Baby Charlie Gard's life

[becca]

I know that sometimes people assume that the system in other countries is like that of the US and get it wrong. But that's not even an excuse here: not only does the high court not represent the government in the UK - it doesn't represent the government in the US, either! When I lived in the US, we certainly learned about the separation of powers and the roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branch. Did they not cover that in your civics class?

ETA: unless you mean in the sense that the judiciary is one of the three branches of government? But that's in the US, and hardly the same thing.

Who exactly is the high court judge appointed by???? It's an arm of the government. Now same function as a legislature or Parliament no.

Once again who is likely to love Charlie more his parents or the judge. For something so hard I have difficulty saying anyone other than family should make the choice. Of course their are limits. But the parents want to have different treatment and pay for it themselves.... It won't be forever. I would rather lean towards the side of the loved ones than the other way.

The mother I believe was a career. The parents are the ones who will have to live with what happens the judge won't.

Please don't get me wrong I suspect I might chose not to do extraordinary means if I was Charlie's mother although I would have to pray about it.

Now if the parents were talking about forever and keeping life support forever I might feel differently. But some of this is about who should make these choices. And sometimes people make choices you don't agree with for their children but to take away the right?

To be frank if they had given him the treatment it's possible the three months would be up and this would all be over.

 

[MsZem]

Who exactly is the high court judge appointed by???? It's an arm of the government. Now same function as a legislature or Parliament no.

Once again who is likely to love Charlie more his parents or the judge. For something so hard I have difficulty saying anyone other than family should make the choice. Of course their are limits. But the parents want to have different treatment and pay for it themselves.... It won't be forever. I would rather lean towards the side of the loved ones than the other way.

1. The UK is not the US.
2. Judges are not appointed to carry out the will of politicians. If they are, then you're looking at a country on the path away from democracy. This is what is happening in Poland right now. The UK is not Poland.
3. I still wonder what they taught in your civics class.
4. Loving someone does not necessarily make you the most qualified person to make decisions on their behalf.

 

[becca]

1. The UK is not the US.
2. Judges are not appointed to carry out the will of politicians. If they are, then you're looking at a country on the path away from democracy. This is what is happening in Poland right now. The UK is not Poland.
3. I still wonder what they taught in your civics class.
4. Loving someone does not necessarily make you the most qualified person to make decisions on their behalf.

Judges are not suppose to carry out the will of politicians here either. The judicial branch is suppose to be independent in the US/. Of course some decisions made are political it gets political. But as John Roberts Obama care rulings show....

I never said British politicians are doing this. But something judges decisions in Britain get carried out by the government so it is a government just a different form.

The judge works for a branch of the U.K. Government to say the judge is not is absolutely ridiculous. Is it the same as a legislature no. But it is the government.

 

[MsZem]

Judges are not suppose to carry out the will of politicians here either. The judicial branch is suppose to be independent in the US/. Of course some decisions made are political it gets political. But as John Roberts Obama care rulings show....

I never said British politicians are doing this. But something judges decisions in Britain get carried out by the government so it is a government just a different form.

Would that be Republican appointee John G. Roberts, who ruled on constitutional questions related to the ACA? I think he would be offended by the suggestion that he was rubber-stamping politicians' decisions, and rightly so.

I find it doubtful you know enough about the British legal system to say what the judges there do. Or the European Court of Justice, which declined to hear the case.

 

[skatesindreams]

A "Guardian ad Litem" is often appointed by courts in the US, to watch over the legal interests of children in cases such as Charlie's.
Is there is a similar figure in the UK judicial system?

 

[Lorac]

Judges are not suppose to carry out the will of politicians here either. The judicial branch is suppose to be independent in the US/. Of course some decisions made are political it gets political. But as John Roberts Obama care rulings show....

I never said British politicians are doing this. But something judges decisions in Britain get carried out by the government so it is a government just a different form.

The judge works for a branch of the U.K. Government to say the judge is not is absolutely ridiculous. Is it the same as a legislature no. But it is the government.

