Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: The British Government Has Sentenced a Baby to Death

  1. #1
    Anachronism
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,181
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    862
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,020
    Thanked in
    519 Posts

    The British Government Has Sentenced a Baby to Death

    Charlie Gard parents end legal fight for 'beautiful' baby



    The parents of terminally ill baby Charlie Gard have ended their legal challenge to take him to the US for experimental treatment.

    A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court "time had run out" for the baby.

    Mr Gard said it meant his "sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy" will not reach his first birthday on 4 August.

    "To let our beautiful little Charlie go" is "the hardest thing we'll ever have to do", his mother said.

    Charlie's parents said they made the decision because a US doctor had told them it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy.

    "We only wanted to give him a chance of life," Ms Yates told the court in a statement.

    "A whole lot of time has been wasted," she added.

    "We are sorry we could not save you."

    Their lawyer Grant Armstrong said the parents' worst fears had been confirmed.

    He told judge Mr Justice Francis US neurologist Dr Michio Hirano had said he was no longer willing to offer the baby experimental therapy after he saw the results of a new MRI scan last week.

    He added Mr Gard and Ms Yates, from Bedfont, west London, now hoped to establish a foundation to ensure Charlie's voice "continues to be heard".

    In a statement outside court, Mr Gard said Charlie was an "absolute warrior" and they "could not be prouder of him."
    "Charlie has had a greater impact on and touched more people in this world in his 11 months than many people do in a lifetime.

    "We could not have more love and pride for our beautiful boy.

    "We are now going to spend our last precious moments with our son Charlie, who unfortunately won't make his first birthday in just under two weeks' time."

    They had raised £1.3m in donations to take their son abroad for treatment.
    Charlie has encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. He has brain damage and cannot move his arms or legs.

    Katie Gollop, the lawyer representing Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) where Charlie has been treated since October, said doctors disagreed with the parents who believed MRI scans in January had shown "treatment could have been effective at that time".

    "All aspects of the clinical picture and all of Charlie's observations indicated that his brain was irreversibly damaged and that [the therapy] was futile," she said.

    The hospital paid tribute to the "bravery" of the decision made by Charlie's parents.

    In a statement, it said: "Over the weekend, they communicated their desire to spend all the time they can with Charlie whilst working with the hospital to formulate the best possible plan for his end of life care.

    "The agony, desolation and bravery of their decision command GOSH's utmost respect and humble all who work there."

    Mr Justice Francis paid tribute to Charlie's parents and said no-one could comprehend their agony and no parents could have done more.

    In his judgement, the judge said last week's MRI scans had shown "Charlie has no muscle at all" on parts of his body and was "beyond help".

    He said Mr Gard and Ms Yates were now prepared to accept Charlie should be moved to palliative care and be allowed to die with dignity.

    The judge also decried the "absurd notion which has appeared in recent days that Charlie has been a prisoner of the National Health Service", calling it "the antithesis of the truth".

    "In this country children have rights independent of their parents," he said.

    Occasionally there were circumstances when a hospital and the parents were unable to agree what course of action was in the best interest of the child patient, in that instance the decision is referred to an independent judge, he continued.

    Outside court, Charlie's Army campaigners reacted angrily and chanted, "shame on you judge" and "shame on GOSH".

    Falling to the ground, one female supporter said: "He had a chance and you took it away."

    Charlie Gard: Timeline of parents' legal battle
    • 3 March 2017: Mr Justice Francis starts to analyse the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London.
    • 11 April: Mr Justice Francis says doctors can stop providing life-support treatment.
    • 3 May: Charlie's parents ask Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.
    • 23 May: Three Court of Appeal judges analyse the case.
    • 25 May: Court of Appeal judges dismiss the couple's appeal.
    • 8 June: Charlie's parents lose fight in the Supreme Court.
    • 20 June: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights start to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.
    • 27 June: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights refuse to intervene.
    • 3 July: The Pope and US President Donald Trump offer to intervene.
    • 7 July: Great Ormond Street Hospital applies for a fresh hearing at the High Court.
    • 24 July: Charlie's parents end their legal fight to take him to the US for treatment.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40708343


    European governments seem to have been instructed by the Rothschilds to murder every European they possibly can, and that includes this baby.

    "In this country children have rights independent of their parents," he said.
    Communist obfuscation. What he's saying is that your children belong to the state.

    The UK is in no way a free country if this couple cannot leave and take their baby with them. Their son was deemed property of the state and that state decreed his death.
    [02-10, 17:07] Chlodovech: cats may have a reason for meowing too

    [02-10, 17:08] renownedwolf: same reason as the missus then.. give me stuff/affection..though she doesnt need me to let her out in the garden for a poo..

