Baby Charlie Gard was born on August 4, 2016 and eight weeks after her birth was suffering from a rare disease, the mitochondrial DNA syndrome that had affected several genes that caused a progressive deprivation of the muscle. From then on he was admitted to the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, the English Hospital where they tried to treat the baby. The genetic disease, which both parents were unaware of their carriers, has so far hit only 16 people in the world.
THE PROPOSAL OF PARENTS TO GIVE HOPE OF A CARE
Since the child was hospitalized, he was not able to be properly cared for and his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, did not resign and found that Columbia University in New York had experimented with mice with Mitochondrial diseases and contacted an American clinic, for which the name was not made public for legal reasons, claiming to be able to treat the child with the experimental method. The therapy offered by US doctors is nucleoside and should give the baby’s body elements to try to repair their DNA. Initially, the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, the British hospital where the baby was hospitalized, accepted this request: even if the treatment had been until then tested on a different type of mutation.
The Gard family has been incredibly successful in collecting 1.3 million pounds with the help of 80,000 donors to get the funds to pay for medical travel expenses. But last March, when the child was seven months old and was about to make a request for transfer from Britain to the United States, Charlie is affected by hereditary illnesses worsening her health. British and American physicians agree on the inability to continue the journey of hope by indicating that there were no scientific conditions for child treatment. But Americans were still available to try the experiment without guaranteeing any success.
THE FIRST VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
Faced with the aggravated situation of Charlie, it happened that the Roman hospital of Child Jesus offered to accommodate little Charlie Gard in his own facility, even though he admitted that there was no possibility of a cure.
Pope Francis (“do not neglect parents’ wishes”) and Donald Trump (“ready to help”) spoke about the story, and there was a proposal for intervention on Charlie’s disease by a US physician for a briefing on Clarify and evaluate the use of experimental therapy.
And here is the first violation of rights: the hospital and the English government state: “Legal grounds, impossible transfer”.
The legal problem shows the violation of human rights and citizens is that the sentence has been rotated around what is called “child’s best interest”, the child’s interest. The doctor’s thesis, approved by the judges at all stages, was to be Charlie at the end of the illness, he was entitled to a dignified death without hesitation and even not allowing the family to use other alternative treatments received.
It was certainly impressive that on June 9, the Charlie family, with the ruling of the British Supreme Court on June 8 that the child had to pull the plug to let him die, intervened with the Strasbourg Human Rights Court, arguing that The English sentence violated the freedom of care and that the child was “a prisoner” in the English hospital. The European Court ruling ordered the London hospital to continue handling it until the new resolution.
The choices and decisions of doctors, courts and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom show unprecedented violations of human rights and citizens, and this is due to the fact that:
-
The sentence should not be “on the child’s interest”, but “on respect for the interests and rights that every person, son and family must have to protect their lives.” And if this was not respected each person should have the right to be able to take other proposals received to try to save their lives.
-
If doctors can not cure and save a person’s life, they are not the ones who should have the right to decide on the opportunity to try other alternatives for assistance, their job is simply to indicate their opinion, but They are not they who should have the right to
to decide. -
If a person or family identifies the probability of alternative care, you can not violate and cancel because there is no absolute certainty of solving health problems. What matters is the possibility of experiencing alternative treatment. Life does not improve with “certainty” but with courage and respect for the “hope” on which to have the right to try.
What happened sadly was July 24, 2017, in which parents with all the wrong phrases and violent behavior and inadequate behavior from the hospital, the doctors, the court, and any organization that did not respect them, stated that Renounce the US request to give assistance to their son.
But the reality is clear that if a family that had to be respectful, caring, and support was invaded, humiliated and offended, it did not make it yet to save the baby, and in the end their hope for the future There has not been and this has led them to make those decisions.
If you do not trust people, trust in people collapses, this is the truth.
SECOND BREACH OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
The last event that took place at the end of Charlie’s path dramatically shows how the violence of citizens’ rights becomes reality and shakes people’s lives.
The last wish of Charlie’s family was to take him home to die, but this proposal was denied by the Supreme Court. Great Ormond Street Hospital asked to continue to help him in the last few days with the appropriate machinery in his facilities, and Judge Nicholas Francis first waited for an agreement and finally decided that Charlie would be transferred to a hospice, a nursing center terminal. For terminal patients and shortly thereafter, artificial ventilation tubes were detached and Charlie died a few minutes later, a week before his birthday.
This decision by hospitals, the High Court and the Court of Justice, in the face of the decision to let his son die, shows that:
-
Respect for the fundamental rights of citizens on the law of their own lives has been violated, devastated, annulled, considering people as slaves. If you decide to let a child die and the family is not allowed to decide where they want their son to take the last acts of his life, this indicates that the Supreme Court decision shows that true respect for people in the most difficult situations is not more.
THE DISASTER DISCOVERMENT OF ITS DISCUSSION CITIZENS ‘RIGHTS WILL MAKE MORE DIFFICULT THE FUTURE OF GREAT BRITAIN SE THE RIGHT IS NOT RECOGNIZED
When did Charlie’s baby die as it was possible that British Prime Minister Theresa May sent a condolence message?
But did Theresa May not realize that the child died at that time because of her decision that she had accepted by denying her the chance to go to the United States to try to heal?
And send a mourning message after wanting to let a child die is literally shameful!
What you said Theresa May proves you do not understand anything about the truth, and if you continue to understand nothing of the truth of what is happening with people in your country, things will not improve but will worsen more and more.
This disastrous historical journey that has occurred in the life of the child of Charlie Gard and his family shows how the interventions and decisions taken by both hospitals, doctors, judges and the Supreme Court give a very serious signal of a worsening of the Respect for the rights of citizens that will not improve the country of Britain at all.
Your country, Britain, will not only grow from the wealth of people, business, and government, but only by the respect and attention that every citizen of every age and every source needs and will be recognized.
The world and people do not change and only improve if they make the safe choices they each control, but only accept that life grows from hope, from trying to face difficult situations where everything is not possible but possible. And it is only by showing the attention to people who most need assistance, safety, work they do not have, to improve their health, that quality of life and security become a reality.
It is the accepted uncertainty that will change your country and the respect of the inviolable rights that every citizen has right.
If this reflection on what has happened does not make you aware by British Prime Minister Theresa May and all the organizations and people living in your country that a change needs to be made to recognize the rights of citizens, Consequences on your country’s future will be very uncertain.
The truth rebuilt on these rights will make your country better and will also give you hope that quality of life will be better if respect is resumed and the choice to give each person its rights will be reconfirmed.
The future of each country does not depend on what you want to do, but from the courage and responsibility that the government needs to restore the rights, choices and decisions that every person must have the opportunity to do.
By Giovanni Roi
Giovanni Roi's Weblog 