The High Court here in the UK is NOT a branch of the government!!! Are you even reading what we are saying?! It is NOT the same as a legislature - it is totally independent!! Judges on the High Court carry out rulings based on law - not what the government says or wants.

 

[becca]

Would that be Republican appointee John G. Roberts, who ruled on constitutional questions related to the ACA? I think he would be offended by the suggestion that he was rubber-stamping politicians' decisions, and rightly so.

I find it doubtful you know enough about the British legal system to say what the judges there do. Or the European Court of Justice, which declined to hear the case.

I never said what judges do much I said they are form of government. Judges judge. Your the one saying I think it means rubber stamping why politicians want.

Furthermore the fact that you did not understand my John Roberts reference means that you know far less about the US than you think you do. Which I am not surprised because I believe you are not here.

John Roberts is a Conservative who was appointed by Conservative President. Unfortunately the US since Roe vs Wade and the fact that the courts are deciding all the not button issues. The court is becoming more political not how it was intended.

However the Court here is suppose to be independent.

However a lot of Conservatives are mad at Roberts because he voted to keep Obamacare TWICE. They thought he would vote to reject it like the good Conservative they thought he was.

Where did I say the high Court is a legislature. It is another branch the JUDICIAL BRANCH still a form of government.

 

[becca]

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-...ion/jud-acc-ind/justice-sys-and-constitution/

And here you go according to its own website. High Court part of the Judicial branch of government.

Please not I never said it was part of Parliament or that it was part of the executive branch of the U.K. I also never said it was not suppose to be independent. But it is still the State telling a parent what to do.

 

[MsZem]

Furthermore the fact that you did not understand my John Roberts reference means that you know far less about the US than you think you do. Which I am not surprised because I believe you are not here.

I understood your example very well. You gave an example of a judge - the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, no less - deciding a case on the merits rather than based political ideology, to the disappointment of those who do not understand that justices rule based on the law and not based on the politics of those who appointed them. Yet somehow this supports your argument that judges are political and not independent.

Becca, you logic is not logical.

It is also not remotely relevant to the Charlie Gard case, since - as people have pointed out to you repeatedly - the legal systems are completely different.

 

[becca]

I understood your example very well. You gave an example of a judge - the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, no less - deciding a case on the merits rather than based political ideology, to the disappointment of those who do not understand that justices rule based on the law and not based on the politics of those who appointed them. Yet somehow this supports your argument that judges are political and not independent.

Becca, you logic is not logical.

It is also not remotely relevant to the Charlie Gard case, since - as people have pointed out to you repeatedly - the legal systems are completely different.

Where did I say the judges were political or the judge was making a Political choice. I suspect the judge means to make the best choice possible.

But it is still the State inserting themselves in a family matter. Since the parents want to pay themselves.

 

[VGThuy]

I'm going to have to support Becca on this one. I think we're getting too involved with what is technically considered the state and missing the point of what people are saying. What she and others who say they're uncomfortable with the "state" or the "government" deciding these matters is because they don't want ANY outside entities, especially ones that may weigh state interests or consider state interests*, to interfere with what they see as a purely personal and familial situation, especially since the court system isn't personally involved and aren't close to the situation/facts as lived but rather are just reviewing facts that are being presented in a very impersonal, formal way. You don't have to agree with that, but that's what they mean.

The U.S. court system is based off the UK system, which is why both systems use common law and put so much weight on judicial review and precedent. The courts are not a private entity, but a public one, so I do think it is part of the government. In the U.S., it is considered one of the three branches of government. It is supposed to act separately from the other two branches, but it is also kept in check by the other two branches as well, just like it is supposed to check and balance the other two branches. With all of that said, "the government" is not this big monolithic entity. It is made up of hundreds of agencies and independent branches and thousands if not millions of individuals all working together and/or competing against each other with separate interests. So to say "the state" or "the government" is sort of misleading because it sounds like this big monolith passing a decision like a giant monster in tune with itself.

Also, I may be jaded, but although the court is supposed to be a neutral body not affected by politics, a lot of rulings and the way judges look at the law is shaped by their own judicial philosophies and personal beliefs aka they're politics. I'm sure they work hard to be neutral and unbiased, but there are issues where one's biases comes out because interpreting the law simply calls for you to make a judgment call some times.

