miércoles, 12 de julio de 2017

Charlie Gard's parents have the right to try new treatment | MercatorNet | July 12, 2017| MercatorNet |

Charlie Gard's parents have the right to try new treatment

MercatorNet | July 12, 2017| MercatorNet |

Charlie Gard’s parents have the right to try new treatment

There is a chance it will bring benefits both for their baby and others.
Nancy Valko | Jul 11 2017 | comment 1 

A central issue in the controversy over withdrawal of treatment from British baby Charlie Gard is that of parental rights. Whether to continue life support for 11-month-old Charlie while his parents pursue alternative treatment in the US (or, since a recent offer, Italy) or not, is a question already decided in the negative by the Great Ormond Street Hospital where, because of a rare genetic disorder, he has spent most of his short life.
In the United States the case of Baby Simon Crosier in 2010 revealed that hospitals could make decisions about the “futility” of life sustaining treatments without informing parents, let alone gaining their consent. As a result, a Bill called Simon’s Law, under which parents must be informed of such decisions and have the right to refuse, has been introduced into two state legislatures and was passed by Kansas in April.
But under British law, apparently, parents have the right to make decisions about the treatment of their children unless the treatment is not in a child’s “best interests”. When Charlie’s parents said they wanted to take their son to the US for experimental treatment, the hospital refused, saying that it would not be in his best interests. When the parents insisted on their plan, the hospital went to the courts for a decision, and Britain’s Supreme Court upheld the hospital’s view, allowing it to remove Baby Charlie’s ventilation and feeding.
On June 30 Chris Gard and Connie Yates lost a further appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Yesterday, however, the case went back to Britain's High Court at the request of the hospital, after it received a letter from seven doctors citing new evidence and urging the hospital to reconsider the possibility of treatment. The judge (the same one as for the original hearing) has given Charlie's parents 48 hours in which to present the new evidence.
Thirty-five years ago I had to fight for the right to treatment for my infant daughter, Karen, who had Down Syndrome and a correctable heart defect. Tragically, Karen died of complications of pneumonia when she was just 5 ½ months old and just before her scheduled open-heart surgery. Today, the legal right to live for children with disabilities and their parents continue to be under attack as with the cases of Simon Crosier and Charlie Gard. 
An experimental treatment could also help others
Baby Charlie has a rare genetic disorder affecting his muscles and brain that has caused  brain damage, seizures and prevents him from breathing on his own.  A neurologist in the US has suggested an experimental nucleoside treatment that might, in theory, offer some benefit although the treatment has not been tried before in a situation like Baby Charlie’s.
On Facebook, Charlie’s parents said that they were “heartbroken” and aghast that the hospital would not even allow them to take their son home to die.
During the months that the couple have been fighting for the right to take their son to the US try this experimental treatment, they have raised $1.7 million through crowdfunding media to cover expenses.
The Charlie Gard case has caused enormous conflict among ethicists, lawyers and even religious leaders across the world as well as the general public.
However, Baby Charlie and his parents gained support from two important people: Pope Francis and US President Donald J. Trump.
At first, a Vatican official issued a statement on Baby Charlie that “We must do what advances the health of the patient, but we must also accept the limits of medicine and, as stated in paragraph 65 of the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family.
But a few days later and after much criticism of the first statement, Pope Francis expressed hope that the desire of 10-month-old Charlie Gard’s parents “to accompany and care for their own child to the end” will be respected(Emphasis added)
Then,after a July 3, 2017 offer by President Trump to help, an unnamed US hospital came forward to offer free treatment to Baby Charlie.
On their GoFundMe page , Baby Charlie’s parents wrote:
If Charlie receives this treatment and it does work like the Dr in America thinks, it won’t be just Charlie’s life that has been saved, it will be many more children in the future, who are born with this horrible disease and it will open up other trials on other mitochondrial depletion syndrome’s.
We need to change things and show how determined parents can forge a path for other families encountering similar obstacles. We need to find treatments for incurable diseases. We need to give other people hope. We need to start saving lives.. hopefully starting with Charlie xxx (Emphasis in original)
Over my decades years of nursing experience, I have seen people decide to try experimental treatments because they hoped for a cure, improvement or at least to help doctors learn more that may help someone else later.
Sometimes the treatments worked and sometimes they didn’t but after talking with these patients (or parents), I could not help but admire their love, courage, faith and determination.
May God bless Baby Charlie, Baby Simon and their parents.
Nancy Valko is a registered nurse and a spokesperson for the National Association of Prolife Nurses (www.nursesforlife.org) in the United States. After working in critical care, hospice, home health, oncology, dialysis and other specialties for 45 years, she is currently working as a legal nurse consultant (www.valkogroupalnc.com) and volunteer. This article is adapted from her blog post: 35 Years after Baby Doe Continued: The Simon Crosier and Charlie Gard Cases with permission.


July 12, 2017

Australia has a population of 24 million which, if were spread out evenly would give every three people a square kilometer in which to have barbecues and tangle with snakes. Unbelievably, some people think it is overpopulated.

In a demography post Shannon Roberts looks at what’s biting these experts (besides snakes) and finds that they think there has been no genuine progress in the Lucky Country since 1974, when the population was under 15 million. Shannon does not necessarily disagree with their Genuine Progress Index but see what she has to say about their conclusions.

Carolyn Moynihan 
Deputy Editor, 

Citizenship: contributing to the common good in a time of ethical pluralism
By David Thunder
A new collection of essays addresses the challenges involved.
Read the full article
Should you tell your daughter she’s beautiful?
By Tamara El-Rahi
Yes, I believe that you should.
Read the full article
British doctors’ union stages a vote to decriminalise abortion
By Peter Saunders
The move follows a huge shift in attitude towards the unborn child.
Read the full article
How a golf club in Scotland became the crucible for the greatest war poetry
By Neil McLennan
The meeting-place of Owen, Graves, and Sassoon.
Read the full article
Love and doubt: the central truth of existence
By Zac Alstin
The fall of man in everyday life.
Read the full article
Why progress might have peaked 40 years ago
By Shannon Roberts
Arguing that population is the cause is simplistic.
Read the full article
Charlie Gard’s parents have the right to try new treatment
By Nancy Valko
There is a chance it will bring benefits both for their baby and others.
Read the full article
Debut novel is a bestseller
By Jennifer Minicus
Just be prepared for a lot of violence.
Read the full article

MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation 
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia 

Designed by elleston

Charlie Gard's parents have the right to try new treatment

No hay comentarios: