US hospital offers terminally ill Charlie Gard ‘free treatment’ after Trump intervenes

A HOSPITAL in the US has reportedly offered to treat terminally ill baby Charlie Gard for free as part of last-ditch attempts to save his life.

The news comes a day after the president intervened in the case, saying the United States would be “delighted” to assist the 10-month-old.

Mr Trump took to Twitter to express his support, saying: “If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the UK and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.”

Charlie , who suffers from the rare genetic condition mitochondrial depletion syndrome, is severely brain damaged and has muscle weakness.

The unnamed hospital has allegedly offered a new experimental treatment at no cost - if he is granted permission to travel.


The infant has been at the centre of a lengthy legal battle after doctors at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital proposed switching his life support machine off.

Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, took the hospital to court to challenge the decision, pleading with medics to allow Charlie to undergo a therapy trial in the US.

However, the devastated parents lost their fight when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) refused to intervene - effectively allowing the machines to be switched off.

His parents are now spending the last days with their baby son, after doctors agreed to a short delay before his inevitable death.

Charlie's plight has touched thousands of people, with the family receiving donations in excess of more than £1.3million for his therapy.

In a video posted on Facebook, his parents said they felt “massively let down” by a legal process that has seen three UK courts and the ECHR rule against them.

They said: “We are utterly heartbroken, spending our last precious hours with our baby boy.

"We're not allowed to choose if our son lives and we're not allowed to choose when or where Charlie dies. We, and most importantly Charlie, have been massively let down throughout this whole process.”

According to Charlie’s doctors, they infant is believed to be in “continued pain, suffering and distress” and that the experimental treatment in the US would “continue to cause significant harm” with little benefit.

The Pope had earlier said he was praying for Charlie’s parents and was following the situation “with affection and commotion”.

His message was shortly followed by an offer of sanctuary from the Paediatric Hospital Bambino Gesu - known as the 'Pope's Hospital’ - in order to preserve the child’s life.

Mariella Enoc, the president of the hospital, said: "I have asked the health director to check with Great Ormond Street Hospital if there are sanitary conditions for an eventual transfer of Charlie to our hospital.

“We know that the case is desperate".

http://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/824747/charlie-gard-terminally-ill-baby-us-hospital-free-treatment-donald-trump/amp

My question (nothing to do with the Pope or Trump) is why does that givernment have that right

This is a very sad case, it's been on going here for a while now. great ormond street children's hospital is respected world wide. but the parents first tried our courts then tried to over rule that by going to Europe then trump buts in.
The hospital in the usa can not cure or make the baby better, it's sad but I'm sure the London hospital knows best.

But why are the courts involved? Shouldn't it be the parents choice? The hospital wants to take him off life support anyway. So would he be in pain there or home?

It happens here in this situation.
I'd always follow the hospitals advice personally , here they will do everything in there powers to keep anyone alive. But if a parent disagrees they can go to court to over rule the hospitals decision.
And yes, it baffles me to how a court would know better than the people treating someone. You just need a legal person to get there grubby little hands on a case like this and it goes from there, and they are the winner once again. yes, it should be the parents choice but the doctors are the ones saying the baby is only being kept alive by a machine, they feel it's time to Let go, very hard decision for them and it won't have been taken lightly.

As for letting the parents take the baby home to die, I'm not sure of the reasons the hospital are against that

The child is on life support and is severely brain damaged.

Things to consider (how ugly to think these things)
1. Will the child die without life support?
2. If he doesn't, will his life have fullness or be constant misery?
3. Petitioning the court indicates that the life support is not funded by the parents. If they had the money and so desired they could provide all life support at their own home. They NEED the hospital.
4. A finding based on sympathy sets a precident that can be abused.
5. What happens to Charlie if he is transferred to the US hospital? Aside from more time on life support?
6. Consider other 10 month old babies that die everyday. If Charlie were not on life support would he still be alive?
7. No hospital expends all possible recourse to all dying patients. Is Charlie a special case because of his age or is there some other factor involved.

I was going to try to state 10 considerations but I can't. I'm sure I could come up with more but I don't like the dark places it takes my head.