I think we need to move away from the topic of whether it is the state but rather talk about why can't the state insert itself when it is looking for the best interest of the child. We allow the state to insert itself in so many ways in our lives and we welcome it (especially in cases involving children). People want judicial intervention or law enforcement when there's a stalemate of what should be done. That is what courts are there for, to resolve issues and disagreements. Even if the High Court ruled in favor of the parents citing all kinds of precedent stating parents have the most discretion to make calls on the medical care of their child, that is still court intervention. Why is it bad this time? Because a "beautiful" baby is involved? I quoted "beautiful" because many of the write-ups that support the parents always emphasize that part.

*which courts have done many times, i.e. why we can't sue states for money damages for violations of those state's resident's civil rights committed by state actors in the U.S. because it'll be against the interest of the state for it be bankrupt and thus non-functional.

 

[Lorac]

Where did I say the judges were political or the judge was making a Political choice. I suspect the judge means to make the best choice possible.

But it is still the State inserting themselves in a family matter. Since the parents want to pay themselves.

Actually no - the High Court is involved because GOSH asked for the court to make a decision in the best interests of the child. It did not 'insert' itself into a family matter at all. And it is nothing to do with cost - here in the UK the NHS is free (though we do pay for it through our taxes). The parents in this case however wish the child to be put through an experimental procedure that may ( and the US doctor they have spoken to has definitely used the word 'may') give Charlie a 10%- 50% improvement in his quality of life. And as there have not been any clinical studies done to back up this assertion it is basically a crap shot as to what will happen to Charlie - who according to the doctors and specialists at GOSH is in pain and has no chance of a relevant and pain free quality of life from this point on.

Having read the link you mentioned I can see where your erroneous assumption that the High Court is part of the Government. But it is erroneous as you continue to prove with your arguments.

 

[becca]

Actually no - the High Court is involved because GOSH asked for the court to make a decision in the best interests of the child. It did not 'insert' itself into a family matter at all. And it is nothing to do with cost - here in the UK the NHS is free (though we do pay for it through our taxes). The parents in this case however wish the child to be put through an experimental procedure that may ( and the US doctor they have spoken to has definitely used the word 'may') give Charlie a 10%- 50% improvement in his quality of life. And as there have not been any clinical studies done to back up this assertion it is basically a crap shot as to what will happen to Charlie - who according to the doctors and specialists at GOSH is in pain and has no chance of a relevant and pain free quality of life from this point on.

Having read the link you mentioned I can see where your erroneous assumption that the High Court is part of the Government. But it is erroneous as you continue to prove with your arguments.

Once again the judiciary plays a ROLE in government. Is it a legislature no. Is it the Prime minister no. But it is a part of the State.

And if Charlie's parents were to take him anyways they would be jailed. So it is one of the parts of government/ State making the decision rather than the parents.

I am not saying that the Judge is motivated by money or politics. I am only saying that the idea of the judge making these decisions and imposing them on parents is something I don't like.

I understand perfectly well the concept of separation of powers and the judiciary is not Parliament. That it is suppose to be independent just as the US is suppose to be independent.

 

[MsZem]

I'm going to have to support Becca on this one. I think we're getting too involved with what is technically considered the state and missing the point of what people are saying. What she and others who say they're uncomfortable with the "state" or the "government" deciding these matters is because they don't want ANY outside entities, especially ones that may weigh state interests or consider state interests*, to interfere with what they see as a purely personal and familial situation, especially since the court system isn't personally involved and aren't close to the situation/facts as lived but rather are just reviewing facts that are being presented in a very impersonal, formal way. You don't have to agree with that, but that's what they mean.

But this is not what the courts in the UK have been doing. They're prioritizing Charlie Gard's interests, not those of his parents, or doctors, or the NHS. Obviously, it is difficult to decide what is in the best interest of a patient who cannot advocate or even communicate for himself. But I really don't see how it can be argued that the courts are acting out on behalf of government; they are fulfilling their role as independent judiciary.

 

[VGThuy]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it three judges that granted the stay? Anyway, again, the reason why courts get involved in these cases is when someone or entity makes an appeal to the Court to intervene when they think the child's welfare is in danger. We have family courts and other bodies to conduct reviews of medical reports and vet medical experts to make a decision when a dispute arises. There is a reason why families/parents don't always get the final say. When it comes to medical care involving persons who cannot represent themselves or express their own wishes, then disputes may occur. We need to have a reviewing expert panels to look at situations and review all the evidence to make sure the best interest of the person who cannot advocate for himself is honored. Parents tend to get deference because they are assumed to have the best interest of their child at heart when arguing for their position, and it may be a good idea to make the standard high for any entity to meet if they are going against the wishes of the parents. However, I think it is paramount and of the utmost important to have neutral bodies review situations with layers of appellate review to ensure multiple panels review the situation.

 

[VGThuy]

But this is not what the courts in the UK have been doing. They're prioritizing Charlie Gard's interests, not those of his parents, or doctors, or the NHS. Obviously, it is difficult to decide what is in the best interest of a patient who cannot advocate or even communicate for himself. But I really don't see how it can be argued that the courts are acting out on behalf of government; they are fulfilling their role as independent judiciary.

I'm not saying the Courts are doing it in this situation, but my point is that courts do weigh state interests in other matters, and the idea that the courts in general can make the final decision is very scary idea for some to grapple with, especially if this is their first time really confronting the fact that we do acquiesce to judicial decisions in our lives every day. Also, again we're getting too focused on the idea that courts are acting on "behalf" of the government. They are the government, an independent branch of it. They often review cases where the state/government is a party and some times even rule against the state/government. But to me, getting into semantics isn't the point. The point people like becca are making is that they just want the family to make the decision and don't like any outside entity forcing them act a certain way when their child is involved. Which leads me to my next point...

People just comply with court orders, judgments, etc. all of the time. Of course facing jail time is a compelling reason to do so, but we all live in countries where that's how we function and we consent to that. So why can't we do it in this case? What's wrong with having court intervention in a case like Charlie Gard's situation?

 

[becca]

I'm not saying the Courts are doing it in this situation, but my point is that courts do weigh state interests in other matters, and the idea that the courts in general can make the final decision is very scary idea for some to grapple with, especially if this is their first time really confronting the fact that we do acquiesce to judicial decisions in our lives every day. That said, my other point is that people just comply with court orders, judgments, etc. Of course facing jail time is a compelling reason to do so, but we all live in countries where that's how we function and we consent to that. So why can't we do it in this case?

I do see your point. But the issue here is this little one's life. Look I support the doctors saying we won't do this anymore because you have parents who will insist on not needed treatments. But to say we won't do it and we will stop you from going elsewhere and you must let your child DIE.

Do I think the parents are grasping at straws yes. Do I think maybe have false Hope yes and I certainly hope that little one is not in pain but we don't know that for sure.

But we all are not God who knows what if miracle happens? Sometimes the families just want to try one more time and then are willing to let go. There is an immenient doctor not a hack who says maybe it will help.

At this point maybe they are wrong for trying but I think it is almost wrong to say you can't you must let your little one die.....

It is just one of the most personal of personal things.

 

[hanca]

Who exactly is the high court judge appointed by???? It's an arm of the government. Now same function as a legislature or Parliament no.

Once again who is likely to love Charlie more his parents or the judge. For something so hard I have difficulty saying anyone other than family should make the choice. Of course their are limits. But the parents want to have different treatment and pay for it themselves.... It won't be forever. I would rather lean towards the side of the loved ones than the other way.

The mother I believe was a career. The parents are the ones who will have to live with what happens the judge won't.

Please don't get me wrong I suspect I might chose not to do extraordinary means if I was Charlie's mother although I would have to pray about it.

Now if the parents were talking about forever and keeping life support forever I might feel differently. But some of this is about who should make these choices. And sometimes people make choices you don't agree with for their children but to take away the right?

To be frank if they had given him the treatment it's possible the three months would be up and this would all be over.

