Instead, the socialist society allows self-interested statists to take precedence over the parents, who have a personal vested interest. Essentially, the UK government decides who lives or dies in these cases and the parents are little more than helpless bystanders witnessing the entire incident unfold before them as in a nightmare.
Originally, June 27 was supposed to be “the end” of the “difficult process” as was stated by a Great Ormond Street spokeswoman after the European Human Rights Court decided not to intervene on the decision of the UK Supreme Court.
However, news of the circumstances surrounding baby Gard began circulating all over the world and the additional publicity attracted enough attention to cause the doctors to reexamine the potential for treatment from the U.S. that they refused to consider back in March.
On July 2nd, Pope Francis offered to take the child in at The Vatican’s pediatric hospital, and the next day Donald Trump tweeted that the United States would be “delighted to help”. However, it wasn’t until July 10th that the parents were allowed back into court to introduce “new evidence”. But, Friday was preparation for another “end to a difficult process” as next week the judge will decide whether or not to keep the ruling on switching the Child’s life support off.
In court, a representative for Great Ormond Street Hospital presented the latest MRI scan showing how much Charlie Gard’s muscles have atrophied and made it clear that the information was not positive. Gard’s mother, Connie Yates became upset and said “we haven’t even read it”, referring to the MRI information that she had only learned of at that moment in court.
Distressed, Yates immediately ran out of the hospital and father, Chris Gard shouted “evil” at the lawyer.
Dr. Michio Hirano from the United States also looked at the scans and decided that there was a ten percent chance that his experimental treatment will have “meaningful success”. This is the same thing Hirano said last week when he was finally allowed to examine Charlie in spite of months of offering to help. Hirano unfortunately had previously been prevented from looking at Charlie due to the egos of the Great Ormond Street doctors who preferred killing the baby over allowing treatment that, back then, might have had a more significant chance for success.
This devastating chain of events comes ironically at time when the United States Senate is to vote on the repeal of Obamacare, the system designed to eventually force American citizens into a health care scenario similar to the UK. Several senators have outwardly decided to vote against the repeal in favor of bipartisan measures that would likely include bits and pieces of socialist style health care.
This comes as no surprise to many who are aware of the current political situation in the U.S. Those familiar have come to understand that Washington politicians are much like their counterparts in the UK. They are no more than elites who pride themselves on appearing to “care” about the American people. In reality, these elites or pseudo-intellectuals believe that they are better equipped to decide how U.S. citizens should live, what they should eat, and even how their children are raised.
One of the Senators, Lisa Murkowski, although a Republican, has shown outward support for the baby-killing-for-convenience group known as Planned Parenthood. She made the public statement last week that she was in favor of a bipartisan bill, without indicating if this was something that her constituents actually wanted. The Democrats typically favor a UK-style healthcare system.
Susan Collins is another senator who has voiced her opposition to repealing Obamacare. But Collins is really a socialist thinker whose ideology more closely resembles that of the Democrat Party, leaving many to wonder why she is a Republican.
While in spite of the obvious failures that socialism has shown the world over, there are still so many politicians who support the idea. This form of government leads to loss of many types of liberty. The losses include, but are not limited to, freedom of speech, freedom to protect one’s self, freedom to purchase as desired, freedom to decide where to work, freedom do decide what to eat, and freedom to go wherever desired.
But there is a loss of freedom that is far more important than the aforementioned. It is the freedom that was lost in the UK—the one that allowed parents’ to lovingly protect their child all costs. Nothing is certain, of course, in the Charlie Gard scenario. However, had Chris Gard and Connie Yates been afforded this freedom, it is not unreasonable to say that little Charlie might have a better chance at survival today. .