Donald Trump Tweets U.S. ‘Would Be Delighted’ To Help Terminally Ill U.K. Infant

[SATW]

Typical classless responses from leftists.


Good on Trump.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Yep. If the family was Muslim and/or Asian, the President would probably go to the UK himself to eat the baby!

They do taste the best. White babies are too bland.

This Santander joke is the only post in this thread worth reading.

[ProudModerate2]

Typical classless responses from leftists.
Good on Trump.

LOL.
trump has been shooting out so many immature, clownish and "classless" tweets (responses), and yet you ignore those.

[Reluctant Republican]

I feel sympathetic to Trump in this case. I am extremely uneasy with putting state hospitals and the state in charge of when a baby dies. I know people are going to bring up the Terri Schiavo example and I would respond, as long as the families can finance their care, they should remain in charge of the person's life.

In this case, the baby had 1.4 million pounds raised (or was it dollars) and there is a potential experimental treatment. I would feel, for once, Trump is right here.

In any case, if the parents can afford it, why don't they exhaust their options before their child has to die?

I'm inclined to agree. While I doubt Trump is doing this at least strictly out of the goodness of his heart, it seems like a wise decision to bring the child here. I'm doubtful anything can help him, but the treatment will allow doctors to collect valuable data which they may be able to use to save or at least improve the lives of future sufferers of this disease. And really, since as far as I know the parents have crowdfunded for the cost of the procedure, I don't really see a downside to trying it.

[ProudModerate2]

.... While I doubt Trump is doing this at least strictly out of the goodness of his heart ...

That's all we needed to hear.

[Bojack Horseman]

These parents are clearly stuck in the Denial stage of the 7 stages of grief. I've been a death-with-dignity supporter since my grandfather suffered unnecessarily in a nursing home with Parkinson's for 8 years.

Taking this infant off life support is simply the most humane and peaceful thing to do. Denial isn't going to heal him, I hate to break it to you.

[The_Doctor]

I feel sympathetic to Trump in this case. I am extremely uneasy with putting state hospitals and the state in charge of when a baby dies. I know people are going to bring up the Terri Schiavo example and I would respond, as long as the families can finance their care, they should remain in charge of the person's life.

In this case, the baby had 1.4 million pounds raised (or was it dollars) and there is a potential experimental treatment. I would feel, for once, Trump is right here.

In any case, if the parents can afford it, why don't they exhaust their options before their child has to die?

I'm inclined to agree. While I doubt Trump is doing this at least strictly out of the goodness of his heart, it seems like a wise decision to bring the child here. I'm doubtful anything can help him, but the treatment will allow doctors to collect valuable data which they may be able to use to save or at least improve the lives of future sufferers of this disease. And really, since as far as I know the parents have crowdfunded for the cost of the procedure, I don't really see a downside to trying it.

Oh Trump isn't doing it out of the good of his heart. However, I'll take the help here. The Pope has also come out for Charlie Gard and that's good too. Parents should not be deprived, as I said, of their power to save their children.

[Reluctant Republican]

.... While I doubt Trump is doing this at least strictly out of the goodness of his heart ...

That's all we needed to hear.

? To be frank I don't care for his reasoning behind it. Trump's a politician. I think even the best intentioned of them look for chances to score PR victories and the like. You can find the man repulsive and still think the action he is taking here is desirable.

These parents are clearly stuck in the Denial stage of the 7 stages of grief. I've been a death-with-dignity supporter since my grandfather suffered unnecessarily in a nursing home with Parkinson's for 8 years.

Taking this infant off life support is simply the most humane and peaceful thing to do. Denial isn't going to heal him, I hate to break it to you.

I normally would agree with you and think that we need more euthanasia not less, but if there is an experimental treatment I think it's worth pursuing. Less so for this child who is probably beyond help, more so for any future kids diagnosed with this condition. Letting him die now doesn't help anyone figure out more about his illness. In my view, anyway.

[Mr. Reactionary]

These parents are clearly stuck in the Denial stage of the 7 stages of grief. I've been a death-with-dignity supporter since my grandfather suffered unnecessarily in a nursing home with Parkinson's for 8 years.

Taking this infant off life support is simply the most humane and peaceful thing to do. Denial isn't going to heal him, I hate to break it to you.

Thanks for that divine revelation, God.

[The_Doctor]

These parents are clearly stuck in the Denial stage of the 7 stages of grief. I've been a death-with-dignity supporter since my grandfather suffered unnecessarily in a nursing home with Parkinson's for 8 years.

Taking this infant off life support is simply the most humane and peaceful thing to do. Denial isn't going to heal him, I hate to break it to you.

We well understand that a child's life is in the hands of its parents until age 18. Especially infants who cannot make their own decisions. In fact, infants are wholly reliant on their parents for survival, care, and feeding.

The state should not have the power to determine whether a child lives or dies, unless the funding is entirely reliant on the state and they need to make decisions on that basis. That's not the case here.

This isn't euthanasia. It's straight up murder. Euthanasia, conceptually (and I support it) is inherently about a terminally ill individual's capacity to make a decision to peacefully end a life. It was never and is never about the state's ability to end the lives of others, especially when the financing isn't even theirs. Especially without their opinion or the opinion of their loved ones to factor into the matter. That's explicitly the antithesis of euthanasia's basis.

[ProudModerate2]

.... While I doubt Trump is doing this at least strictly out of the goodness of his heart ...

That's all we needed to hear.

? To be frank I don't care for his reasoning behind it. Trump's a politician. I think even the best intentioned of them look for chances to score PR victories and the like. You can find the man repulsive and still think the action he is taking here is desirable.

I can agree with most of what you are saying.
The problem is that with most politicians, there is a chance that some of what they do and say is truly from the bottom-of-their-heart.
But with trump there isn't a chance in hell that anything he does is altruistic.
With trump, it's all about satisfying his narcissistic ego, his financial empire, or an issue related to one of his own family members .... THAT'S IT.

[Associate Justice PiT]

.... While I doubt Trump is doing this at least strictly out of the goodness of his heart ...

That's all we needed to hear.

? To be frank I don't care for his reasoning behind it. Trump's a politician. I think even the best intentioned of them look for chances to score PR victories and the like. You can find the man repulsive and still think the action he is taking here is desirable.

I can agree with most of what you are saying.
The problem is that with most politicians, there is a chance that some of what they do and say is truly from the bottom-of-their-heart.
But with trump there isn't a chance in hell that anything he does is altruistic.
With trump, it's all about satisfying his narcissistic ego, his financial empire, or an issue related to one of his own family members .... THAT'S IT.

     If it is a good course of action then it remains good regardless of intentions. Kant concerns himself with intentions in his ethics, and if Trump acts without intending to do good (which he assuredly does, along with almost all politicians almost all of the time) then doing this does not make him a good person according to that metric. The post in question, however, was evaluating the quality of the decision and not of the person making it.

[Deblano]

Good on President Trump for this.

[Bojack Horseman]

These parents are clearly stuck in the Denial stage of the 7 stages of grief. I've been a death-with-dignity supporter since my grandfather suffered unnecessarily in a nursing home with Parkinson's for 8 years.

Taking this infant off life support is simply the most humane and peaceful thing to do. Denial isn't going to heal him, I hate to break it to you.

We well understand that a child's life is in the hands of its parents until age 18. Especially infants who cannot make their own decisions. In fact, infants are wholly reliant on their parents for survival, care, and feeding.

The state should not have the power to determine whether a child lives or dies, unless the funding is entirely reliant on the state and they need to make decisions on that basis. That's not the case here.

This isn't euthanasia. It's straight up murder. Euthanasia, conceptually (and I support it) is inherently about a terminally ill individual's capacity to make a decision to peacefully end a life. It was never and is never about the state's ability to end the lives of others, especially when the financing isn't even theirs. Especially without their opinion or the opinion of their loved ones to factor into the matter. That's explicitly the antithesis of euthanasia's basis.

No, it's basic common sense and it happens every day. While it's a heartbreaking position to be put in, allowing a terminally ill child to die in peace with his/her pain managed is the far more ethical choice that most parents make rather than subjecting it to painful experimental treatments that we all know won't work-hence the term "Terminally Ill."

[Doimper]

Good on President Trump for this.

For using a suffering and terminally ill child as a political prop?

[Gustaf]

My understanding is that a) the baby is in a lot of pain and b) there is no treatment that can actually save it, only prolong the suffering a little bit.

The decision from the government in the UK is that the parents don't have a right to continue to inflict suffering on a baby that cannot survive either way.

You can disagree with that but a lot of the hyperbole here seems to miss the mark.

[Santander]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/health/charlie-gard-decision/index.html

It's too late for Charlie. Congress even passed a law granting green cards for him and his parents so that they could bring him to the US for treatment. Prayers for him and his parents.

[Person Man]

These parents are clearly stuck in the Denial stage of the 7 stages of grief. I've been a death-with-dignity supporter since my grandfather suffered unnecessarily in a nursing home with Parkinson's for 8 years.

Taking this infant off life support is simply the most humane and peaceful thing to do. Denial isn't going to heal him, I hate to break it to you.

We well understand that a child's life is in the hands of its parents until age 18. Especially infants who cannot make their own decisions. In fact, infants are wholly reliant on their parents for survival, care, and feeding.

The state should not have the power to determine whether a child lives or dies, unless the funding is entirely reliant on the state and they need to make decisions on that basis. That's not the case here.

This isn't euthanasia. It's straight up murder. Euthanasia, conceptually (and I support it) is inherently about a terminally ill individual's capacity to make a decision to peacefully end a life. It was never and is never about the state's ability to end the lives of others, especially when the financing isn't even theirs. Especially without their opinion or the opinion of their loved ones to factor into the matter. That's explicitly the antithesis of euthanasia's basis.

No, it's basic common sense and it happens every day. While it's a heartbreaking position to be put in, allowing a terminally ill child to die in peace with his/her pain managed is the far more ethical choice that most parents make rather than subjecting it to painful experimental treatments that we all know won't work-hence the term "Terminally Ill."

That's Assisted Suicide. Not Euthanasia. This really isn't euthanasia inasmuch as stopping treatment when you have stage IV cancer. That being said, if someone thinks that this family has nothing to lose and think that they can actually help them, I would be all for a "Right to Try"(where the alternatives are death or try for an unapproved experimental treatment that could "work") but is this a bonafide "Right to Try" situation?

[IceAgeComing]

In the UK, children have rights separate from their parents on life and death medical issues.  When a child's doctors and their parents disagree on what would be the best course of action in the care of a child it's the responsibility of the legal system to consider all of the facts in a case and come to a conclusion.

My reading of the case suggests that Great Ormond Street considered the experimental treatment in the tail end of last year, but felt that Charlie had suffered considerable brain damage and that any attempts at treatment would be futile and therefore made the best interests application.  Professor Hirano had been in contact with GOSH since December last year; had been invited to examine Charlie in January, which was not taken up until last week - indeed, the court noted that he was providing evidence without having examined Charlie or looked at his records - there's also the fact that Hirano has a financial interest in the treatment, that sadly also has to be considered.  When he actually examined Charlie he said that there was no prospect of the treatment working - he may well have come to the same conclusions had he examined Charlie earlier and prevented this whole sad, sad mess.

I don't think that anyone involved in this was acting at all maliciously - the parents will naturally cling to whatever hope exists, the doctors at Great Ormond Street will always act in the interests of their patients and sometimes that's not holding them in a painful limbo until they eventually die; and Hirano probably genuinely believed that if it potentially was viable - perhaps it was if he'd examined Charlie earlier.  The two people who I hold contempt for in this thing are the incredibly odious people who'll tie all this to the NHS and talk about " STATE DOCTORS KILLING CHILDREN" and the awful parts of the American-influenced pro-life movement who'll cling to anything like this to push their agenda; even when there is realistically no hope for anything better.  The way that they've used this sad, sad case to push their toxic crap is awful.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Using almost-dead kid for political trolling? Classy.

Jesus Christ trying to help a baby is now "trolling?"

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Using almost-dead kid for political trolling? Classy.

Jesus Christ trying to help a baby is now "trolling?"

Oh, Sanchez, if he tweeted he'd rather let the kid die than let him in the reaction wouldn't be any different, because OMGZ TRUMPS SAID IT!!!11

[Person Man]

Using almost-dead kid for political trolling? Classy.

Jesus Christ trying to help a baby is now "trolling?"

Oh, Sanchez, if he tweeted he'd rather let the kid die than let him in the reaction wouldn't be any different, because OMGZ TRUMPS SAID IT!!!11

In your defense, W worked hard to force a dying person to die and then used Congress to keep another dying person from dying.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Typical classless responses from leftists.


Good on Trump.

[publicunofficial]

Charlie Gard has died, aged 11 months

[7,052,770]

Charlie Gard has died, aged 11 months

He was very lucky to have born in a country like the UK. Most babies in the world would have died months ago if they had his genetic disorder. Still very sad though.