I think you are confusing love and doing the right thing for the child. I was at court the other day watching a case of horrific sexual abuse. Yet I do believe the parents loved the child a lot, but not the right/healthy way. The judge obviously ordered removal of the child from the parents' care. I do believe that the parents did love the child more than the judge, but at the same time, it was the judge who made decision that was in the bets interest of the child. According to your argument, the parents should be the one making decisions because they love the child more than the judge? In a sense, it is also about taking away the right of the parents to make the decision, but yet it was the right thing to do. Sometimes parents are causing harm to their child, even if they love the child.

 

[VGThuy]

I do see your point. But the issue here is this little one's life. Look I support the doctors saying we won't do this anymore because you have parents who will insist on not needed treatments. But to say we won't do it and we will stop you from going elsewhere and you must let your child DIE.

Do I think the parents are grasping at straws yes. Do I think maybe have false Hope yes and I certainly hope that little one is not in pain but we don't know that for sure.

But we all are not God who knows what if miracle happens? Sometimes the families just want to try one more time and then are willing to let go. There is an immenient doctor not a hack who says maybe it will help.

At this point maybe they are wrong for trying but I think it is almost wrong to say you can't you must let your little one die.....

It is just one of the most personal of personal things.

But then the parents are also trying to play God by denying a natural death for Charlie but instead giving him experimental treatment as well. I believe the doctors' position is that the treatment hasn't been properly vetted and tested to be used on Charlie. Charlie, even in this state has certain rights. The doctors feel as though they are looking out for Charlie's rights. The parents feel as though they are too. Big disagreement which is ultimately both parties thinking they are doing what's best for the child. The parents out of love for the child and the doctors and multiple review panels based on their medical expertise and thinking the continued artificial prolonging of Charlie's life is hurting him more than helping and continuing his life is near child abuse. And this is why we need court intervention. If court intervention did not exist, we'll have cases where social workers, medical doctors, etc. have no avenue to appeal to when they see much bigger cases of child neglect and harm.

 

[Lorac]

Once again the judiciary plays a ROLE in government. Is it a legislature no. Is it the Prime minister no. But it is a part of the State.

And if Charlie's parents were to take him anyways they would be jailed. So it is one of the parts of government/ State making the decision rather than the parents.

I am not saying that the Judge is motivated by money or politics. I am only saying that the idea of the judge making these decisions and imposing them on parents is something I don't like.

I understand perfectly well the concept of separation of powers and the judiciary is not Parliament. That it is suppose to be independent just as the US is suppose to be independent.

Where has it been stated that Charlie's parents would be jailed if they took him away? I haven't read or heard that in any of the reporting I have seen. Do you have a source for that assertion.

But let me ask you a question. You are totally convinced that the parents are the ones who should have the final say in regards to the treatment for their child. What then would you say to parents who are say Christian Scientists who would refuse to allow their child to be treated for an ailment that would save their lives but because it goes against their beliefs they refuse it on behalf of their child. What would you say if the Dr's in this hypothetical case took the parents to court to allow the child to be treated but the parents fought the decision. Are the parents right to do this? Should the courts hear the case or should they refuse to hear it saying that it is the parent decision. Should that child die even though it could have been saved if the courts had intervened on its behalf?

 

[hanca]

A "Guardian ad Litem" is often appointed by courts in the US, to watch over the legal interests of children in cases such as Charlie's.
Is there is a similar figure in the UK judicial system?

Yes, there is the same. It used the be called Guardian as Litem, now it is called Children's guardian.

 

[WildRose]

It's simple - the Courts are acting on behalf of the child, because that's what they do in civilized countries where children have rights. Maybe those rights aren't always recognized in the US, but they are in Britain where Charlie lives.

 

[VGThuy]

It's simple - the Courts are acting on behalf of the child, because that's what they do in civilized countries where children have rights. Maybe those rights aren't always recognized in the US, but they are in Britain where Charlie lives.

Children certainly have rights in the U.S. The standards just differ in how much deference courts give to parents in decision-making. In cases where the child cannot advocate for himself or express his wishes, then the question becomes who has ultimate decision-making power. The parents or other persons who are considered experts. That's where the standards make a difference in how the case concludes.

