Search results

No they haven't. The child is medically it the care of the hospital and as such the hospital owe him a duty of care which legally outweighs the duty to comply with the parents' wishes. This is well established in law and nothing new. Think for a moment what your attitude would be if a child was...

Evidently you didn't bother to read the link to judicial review I gave you. They no more 'work for the UK government' than SCOTUS 'works for the US government'. They are independent

The Rule of Law. How many more times do.i have to state the same fact?

Not the UK governmemt: ://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/19/judicial-review-statistics

The Rule of Law

Pure conjecture with no Scriptural basis

The UK Supreme Court is hardly a 'panel of government employees' , Lol! Still less the ECHR judges who, contrary to what you said in your earlier post, are nothing to do with the EU. Do try to keep up with the facts...

Well, 'socialized medicine' has now applied to 'big government' (actually the High Court but let's not confuse ourselves with facts here) for a review of the decisions taken thus far based on potential new medical evidence: Baby Charlie: Doctors consider fresh evidence

How could Moses and Elijah see a vision of the future if they were asleep??

I have both it and The Pacific as box sets. I love both but prefer Band of Brothers. The 'English village' scenes of supposedly Aldbourne, Wilsthire, and Uppottery in Devon were both shot in Hambleden, Buckinghamshire

If the souls of those who die fall asleep, then what were Moses and Elijah doing with Jesus at His Transfiguration?

Oh come on! There is no 'death panel' here and the term 'socialized medicine' - what does that even mean? And the EU has nothing to do with the case. The Pope has not made any offer to treat Charlie - there is no effective treatment anyway. Please can we stick to the facts, folks?

Right, so now we accept that there are exceptions, one of these is where the best interests of the child trump the interests of the parents. This has been adjudged - consistently, both by the courts in England and Wales and also by the ECHR - to be the case here. The medical evidence supports...

What about parents who physically or sexually abuse their kids? Are those parents' rights supreme?

Food for thought from someone a bit more qualified to comment than us: As a paediatrician, I can tell you that the case of Charlie Gard isn’t as black and white as it seems

Haven't you read anything on this thread?

Because it's what's in the best interests of the child, not the parents, that counts here. That's why the courts are involved, to adjudicate between what the outside agency (the medical profession) and the parents are claiming, and to try to find what is in the best interests of the child. It's...

...and inflict pain on him. Have you ever - as my sister has - had to 'treat' a neonate with a condition like this? Poking constantly with a needle trying to find one of their few remaining veins? The child unable to respond because of catastrophic fatal brain damage but you know you are...

I repeat: no-one is killing this baby. His medical condition is. Question: how long should an ER crash-team perform CPR on someone who's flatlined - 20 minutes or 20 hours? And why?

The baby is not being killed by anyone or anything except his own medical condition. He will never have the 'chance' to get cancer, whatever decision is made this month. The decision is about whether to artificially prolong and exacerbate his suffering or let God call him to Him sooner and less...