    [02-10, 17:09] Chlodovech: that's more than I can say of Thoreidar

  2. #2
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Norman Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Norman & German
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    265
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    137
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    229
    Thanked in
    96 Posts
    I feel sorry for what the parents had to go through and commend their dedication to the child, however I find the title and conclusion somewhat far-fetched.

    Please read the original judgment in its entirety to understand the decision better. It was about whether or not to force a hospital to continue providing life-support treatment to a terminally ill child for whom the experimental treatment would have been unsuccessful - which was confirmed by doctors, including those in the US where they wanted to take the child - thereby prolonging his agony. Both parents and children have rights, but when a child is unable to make or consent to a decision, it has to be represented by an appointed guardian and ultimately, the state has to interfere. This is mostly done in cases of suspected child abuse and/or to represent the best interests of the child.

    Of course we could have a discussion about when and for how long a hospital should provide artificial life support, ethical and religious aspects, quality of life, living with handicap vs humane euthanasia, etc. but I don't see any communist conspiracy here. If anything one could criticise the bureaucracy and typically slow pace court procedures take nowadays, on the other hand we can imagine such decisions aren't taken easily or lightly. Medical expertise and multiple medical opinions are required. Note that at no point during this time did the hospital cease to provide services to the parents. Actually, the hospital agreed to continue treating the child until all legal courses had been exhausted. The case then went to the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights, who both upheld the decision. So I don't really see anti-life or even anti-Germanic motives here, even less a conspiracy where the hospital, independent doctors and legal bodies all participated motivated by the thirst for Germanic blood. The judge actually invited the US doctor with the experimental therapy to come to the UK, and there was a special hearing where different eminent scientists were invited to establish a consensus. The consensus was that the child's brain damage was too advanced for any treatment to work. The child would have most likely lived as a vegetable and died at a later stage anyway. That is the unfortunate outcome for severe brain damage.

  3. #3
    Anachronism
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,181
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    862
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,020
    Thanked in
    519 Posts
    The question is a simple one. Should a child's welfare be entrusted to parents who love him, or to a government who sees him as a piece of meat? I believe in parental rights absolutely. Those parents should have been free to take the child wherever they could for treatment. What some judge says should never even be part of the equation. After wasting all that time with deliberation through courts, of course the child deteriorated significantly. There's no real difference between this and just letting someone bleed to death while arguing about whether he's worth saving.

    I read the judgement. It's full of pointless emotional drivel, then says the child has "rights" which the state, not the parents, are to defend, as though the state were the interested party more than the child's own family. This all comes under the umbrella of destroying the society through destroying the family. It's the same dehumanization practiced by the soviets in their day, and has become the norm in many European countries. Communism itself is a Jewish-inspired concept that requires absolute state control and regards the family unit as its foe. This attitude is plainly evident in the governments of the west today.
    [02-10, 17:07] Chlodovech: cats may have a reason for meowing too

    [02-10, 17:08] renownedwolf: same reason as the missus then.. give me stuff/affection..though she doesnt need me to let her out in the garden for a poo..

    [02-10, 17:09] Chlodovech: that's more than I can say of Thoreidar

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Renwein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, December 28th, 2018 @ 07:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Posts
    632
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    The baby was 'sentenced to death' by nature. There was no cure for his condition. I've seen some (Americans) online claiming this was a case of 'socialist big government killing a child'. I think it's a pretty bad look for them to use this case to promote their politics (anti-socialist, anti-government). I don't think the majority of people will agree with them on this one and the type of language used just confirms the negative stereotypes people have about them.

  5. #5
    Anachronism
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,181
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    862
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,020
    Thanked in
    519 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Renwein View Post
    The baby was 'sentenced to death' by nature. There was no cure for his condition.
    There might well have been, if the parents had been unimpeded in pursuing it. But you can tell a muzzled and enslaved serf he's wrong all you want, when you give him no power to justify his cause.

    I've seen some (Americans) online claiming this was a case of 'socialist big government killing a child'. I think it's a pretty bad look for them to use this case to promote their politics (anti-socialist, anti-government). I don't think the majority of people will agree with them on this one and the type of language used just confirms the negative stereotypes people have about them.
    Governments that do not serve their native populations are illegitimate and tyrannical, whatever label you put on them. Do you support a government that has sought to replace our people with third-world immigrants for some years now? I'm no libertarian, but supporting the rights of the family IS supporting the rights of the nation as a whole, and only a legitimate (homogeneous) nation has any right to even form a government.
    [02-10, 17:07] Chlodovech: cats may have a reason for meowing too

    [02-10, 17:08] renownedwolf: same reason as the missus then.. give me stuff/affection..though she doesnt need me to let her out in the garden for a poo..

