Charlie Gard is a terminally ill baby who cannot see or hear with significant brain damage that keeps him from breathing, eating or moving on his own.

Charlie’s parents have been forbidden from taking him to the US for experimental treatment, based on evidence from the hospital and doctors, a decision upheld by the European court of human rights. Now, after interference fro the Pope and Donald Trump, his case is being reopened.

The Guardian reports that on Monday, Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, were given 48 hours to produce “drastic new evidence” that sending him to the US would help Charlie. The court will reconvene to hear the evidence on Thursday.

Justice Nicholas Francis, who rejected the parents’ requests to move Charlie in April, says he would be “delighted” to change his mind, but added, “I have to decide this case not on the basis of tweets, not on the basis of what might be said in the press, or to the press.”

The Great Ormond Street Hospital applied for the new hearing after receiving a letter signed by seven doctors from the Vatican children’s hospital asking them to reconsider, and a letter from the family’s solicitor.

Charlie’s condition is caused by a rare genetic mitochondrial condition, and a US doctor performing “nucleoside treatment” has said there is a 10% chance of it working on Charlie, at a conservative estimate. This will, of course, not cure or reverse the brain damage his condition has already caused him to suffer.

Meanwhile, two US Republicans, Reps. Brad Wenstrup (OH) and Trent Franks (AZ), have proposed giving Gard permanent residency in the US for his treatment. Both are in favor of the Republican health care bill that would strip insurance from millions of American citizens.

“Only the family, the doctors treating Charlie, and now the legal teams involved, know the details of complex issues that define his situation,” said Dr. Neena Modi, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, in a statement to CNN. “These issues—unknown to us and all those voicing opinions—will have been considered very carefully in reaching any decision. This is why interventions by external agencies or individuals, no matter how well-intended, are unhelpful.”

Socialized medicine leads to rationed care. Then it's just a matter of a simple cost/benefit analysis. Or something like that.

I would donate two cans of green beans if it would save your life.

Excluding murder and neglect, under what circumstances should the government be allowed to police a parent's decision regarding the life and death of their own child?

This is totally not a loaded question. I promise.

No circumstances.

Next question

Will you go out with me?

Excluding murder and neglect, under what circumstances should the government be allowed to police a parent's decision regarding the life and death of their own child?

This is totally not a loaded question. I promise.

FF and all other libertarians are excused from answering the question.

The government should make every decision regarding a child's healthcare. Parents are emotional and emotion shouldn't be a factor.

What if I wasn't gonna answer the question anyway?

Excluding murder and neglect, under what circumstances should the government be allowed to police a parent's decision regarding the life and death of their own child?

This is totally not a loaded question. I promise.

Are they paying?

This mult is awful. If it was any worse, I'd think it was Nas.

I believe governments are better suited to raising children than families are. They have data and years of research to back their conclusions. Anyone who doesn't surrender their baby to the government is a traitor.

Normally I wouldn't quote a Jezebel article but I couldn't let the opening sentence go unrecognized:



So if he opens his eyes or hears things he will suffer brain damage? Just have him wear a couple of eye patches and a set of headphones. Problem solved.

Now that that's out of the way, here's the full story:



Nice little editorial sideswipe there.



What a strange way to end the story.

In any case I find it pretty strange that the parents aren't being allowed to decide what to do with their own child.

I would donate two cans of green beans if it would save your life.

Shut the fuck up, burrito. Use logic.

Sometimes.

The answer is sometimes then.

Then feel free to eat from a dumpster.

Way ahead of you, bro.

Excluding murder and neglect, under what circumstances should the government be allowed to police a parent's decision regarding the life and death of their own child?

This is totally not a loaded question. I promise.