 

[hanca]

Where has it been stated that Charlie's parents would be jailed if they took him away? I haven't read or heard that in any of the reporting I have seen. Do you have a source for that assertion.

I think it is correct. While there are court proceedings ongoing, the parents usually can't remove the child out of the country. It is to prevent parents from grabbing the child and disappearing abroad. (But I don't know if this arrangement is case by case, or if it is general rule for all cases concerning children in high court.)

 

[hanca]

Children certainly have rights in the U.S. The standards just differ in how much deference courts give to parents in decision-making. In cases where the child cannot advocate for himself or express his wishes, then the question becomes who has ultimate decision-making power. The parents or other persons who are considered experts. That's where the standards make a difference in how the case concludes.

That's why you have several parties at court. The hospital, the parents and I would expect there to be a third party, the child's guardian appointed by court, who represents the child. And the court has the ultimate decision making power.

 

[WildRose]

Article about the European Court of Rights ruling:
http://www.politico.eu/article/baby...d-from-life-support-human-rights-court-rules/
"In a press summary, the ECHR noted the U.K.’s legal framework for decisions about both experimental treatments and removing life support is in line with EU human rights laws.
“It was appropriate for the hospital to approach the courts in the U.K. in the event of doubts as to the best decision to take,” the court said, adding, “The domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence” that Gard was in pain that would not be eased with the experimental treatment."

 

[becca]

You cannot compare a parent trying to keep their child alive with medical treatment, to a parent sexually abusing their child. I am sorry it's not the same thing all.

This little one cannot speak or say something. So we don't know really what he wants. I am not saying there aren't problems with keeping someone alive no matter what.

But what I am saying is I would give more latitude towards parents in this type of situation. I am saying I am uncomfortable with the courts mandating a parent must allow their child to die. And I actually DID go back and forth on this.

 

[Willin]

@becca See, the thing is, the courts are NOT mandating that the child must be allowed to die. Rather, they are giving the doctors authority to make the decision to discontinue treatment. So, if the doctors decide to continue treatment (as they are doing right now due to media pressure), they are allowed to, but if they don't want to continue treatment, they don't have to.

As for one of the reasons the parents aren't being given more latitude, I think you (and other posters) would understand if you've ever been a doctor/nurse/professional caregiver for a patient like this. We want to do the least harm - it's in the oath we take from the time we're students. Even if it's awful, in a case like this where there is no hope of improvement and death is imminent without ICU-level care, the best way to do the least harm and cause the least pain is simply to allow the patient to pass away.
Not to mention, we're trying to provide the best care for other patients who do have hope for improvement, and taking up nurses/doctors/a hospital bed/equipment is taking away those finite resources from other patients who could benefit from them. So, in caring for a case like this, we may be providing harm to a patient who may be affected by not having access to those finite resources. Even if moved to the US (opening up resources in the UK), it would only mean this patient is taking resources from those patients wanting care at Columbia's distinguished hospital.

 

[Japanfan]

You cannot compare a parent trying to keep their child alive with medical treatment, to a parent sexually abusing their child. I am sorry it's not the same thing all.

If the issue is harm to the child, and medical treatment would do harm, then the two actions have something in common.

Lorac asked you a question above becca - post #230. I'd be interested in your answer.

I am not saying there aren't problems with keeping someone alive no matter what.

But what I am saying is I would give more latitude towards parents in this type of situation. I am saying I am uncomfortable with the courts mandating a parent must allow their child to die. And I actually DID go back and forth on this.

If the child is in pain and suffering, with no hope for recovery, it is in the best interest of the child for the courts to mandate that she/he be allowed to die.

Parents may not be able to determine the best interests of a child in a situation like this, as they are so emotionally invested in the child.

 

[VGThuy]

And there is a public policy argument against simply OKing any experimental treatment that has some possibility of prolonging a life, especially if the medical experts don't believe there has been enough vetting and testing for that treatment. I do understand it gets into the argument of why not just let the patient assume the risk, but in a case where the patient can't give consent, then is the family really better than medical experts to make the call?