Charlie Gard Case 5

[LovelyBath77]

A new thread to follow on from the others about this case.

User. The Judge met Charlie

I was shocked to read a thread about Charlie on a mostly American based forum which I was a regular on for years and years. They seem to believe that the only ones who should get to decide if Charlie comes off the ventilator or have any other treatment are his parents.

I can't wrap my head around that. They are actually very intelligent people but it does interest me how they view things so differently. They believe that unless a child is being abused or severely neglected the parents should get to decide what happens next with Charlie and it should never have been allowed to go to court in the first place. Parents should get the complete say in what happens to him because they are his parents.

I'm afraid I can't understand most of what user wrote.

Must.not.engage.with.stupid.

That argument is probably popular opinion here in the UK as well. The view I and posters on this thread is a minority opinion.

I can see how the Christian Right have latched into this, and I'm so sad Charlie's name and memory has been tied to these hateful people who would dare use a dying baby for their agenda . they do this with victims of every kind over here though so it doesn't surprise me.

The timing is perfect for them isn't it? They have two photogenic media-friendly parents, a baby about to be murdered by evil doctors and socialised medicine and big government....

It's sickening.

That argument is probably popular opinion here in the UK as well. The view I and posters on this thread is a minority opinion.

I think it's the opposite. The Barmies are shrill and shoving their comments everywhere they can, but there are very few of them. Public opinion seems to be behind Charlie and GOSH, only less vocal because people are understandably reluctant to state they think a baby should die. Even though we want it for Charlie, it sounds awful.

I bet if there was a YouGov poll or something, it would show most people agree he should be allowed to slip away.

Puzzled it would be extremely unwise to make any comment about the evidence produced ahead of tomorrow's hearing - their barrister will certainly have warned them off

I agree, but as I mentioned upthread it's one thing asking them not to do something and quite another ensuring that they don't

Id be suprised if it was that. I suspect the majority will support the parents. Remember how unpopular Social workers tend to be.

@U2HasTheEdge unfortunately over here many ppl also think it's perfectly acceptable for parents to abuse their children as well. I was in a psych forum where a member quoted a disturbing law that said unless there are visible marks and bruises after a few days it's legal to beat your child here, and many schools still do this in certain states. So it doesn't surprise me.

And that the Majoirty still support smacking of children.

I just hope the right decision for Charlie gets made tomorrow and he allowed to die in peace without people demonstrating and abusing the staff who have cared for him for many months.

If that bill is passed and Charlie gets US citizenship, can he be removed from GOSH and taken to the US as the CA seem to think will happen?

Have only just seen this image. I know the caption has probably been added later, but that "Stars and Stripes" outfit/blanket combo are sending a pretty strong message that must coming directly from the parents - who else would be dressing him up like this?

Lonelymummy

There's a thought-provoking piece on the BBC website today about a mother's wish to stop tube-feeding her profoundly disabled 10 year old daughter:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-40582032/mother-s-plea-for-daughter-s-right-to-die

I watched an old episode of Law and Order the other day that prompted me to do a bit of googling. I was pretty shocked to read that 34 states actually have religious exemptions to child neglect and child abuse laws, and they had to provide this exemption in order to get government funding. It's pretty shocking and completely at odds with how things are viewed in the UK re the welfare of children. It seems parental rights outweigh those of children so I can understand why some Americans can't comprehend this case.

I honestly think the majority of people in the UK are of the opinion Charlie should be allowed to die and end his suffering. All my friends and family feel that way and almost all my friends on facebook. Look at the comments in the Mail online and they are on the side of GOSH. Its only because the loud mouthed barmies not seeing the truth it seems

I sent a message to GOSH too and also had a lovely reply.

I think that Laura Gards post earlier on this afternoon was saying new evidence was handed in today

There's actually a really sad post on there - someone has posted saying how Charlie is the same age as her daughter and the same size and so he's growing. There's a picture showing her daughter and showing Charlie and the difference between them is stark.

This article is pretty interesting (and frightening).

www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/05/religious_exemptions_from_medical_care_faith_healing_kills_children.html

There's actually a really sad post on there - someone has posted saying how Charlie is the same age as her daughter and the same size and so he's growing. There's a picture showing her daughter and showing Charlie and the difference between them is stark.

I saw that too.

Well I think they must have handed something in to the judge on time or surely the press would have been all over it if they had not. It will be up to the judge if it is good enough evidence. Parents actually have no rights over their children only responsibility. Big difference. But in this world where everyone seems to think they have a 'right' over simply everything when in fact they don't, the outcry from CA site and other like minded people isn't surprising.

Interesting,
I just went to look up Mr Justice Francis on his Chambers' website to see what other cases he's done recently
and they have had to remove him from their list of staff, presumably due to abuse.
www.29br.co.uk/our-people/barristers
he is definitely missing as the page says 11 QCs and there are only 10 there

Knowing what I do about the defamation act it would be a brave person to send nasty messages to a Barristers' Chambers