charlie gar so i guess i shouldn t be surprised that my facebook page and twitter file are being overwhelmed with so many of you making comments about what i just said about the 11 month old charlie gard and this fight between his parents and the london hospital as to whether he should stay on life support. show me some of what we ve got. it s so absurd that the court gets to decide what the parents could do with the baby even when trump and the pope offered help. but kevin, that was my gut reaction as well. but then you say well, what if parents were making an irrational decision? if the parents were refusing treatment, like the case that i described in philadelphia where a family lost two of their children, we d all be saying somebody do something. let the court intervene for crying out loud. so maybe the reverse needs to be true. if, in fact, the infant is feeling pain. that s one of the things that i evaluate. time for one more before i welcome my guests. i said it s overwhelm.
in the russia election. unravel that. i want to make a point about the ugly american notion. the fact that we have a president who doesn t respect women and makes demeaning comments about them, a president who makes demeaning comments about immigrants, their contribution to the society and who maligns them, that probably has nothing to do with the notion of an ugly american, too, because it goes against the values we claim to be pushing all over the world. these values of freedom and liberty and respect for human rights and other people. i just want to make that point. but yes, it s very hard to keep track of president trump and where he stands on certain issues and that s always been the case. that s why i think that also, you know, from just a russian perspective, we saw that there was a lot of excitement right after donald trump was elected. but now those expectations have all been lowered because they ve realized, a, that is he unpredictable and kind of flip flops on positions th
the case we saw in san francisco, she goes into the hospital for a ton sill surgery, something going wrong, she s declared brain dead. even though the experts said she s brain dead, they were allowed to take her to a rehab facility because that was the parents decision. that s what has americans so concerned. why can t he come to the nied a united states and get the help some doctors say they can provide. if he were to come to the united states and there were no relief but the parents wanted to go further, at what point does the court system step in, if at all, and say it s gone too far, he s suffering pain? go ahead, danny. since the early 90s, hospitals, doctors, and even courts have begun to recognize a change in policy. that sometimes medical autonomy, the decision to make whatever choice you want for your body for parents for their child, can
parents there is some experimental treatment that could help their child. why will the u.k., why would they prevent this child from traveling to the united states when there are medical professionals who are saying they can help? so your position would be that as long as somebody somewhere says they can help, then a court cannot withdraw medical treatment. that s eye nice concept. it s just never been the law either in the u.k. nor in the united states for the last 30 years. you got my point wrong. i m not saying somebody somewhere. i m talking about qualified medical professionals. what is qualified? what is futility? doctors can disagree about treatment. in this case as long as you have qualified medical professionals in the united states saying that they can provide treatment, why would a country deny the child the right to travel here to get that treatment? i disagree with your point about the law in the myself, because the law in the mcmath case
a twist in the case of 11 month old charlie when a london hospital decided to revis its intention remove the infant from life support. i find myself wrestling with this question. who should be responsible for the final zedecisions regarding his medical care? parents or physicians? charlie suffers from mdds. the condition causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. there are only about a dozen kids in the world who are known to have it. he s brain damaged and according to both the lower court and the high court ruling in this case, still suffering pain. he breathes with the benefit of a mechanical ventilator and the disease is draining nenergy fro his organs. his parents want to keep him alive by any means necessary but the hospital had decided he would deteriorate where he was not going to benefit from any further efforts.