« Italian Court Keeps Girl's Feeding Tube in Place | Main | Baby Charlotte Wyatt Needs Help: She Wants To Live (Updated) »


April 21, 2005

British Courts Rule Against Charlotte Wyatt

Topics: International

It wasn't enough. Justice Hedley was glad that little Charlotte could see, hear, respond and smile, but believed his former ruling should continue to hold--- no resuscitation. This on hearing from the majority medical opinion--- the same opinion that last autumn held that she was permanently blind, deaf,and unresponsive, and would never survive the winter--- that she was 'terminally ill' and therefore any aggresive treatment would be pointless.

Who to believe? In this case it seems obvious. You have a little girl fighting for her life, and she has proven to the world her life is not dead-ended. You have her parents who want to fight with her till the end, till all hope is gone. And the doctors, who consider it in her best interest to die. Note that these are the same who judged for David Glass that he had no hope and his "best interests" lay in "allowing" him to die.

There is a caveat in the judge's ruling-- he notes that this new decision is not open-ended and is subject to review. What evidence will he need, I wonder, to decide in her favor?

But Charlotte hasn't given up, and we won't either.

Source: SaveCharlotte.com

--
I feel so helpless! Calling govenor's and legislature will do nothing--unlike the other cases that BlogsforTerri has reported. The only thing that I can think of to do--that will help, is to pray.

Posted by joshua at April 21, 2005 8:22 AM


Articles Related to International:

Comments

Like others, I believe the best thing that could happen to Charlotte would be for her to come to the U.S. As of now, she does not require too much technology. In fact, if she gets to a particular percentage (I forget what it is) of oxygen to room air, her parents are going to be allowed to take her home with just a mask.

So the _whole_ issue is this DNR order, which the hospital apparently wants to leave in _indefinitely_. They are chanting like a parrot that, if _later_ she should need resuscitation and a ventilator (she doesn't need it now), it will then "only prolong her suffering." What the heck does that mean? What suffering? How do they even know she'll _be_ suffering at some hypothetical time in the future? She isn't suffering now, apparently. So if she gets to be five years old, will she still have a DNR order, against her parents' wishes? If she should be able to walk around years from now and should fall into a swimming pool and need resuscitation, will she still not be able to be resuscitated? At this point it becomes obvious that what the hospital really means is that they think Charlotte's life unworthy and that the DNR order is a sort of symbol of that. "If _this_ one should go into respiratory arrest, don't do anything about it."

I see every hope of her receiving better treatment in the U.S. She might not even need to be in the hospital, and the DNR order would almost certainly not "carry" across the Atlantic Ocean. She'd just be another baby living in the U.S. who at the moment doesn't even need a respirator to breathe.

I wonder if the parents would consider re-locating.

Posted by: Lydia at April 21, 2005 2:46 PM

Lydia,

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had those medical facilities with the pro life seal of approval already up? Then we could in all confidence invite this little doll over here to assured care. Right now it could be a frying pan to the fire thing. Check out Juleni's list when she posts it. When we get the action blog up people can pick and choose which avenue the want to work on, to get up and going. What a fanatastic opportunity we are given here. As for me, Baby Charlotte, melts me like butter in the hot sun. Don't you just want to hug and love her? I do.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 21, 2005 8:45 PM

I agree it would be better if we had a good list already and that it _could_ be an "out of the frying pan" issue.

But I think if the mom and dad told the world they were thinking of relocating if possible to the U.S. that there would be U.S. pro-lifers who would know of doctors and hospitals who could help. The best thing would be if the dad could get a job over here (green card, etc.) with good insurance and if Charlotte _didn't_ have to come straight to a hospital here but could be at home at least at first. Then if she had a respiratory distress incident (and we could hope she wouldn't), they would certainly intubate her routinely at the local hospital or when the paramedics showed up. She would have, as it were, a clean slate. There would be no reason why in the U.S. she shouldn't be treated like any other baby. Sometimes there is protection in anonymity and in "starting all over again." The hospital over there (and the socialized medical system in England) has "labeled" her by putting this DNR on her with court permission. If she gets out of that system altogether, even a hospital here in the U.S. that _wasn't_ especially pro-life would probably just treat her normally, especially since she would be starting out _not_ on a respirator.

Charlotte is a sweetie. The mom and dad have a littler baby, too, who has no problems. I have a little girl Charlotte's age (and two older ones). My 19-month-old is doing great--running around, getting into things, and causing us all sorts of trouble, as toddlers do. I'm so grateful for her.

Posted by: Lydia at April 22, 2005 6:55 AM