    [02-10, 17:09] Chlodovech: that's more than I can say of Thoreidar

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Renwein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, December 28th, 2018 @ 07:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Posts
    632
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Huginn ok Muninn View Post
    [FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]There might well have been, if the parents had been unimpeded in pursuing it. But you can tell a muzzled and enslaved serf he's wrong all you want, when you give him no power to justify his cause.
    Even the guy offering a treatment said what he was offering wasn't a cure. It was just a 'treatment', with a 10% chance of alleviating his condition somewhat (this has spun up into a '10% chance of being cured' online in some people's minds), and he was offering it pending his own personal review of the baby's condition (he wasn't privy to that information at the time). Saying he might well have been cured is like saying a literal miracle might happen. By that measure every terminal patient should be strung out till the last drop in case a magic miracle occurs at the last moment. That would both be very expensive, and cause a tremendous amount of suffering to countless hopeless cases being hooked up well beyond their natural expiry date due to modern machines - which are providing treatment free of charge (& yes, I know what taxes are for) courtesy of the evil big socialist goverment, incidentally.

    Governments that do not serve their native populations are illegitimate and tyrannical, whatever label you put on them. Do you support a government that has sought to replace our people with third-world immigrants for some years now? I'm no libertarian, but supporting the rights of the family IS supporting the rights of the nation as a whole, and only a legitimate (homogeneous) nation has any right to even form a government.

    You're conflating the issues here, it's got nothing to do with mass immigration at all. Your being angry about the one thing shouldn't have any influence over the other.
    What would well known Marxist-Communist & hater of white families H. Himmler have suggested about cases such as these for instance.

  7. #7
    Anachronism
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,181
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    862
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,020
    Thanked in
    519 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Renwein View Post
    You're conflating the issues here, it's got nothing to do with mass immigration at all. Your being angry about the one thing shouldn't have any influence over the other.
    What would well known Marxist-Communist & hater of white families H. Himmler have suggested about cases such as these for instance.
    Not conflating the issues at all. The current western governments have no political capital to claim they have the best interests of their citizens in mind, because they have promoted, and continue to promote mass immigration. This makes their every action in a case like this suspect.

    The National Socialist government of Germany was dedicated to the overall health of the native population, so that would have made it easier to accept if this had happened there. But I don't know of any case in which someone was impeded from leaving the Third Reich to seek care overseas.
    [02-10, 17:07] Chlodovech: cats may have a reason for meowing too

    [02-10, 17:08] renownedwolf: same reason as the missus then.. give me stuff/affection..though she doesnt need me to let her out in the garden for a poo..

    [02-10, 17:09] Chlodovech: that's more than I can say of Thoreidar

  8. #8
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 17th, 2021 @ 11:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,253
    Thanked in
    739 Posts
    Nothing really that wrong with the decision. I don't see the necessity of keeping veggies "alive" indefinitely hooked up to a machine. Such people can't contribute to society, either can't reproduce or if they do, they pass on faulty genes, they rarely even have intelligence or self-awareness and in many cases the expensive treatment is futile, neither curing nor improving the condition.

    The child has an incurable and fatal condition, too advanced to even make a medical case study out of him. Typically, the muscle weakness eventually causes respiratory failure and death. The kid also developed severe epileptic encephalopathy and had seizures, which made even the experimental "treatment" redundant. All they could have done was just to treat some symptoms and prolong his life (and suffering that comes with it).

    Oh, and don't be fooled. Many of these super-expensive "experimental treatments" are just shams made to empty desperate and gullible people's wallets. So before trusting any doctor with your life's savings or other people's money, weigh in the possibility of financial interests. Ask a second opinion and contact experts in the field. Anyway, the couple was asked to prove an experimental treatment really works if they wanted an appeal and they withdrew their request. So even they must have realized it's pointless.

    It's not pretty, but this is how life originally was in nature, its own form of eugenics, survival of the fittest. People just look at it differently because the damage the disease caused and the pain is not externally obvious from a picture. "Oh, what a beautiful baby, looks just like a doll, please don't kill it..." If it were a fatal burn victim or gangrenous patient where you could see the damage externally and read the victim's pain on their face, you'd probably be the ones insisting on pumping the guy with high doses of painkillers so they could fade out with less discomfort. The kid can't see, can't hear, can't move any muscles, he can't cry or make any noise. He's got no more battery life of his own, he'd have been long dead without the artificial life support system. Who would like to live like that? Not even able to breathe on your own? Not able to show the others when you're in pain and where it hurts? Permanently plugged in and dependent on a machine?

