Yes that's correct. And from (media) reports yesterday they still don't, which is why they are asking for it to be independently assessed. If they believed it worked I would have thought they would be more positive about it.
My apologies, that was not my intention, so please don't take it that way.
Don't want to do whataboutery in the Charlie Gard case but since the involvement of Trump and the Pope in the life of one child it is perhaps pertinent to ask why they don't show as much interest in the lives of millions of other children
Malaria is the silent emergency that kills one child every 30 seconds, about 3000 children everyday
Over one million people die from malaria each year, mostly children under five years of age, with 90 per cent of malaria cases occurring in Africa, south of the Sahara. Fact Sheet: Malaria, A Global Crisis
These are children who could otherwise would live healthy lives (other things being equal). Cost of treatment with the newest most effective drugs is around $2.5 or less ($0.10 for the older drugs).
Long-lasting insecticidal nets or LLINs cost $5-$6 at the present time. but fewer than 2% of African children sleep under nets which can reduce the incidence of Malaria by 50%. Use of nets can reduce child mortality by 20%.
The amount of money and time which has been expended in this case could have saved at least 100,000 lives, probably a lot more. Similar media coverage and intervention by Trump and the Pope as this case is getting would have had much more results for many, many more childrens lives.
To be fair the Pope has spoken out on the issue but the Trump administration proposes to cut US budgets to global health spending by $2.2 billion. Efforts to fight malaria would be chopped by 11 percent. Tump's Proposed Budget Would Cut $2.2 Billion From Global Health Spending
So I would see the involvement by Trump as a media exercise pure and simple with an agenda driven by his antipathy to socialised health care rather than concern for the child. Which is despicable.
I can't disagree with your sentiments. Especially the amount of money that has been spent in the high court in this country. But with so many cases it is always easy to say the money wasted here could be spent instead in the third world. For instance our food waste from the supermarkets could feed so many children in famine stricken countries.So, yes although you are right, but it just doesn't work out that way and probably never will.
Well the amount of money spent is in the hands of the Doctors at GOSH, not Trump or the Pope. The Doctors obviously believe that spending this amount of money to prevent the child being treated in the US is worthwhile - which is their right.
Yes this money could have been better spent - but we are where we are.
My point was more directed to media coverage and involvement by people with their own agendas than the money issue.
However Charlie's Army (and others) have raised £1.4 million for the 'treatment' of one child. UK raised charity spend on malaria treatment and prevention seems to be around £40 million annually.
So £1.4 miliion raised for one child vs more like £3 raised per child for many more children.
Similar front page media coverage day after day of dying children as this is getting could likely have raised UK malaria charitable contributions. Trump could have put the US money where his mouth is (or more to the point not try to cut US funding). One child dieing gets global media coverage, millions of children dieing doesn't.
Trump though has control over the purse strings of US Global health care funding where his policies will result in possibly thousands or tens of thousands of needless preventable child deaths per year.
Either he should butt out from pronouncing on UK issues or if his concern is for children do something to reverse the proposed budget cuts by his administration. Put his money (US state funds) where his mouth is. But concern for children is not the agenda he and the american right is following...
The parents have said that if Charlie dies, and I'm afraid that barring divine intervention that is the most likely outcome, then they will donate the money elsewhere.I'd imagine that it will be to other similar causes. Although I hope it goes to medical charities rather than lawyers.
As far as I can see they have so far received pro bono work by their lawyers so there shouldn't be any legal fees to pay.
Fortunately for the parents, they found a legal team through the solicitors Bindmans, who were prepared to work for free.
The Charlie Gard case is a sad reminder that the law is the preserve of the powerful | Anne Perkins
Useful info, thanks, although I was thinking on the lines of them establishing a "fighting fund" rather than a medical one.
Alasdair Seton-Marsden, who represents Charlie Gard's family to the press, complained that if they were rich instead of "ordinary people" their child would be free to receive treatment in the US.
"Baby Charlie wouldn't have become what is essentially - and these are my words - a prisoner of the state. The child is effectively being taken prisoner by the NHS and by the state."
He explained that had Charlie been admitted to a private hospital, the parents could have said, 'Thank you for trying but we would like him to be treated elsewhere'. They would have the choice to take Charlie to another hospital.
But by using the NHS , the hospital and the state has actually taken ownership of the child and he cannot be taken away.
It seems the state will spare no expense in the courts fighting this, all the while Charlie is on life support.
How on earth have we, in England, got to a place where the state has, not just more rights over your child, but parental rights are seen as irrelevant?
Baby Charlie Gard is 'a prisoner of the state'
It's sad this has to be politicised by that family spokesperson (just one person has that name on LinkedIn - a "Residential Sales Manager" aka an estate agent, so not in PR, but still a professional bullsh*tter; several Google hits indicate he was the UKIP candidate for Fulham & Chelsea in last month's general election, so a wannabe politician potentially pushing his own anti-state agenda ahead of the family's interests), trying the case in the court of public opinion with low blow soundbites.
This has always been about Charlie's welfare, not his parents, not the state. If a child's welfare is felt to be in danger of being compromised by professionals (medical/educational/social services/law enforcement), not bureaucrats nor politicians, then it is their duty to intervene.
That intervention should also not be above legal scrutiny and challenge, which the parents should always have a right to bring and, as the judge conceded, it was“remarkable” that Charlie's parents had not been granted legal aid given their financial circumstances, pointing out a problem that certainly should be politicised.