My heart goes out to Charlie's parents and I wish for their suffering to end so they can remember him as they loved him, not as the war they had to wage over him. May they always remember their love and affection for their son.

It's just sad ant the Parents of course are fighting for every minute of life for the boy. I know I would do similar.

I guess...and a guess...England has their socialized medicine tied in with government and so there is influence.

I could not imagine the government or health system would even consider halting treatment due to money.

There is probably more to the story than we know?

If a dog is in pain and no hope, we think the humane thing to do is anesthetize them. Let them go.

A human being...a child....Oh wait a minute. Not the same criteria.
Many people live in pain and often in Hospital.
I am for letting them do whatever could be done for another minute or two of life.

We have Hospitals in Houston, TX thought to be World leaders in Child health issues. Money is never a concern.
I truly would think UK has similar or superior.
For some reason they have apparently given up on Charlie.

You are mostly correct but I assure you that the government will have no influence in any medical decisions.

The argument was taking him off of life support so I assume the child would die. Shouldn't the parents have a voice (unless it would be painful which would happen in the hospital)

As a parent I would want to try everything for my child. They raised money to bring him to thw US (not on tax dollars) but at least let the parents have that choice

It's a difficult one rose, yes, usually let's say if a relative is in an accident or ill then you have a choice, if the doctors said, he /she is brain dead or totally dependant on a life support machine there more than not people would turn it off.
Charlie will die if the machine is turned off.
Yes, they have raised more than one million £. Our doctors know the treatment in the US will not help, so do the doctors who are offering it.
It's an experimental thing. I'm not really sure why they just haven't let them go. must be a good reason.

I think that the case for letting him die at home must have a reason to, maybe pain or something.

This is just another reason for me to be glad for what happened in America on July 4, 1776.

Because the population gave it to them?


Because the parents brought them in?
"Connie Yates and Chris Gard, took the hospital to court..."


Not once they brought the baby into the hospital and hooked it up to the machines controlled/owned by the hospital/doctors.

The doctors see themselves as advocates of their patients.
The baby isn't like a car, the parents property.
They believe they're acting in the best interest of their patient, the baby, not the parents.

Maybe if the parents used their crowdfund money and bought life support machines and a transfer service the hospital would let the kid go with the parents.


From what I can tell (from other sources than the OP) it has more to do with the parents ego's.
The hospital has set a time and date for when the life support machines are going to be turned off.
The parents are upset because they want to take the kid home and make a production of it, having friends and family over, and put the kid in a brand new crib.
The date and time the hospital chose means not all of their friends and family can be there.

From what I can tell they have no idea if the kid is in pain or not.
He can't see, hear, move, or speak. The kid is just kind of existing.

It happens in extreme cases, I imagine the same reason we have a CSB, because sometimes parents are not making the best choices and are harming the child so government steps in for the childs protection

it is the same with the flip side of that story, when parents DONT choose medical care and a child dies,, the government often charges them for what they didnt do,,,,

Yep, imagine that, people having health care that works for all not just the better off,

I hope I live to see the day

A very confusing and complicated situation, but I don't see how things are different in the US. We've had a number of high profile cases where the government and the hospitals and the relatives fought in the courts over the fate of a loved one.

That's refreshing to hear igor, it was sounding like it is our fault.
To be frank and as I see it, the only people that would gain out of him going to the usa would be the one's who will make thousands from the treatment. and they have said already that it won't cure him.

The European court of human rights refused to intervene, yet I remember years ago they intervened and allowed a prisoner in the UK to vote in the general election after our own government had refused. He had raped 7 women.
I'm so glad I voted Brexit.

As for the child and as a parent I'd do all I could to try and save him, but realistically and if I remember correctly his life will be almost vegetable like even if he survives.
Hard to imagine how they must feel.

Yes, I remember that jo.
I'm sure it is heading for European courts to be totally in control of all member states.
I think when ever a case is taken to Europe it makes a mockery of our justice system!
Like the place in Switzerland that you can go to end your life if you're terminally ill, the name slips my mind.
I wonder if they have one in America?