    I'm not against tampering with nature medically, but if we do, it should be in a constructive way. Life extension only makes sense insofar we can also improve the quality of life - reverse the ageing process, prevent and minimize the risk of disease, etc. Otherwise we'd end up with an increasingly old and crippled population, which would be unproductive. Our resources aren't infinite. Ideally, we should minimize the risk of genetic disease by mapping and identifying faulty genes, creating incentives for healthy people to reproduce, testing for genetic diseases still in the womb and providing abortion incentives in case of defects.

    The kid would have been euthanised in the Reich. People with such debilitating, vegetative, incurable conditions were granted a merciful death (Gnadentod). In some ancient cultures, it would have probably been thrown off a cliff or dumped into a bog. And for all we know it could also be just another scandalous media hype to make some extra money. It's been a trend on social media for a while, to use pictures of sick kids to beg for likes. If likes why not also money? Oh right, they made a campaign. I'd be curious, since they're not going to receive the experimental treatment after all, if people will get their 1.3 million donations back.

  9. #9
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Norman Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Norman & German
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    265
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    137
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    229
    Thanked in
    96 Posts
    Huginn ok Muninn; so you're basically saying that you don't like this decision because you don't like the government? That's at least what I deduced from your explanation, especially since you mentioned that if Nazi Germany had made the same decision, you'd have found it easier to accept.

    I don't think I need to explain why that's a logical fallacy... a generally bad government can still make sound decisions and a generally good government can still make poor ones...

    I'm not much for government control myself and I also believe in parental rights. There are however a few exceptional cases, such as physical, emotional and other kinds of abuse, where absolute parental control would not be in the best interest of the children. Surely you agree that parents forcing their children into prostitution, injecting them with drugs or beating them up should have their parental rights taken away? The state should place the welfare of the child first, of course. I'm aware that loving parents don't want to lose hope for their sick child and want to cure him, but there comes a time where continuing medical treatment becomes more uncomfortable and even detrimental for the child than palliative care. Most treatments for such diseases include unpleasant side effects. For example, aggressive chemotherapy makes sense if there are some good odds one may beat the cancer, but if the cancer is spread massively and irreversibly, it makes no sense to continue to make the patient sick. The child should not have to spend their final moments of life in pain because his parents become irrational and hang on to a nonexistent thread.

    I can see how taking away those children with white supremacist names from their parents may have been politically motivated. This case however is nothing alike. Assuming for a moment this was some anti-European or anti-Germanic genocidal conspiracy, meant to destroy European family, you'd think they'd target healthier children and/or children with non-terminal conditions, at the very least those capable of reaching adulthood to become politically active or have children themselves... The disease this baby is suffering from is fatal and cannot be cured. Few of those affected reach early childhood, most die as infants anyway. If there was a conspiracy out to murder him, health complications from the disease itself or comorbid conditions, machine failure or malfunction while transferring the baby would be more coincidental, less expensive and less... conspirative to produce than a court ruling with publicity in the papers. So a government busy with genocidal measures against Germanics wouldn't bat an eye at such cases, me thinks. Not everything is a communist conspiracy...

  10. #10
    Anachronism
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,181
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    862
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,020
    Thanked in
    519 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Pride View Post
    Huginn ok Muninn; so you're basically saying that you don't like this decision because you don't like the government? That's at least what I deduced from your explanation, especially since you mentioned that if Nazi Germany had made the same decision, you'd have found it easier to accept.
    You don't understand. Please read my post again and stop paraphrasing my thoughts.

    I am saying no western government today can be trusted as good-faith representatives of the people they govern, particularly when they are our people. This is proven by their advocacy for unchecked third-world immigration and thought crime laws against any of us who oppose this.

    Maybe this will make you understand... Would you trust a proven murderer to care for your children? This is the sort of character western governments have become in my eyes. Their actions indicate they want to murder our race. Therefore, they cannot be trusted to look out for the best interests of our children.
    [02-10, 17:07] Chlodovech: cats may have a reason for meowing too

    [02-10, 17:08] renownedwolf: same reason as the missus then.. give me stuff/affection..though she doesnt need me to let her out in the garden for a poo..

    [02-10, 17:09] Chlodovech: that's more than I can say of Thoreidar

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, September 29th, 2017, 06:20 PM
  2. An Attempt To Buy the British Government?
    By SaxonPagan in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2010, 03:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •