GLENN: Hey, we have some really good news on Charlie Gard today. Charlie Gard's parents remain optimistic following a brain scan that will determine whether he'll have this experimental therapy. The scan took place at, GOSH, the great Ormond Street Hospital, where a US professor of neurosurgery examined the 11-month-old boy yesterday.
The -- while they were studying the scan and other medical records, they have not yet decided whether they feel the boy could benefit from the treatment. But the doctor from America spent about four and a half hours inside the hospital on Monday. Hospital said there was an honorary contract in place, meaning that for the duration of the visit of the doctor, he had the same rights as one of the hospital's own doctor. He was given full access to Charlie's medical records, hospital and clinical facilities, including diagnostic images. Meetings between the American neurosurgeon and the other medical experts are due to continue on Tuesday.
What happens if they -- what happens if this doctor says, yeah, I'm not optimistic. It's different than I thought?
PAT: I think it could be really bad. That would probably end it.
GLENN: Where do we stand? I mean, I still stand for life. But how do you make that case now to a socialized hospital?
PAT: Let them go to the Vatican.
STU: Well, yeah. There's no reason that they can't go anywhere else and get treatment. Even if the tests show that there's nothing going on there, there's no risk. The person is going to die anyway. Why not try the treatment?
STU: It's at their expense. I could understand the socialized hospital saying, "You know, no, we're not going to do these expensive tests."
PAT: Fine. Do it somewhere else.
STU: And be -- let them go to somebody else. Again, this has never really been about whether there's going to be some miracle cure for this poor kid --
GLENN: It's about whether you have the right to have a hospital tell you you're going to do to die.
STU: Do parents have the right to be able to bring their kid to the facility of their choice for medical treatment?
GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. With money.
STU: Especially when the alternate is death. This is not one of those cases where the hospital is saying, we need to give this kid basic treatment for a disease that we're going to cure.
STU: And the parents are saying, well, we'd like to try marshmallow fluff. We think that's going to cure it. Like, it's not one of those cases.
STU: This is a case of death or the parents bring the kid to someone -- maybe it's a one in a million shot, but why not take it?
GLENN: You know what's amazing, look at this from the flip side. Why do we always feel justified to come in when somebody is like, oh, cancer. Cancer and -- I'm just going to go on the power of prayer. And we always say, oh, my gosh. No. You got to go give him treatment. The kid who had chemo several times. Remember him? And the parents --
PAT: He wanted to stop.
GLENN: He came to them and said, "I don't want anymore chemo." I think it was a boy. And he said, "I don't want to go like this." I don't --
PAT: I'm done with it.
GLENN: I'm done with it. I don't want anymore treatment.
PAT: And the parents agreed. And then the court forced the treatments on him. Remember that?
GLENN: Correct. Yeah, forced him. Now, what's the difference between that? The kid didn't have -- had gone through it over and over again. He wanted to go to Mexico for some experimental treatment. He didn't want to go that way. He wanted to try something else. We all know that you're giving -- chemotherapy, you're giving him poison. It's poison. With the hope that the body dies after the cancer dies.
You're starving the cancer to death by giving the body poison. So the body is poisonous. And as the cancer eats it, it dies first. That's the hope of chemotherapy.
That's crazy. That's absolutely crazy.
STU: But it's worked a million times. So it's not crazy.
GLENN: Right. But sometimes -- oh, it is. It will be looked at as absolute barbarian treatment in the future. But it's the best we have.
STU: It's the best we have. And it's been successful many times.
GLENN: It's the best we have. But we don't allow people to say, I want to try another treatment. I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. We won't allow them to make that decision. But here's a family that says, I want to try an experiment. I want to try this medicine on my child. And we're now standing in the way? I mean, the government, the people of Great Britain, their government is standing in the way saying, "No. No treatment." It's the exact opposite.
STU: Yeah, I mean, this one is 60 steps past these cases we've talked about.
GLENN: Oh, yeah, yeah.
STU: Because at least you could make an argument -- and as a person who is Libertarian when comes to government, my idea is, look, there are going to be mistakes made, but as a society, we should err on the side of the parents.
STU: And what they want. As sad as that is -- there are exceptions to that. But they are very few. I mean, I think -- even though there will be terrible mistakes made because of that policy, I think you have to err on that side. That being said, I can at least understand the government's position. You know, here we have a treatment for a disease that works. And we can -- it might be terrible, but at least we have a chance. At least that is a position of supporting life, right or wrong. You know, and we might say, hey, you know what, Andy Kaufman, you're going down to some crazy chicken place.
GLENN: Chicken place.
STU: Chicken place. Well, it's not going to work. We know it's not going to work. We've looked into this treatment. It's nothing. And they're fooling you.
While again, a person should have the right to make that decision for themselves, you're talking about children. At least it's a position here of life. At least it's focusing on trying to save the person. This is something where they're focusing on trying to kill the person.
There's no argument to be made that this kid should sit here and die when there's a possible treatment that could help, even if it is for a week.
GLENN: Yeah. And because it's none of your business.
GLENN: It's none of your business. It's only the people's business because the hospital thought they had to pay because it is socialized medicine. But as long as the hospital doesn't pay, it truly is nobody else's business. None. Because if they want to spend $2 million and prolong the child's life for a month, they have a right to do that.
STU: A day. An hour. Anything. I mean, how many times we've seen how many stories of people who are in their dying breaths that change other people's lives? How many times have we seen this? You don't just extinguish life because it makes -- well, we don't really want -- I can't even think of what their argument is.
GLENN: Their argument is he's suffering. He's in pain.
STU: Lots of people suffer. Lots of people suffer. And if you're right and this kid is going to die anyway, it's going to happen, nature will take its course.
PAT: Don't you think the parents have the best intention for their own baby? If they thought that their child was in intense pain right now, I don't -- I really don't think they would put them through it.
GLENN: Do you know any parent -- I mean, that's sane -- any parent that can handle their kid's pain?
PAT: No. Uh-uh.
GLENN: For my grandchildren -- my grandchildren, I have gotten down on my knees and prayed, "Lord, give that to me. Please, give that to me." For my grandchildren.
GLENN: I mean, that's the way people are.
STU: And there are exceptions to these things where you have cases of abusive parents, parents who intentionally do want to inflict harm on their children. There are, of course, those cases.
GLENN: Yes. This is not one of them.
STU: But this is a situation where the parents are living and dying by giving this kid one chance. And there is no earthly reason to not give them that chance.
PAT: Yeah, they're not trying to shirk their responsibilities. They're not trying to take the easy way out. This is really the harder way.
STU: Yeah. Totally.
GLENN: It is.