Smug European Court of 'Human Rights' Issues Death Sentence to Baby
Next time some smug, supercilious European Union advocate lectures America on the supposed superiority of the European Union's record on human rights, socialized medicine or one world government, bring up the case of the death sentence issued to a tiny British baby named Charlie Gard by the European Court of Human Rights (sic).
Baby Charlie was denied the right to free medical care in the states, treatment that would not have cost the state a dime, based on the private fundraising of the baby's devoted parents. The court in that land of euthanasia enthusiasts nevertheless acted on the vetrinary logic that the baby best be put out of his misery, not exposed to a possible cure. It makes no sense because the European court and the British hospital claim the baby is already brain dead. So why would this matter? Possibly related to that, the British hospital denied the parents so much as the right to take the baby home to die, surrounded by his loved ones. They want him to die in a cold institutional hospital setting instead, asserting the power of the state over what passes for medical care there. In reality, they are probably afraid the baby's parents, Connie Yates and Charlie Gard, might spirit the baby to the states where the experimental treatment Charlie would get might just work - exposing their own incompetence at treatment.
The baby has a rare disease called Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome which leaves him unable to move. He has it based on a genetic mutation called RRM2B. The treatment in the states is for the same disease for those with the TK2 mutation, which has enabled its sufferers to see improvement. It would be perfectly logical to try it on a child with RR2MB. Even if the treatment completely failed, there would be new medical knowledge that could used to help the next child with this mutation - at a minimum, doctors would know what doesn't work. Instead, we get two dead children, based on the wasted opportunity with Charlie, not one. And it's quite likely there could have been improvement.
But the smug, supercilious European court couldn't allow that - it would expose the failures of Europe's socialized medicine system. It would challenge the authority of the state to make medical decisions with no input from the patients. The best medical centers in the U.S. always encourage patients to make their own medical decisions. Not so in socialist Europe. They want control, and no fears that all the other sick patients they are unable to cure might get ideas about coming to the states, too. All of that would undermine the superstate of Europe and this hideous Orwellian court system that claims to stand for human rights, just not those of a baby.
It's disgusting to see them crying crocodile tears about the fate of the baby they themelves issued the death sentence on. It's worth remembering that Europe has an appalling record of euthanasia of the unwilling even as it touts its moral superiority.
And in a very sorry specter, the Vatican offered no moral authority or support, they actually supported the court.
According to the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life:
The academy attempts to explain away the courts’ decision by citing “the complexity of the situation, the heartrending pain of the parents, and the efforts of so many to determine what is best for Charlie,” acknowledging that “we do, sometimes…have to recognize the limitations of what can be done” in modern medicine.
There's one way to recognize the limitations of what can be done for little Charlie, pal, and that's to take the kid to the states for the experimental treatment. That would be the limits.
The Vatican claims that there were 'so many to determine what is best for Charlie' is nauseating, too. Right now, we are seeing the tug-of-war from the Old Testament of the two women claiming ownership of a baby that was brought before King Solomon. The real mother said let the baby go to save its life and King Solomon recognized that woman as the mother, not the other claimant. The European Court of Human Rights and the U.K. hospital are in the tree of the false parent, the woman who would't let go off the baby even to save his life. We know who the real parents are in this case.
Look at the faces of those parents.
Still like Obamacare? Still like socialized medicine? This is what it brings.