their testimonies, they’d both, rushed out of the courthouses, the father Chris, beaten the tables with his fist, the mother, Connie Yates cried aloud, “We are sure that he wasn’t suffering, if he has, we wouldn’t be fighting here for his sake”; afterwards, they both, ran out of the courthouse, and left.
Both Charlie’s parents fought for their son’s sake, but, neither had the right to decide. The British laws mandated, that when the patient can no longer state for her/himself, and the families disagreed with the treatment procedures of the hospitals, then, a judge intervenes. In this particular case, the right of the child became the key, and the judge will examine if Charlie is suffering, and if the proposed treatment will actually be helpful or not.
The London University’s Healthcare Law professor, Montgomery stated, “Unlike in the U.S., the British law focused on protecting the rights of children, but, U.S. is the only country that hadn’t signed the UN’s Children’s Rights Pact, and the country believed, that the child’s right doesn’t exist independently from the parents’ rights.”
the parents at the hostpial with this young infant, photo from online…
He believed, that although Charlie’s parents’ point of view is worth considering but, it wouldn’t have an effect on the judge’s decision, that Charlie’s rights and related evidence is what would be the key to the determination of whether or not to terminate his care.
The judge responsible in ruling the case, Frances in April, leaned towards the doctors’ judgments, but stated that he would reconsider all the newer evidence that had been presented to him.
So, from the parents’ point of view, yeah sure, I can see WHY you would want to do whatever you possibly can to treat your child, especially if there’s the slightest amount of hoping in keeping him alive, but, on a more humane perspective, it’s not good, to have this young baby on the machines, suffering long, and, maybe, the parents want to believe, that their young son wasn’t suffering, but, who knows, they’re NOT the medical professionals, and maybe, these parents are just too stressed out by the fact that they’re going to lose their son, that, is why they’re, fighting to keep him alive.