Charlie Gard Case Now Hinges on Doctor's Opinion, But Still Not Parents' Wishes

The parents of Charlie Gard received some very good news after a U.S. doctor was allowed to examine their son and his medical records. A brain scan done will determine whether Charlie will receive experimental therapy that could save his life. However, even if the therapy works, Charlie will still never live a normal life.

"This has never really been about whether there's going to be some miracle cure for this poor kid," Co-host Stu Burguiere said.

The real issue remains who has the final say in whether Charlie lives or dies and what kind of treatment he has access to.

"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," Glenn said.

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?

PAT: Yeah.

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."

GLENN: Right.

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.

GLENN: Yeah.

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.

GLENN: 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.

STU: Yes.

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.

PAT: Yeah.

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.

Everything comes down to the two Senate runoffs in Georgia. If we lose both races, we lose the country. Democrats know this and are pouring in millions to usher in a Marxist agenda.

As the Left tries to hide how radical the two candidates really are, Glenn takes us inside the Democrat war room to expose the wolf in pastor's clothing, Raphael Warnock, and America's Justin Trudeau, Jon Ossoff. Socialism, the Green New Deal, and "defund the police" are all on the table. And Glenn warns of what's to come if conservatives don't activate: Chuck Schumer will weaponize the Senate, and the radical Left will launch an all-out assault to ravage the Constitution.

Watch the full special below:

The election and its aftermath are the most important stories in America. That's why we're offering our most timely discount ever: $30 off a one-year subscription to BlazeTV with code "GLENN." With BlazeTV, you get the unvarnished truth from the most pro-America network in the country, free from Big Tech and MSM censors.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" to explain how mail-in ballots are typically disqualified during recounts at a far higher rate than in-person, Election Day ballots, and why this is "good news" for President Donald Trump's legal battle over the election.

"One of the things that gives the greatest cause for optimism is, this election ... there's a pretty marked disparity in terms of how the votes were distributed. On Election Day, with in-person voting, Donald Trump won a significant majority of the votes cast on in-person voting on Election Day. Of mail-in voting, Joe Biden won a significant majority of the votes cast early on mail-in voting," Cruz explained.

"Now, here's the good news: If you look historically to recounts, if you look historically to election litigation, the votes cast in person on Election Day tend to stand. It's sort of hard to screw that up. Those votes are generally legal, and they're not set aside. Mail-in votes historically have a much higher rate of rejection … when they're examined, there are a whole series of legal requirements that vary state by state, but mail-in votes consistently have a higher rate of rejection, which suggests that as these votes begin being examined and subjected to scrutiny, that you're going to see Joe Biden's vote tallies go down. That's a good thing," he added. "The challenge is, for President Trump to prevail, he's got to run the table. He's got to win, not just in one state but in several states. That makes it a lot harder to prevail in the litigation. I hope that he does so, but it is a real challenge and we shouldn't try to convince ourselves otherwise."

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Subscribe to BlazeTV today with our BEST DEAL EVER for $30 off with promo code GLENN.

Fox News senior meteorologist Janice Dean is perhaps even more disgusted with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) for his coronavirus response than BlazeTV's Stu Burguiere (read what Stu has to say on the subject here), and for a good reason.

She lost both of her in-laws to COVID-19 in New York's nursing homes after Gov. Cuomo's infamous nursing home mandate, which Cuomo has since had scrubbed from the state's website and blamed everyone from the New York Post to nursing care workers to (every leftist's favorite scapegoat) President Donald Trump.

Janice joined Glenn and Stu on the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday to ask why mainstream media is not holding Gov. Cuomo — who recently published a book about his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic — accountable?

"I'm vocal because I have not seen the mainstream media ask these questions or demand accountability of their leaders. [Cuomo] really has been ruling with an iron fist, and every time he does get asked a question, he blames everybody else except the person that signed that order," Janice said.

"In my mind, he's profiting off the over 30 thousand New Yorkers, including my in-laws, that died by publishing a book on 'leadership' of New York," she added. "His order has helped kill thousands of relatives of New York state. And this is not political, Glenn. This is not about Republican or Democrat. My in-laws were registered Democrats. This is not about politics. This is about accountability for something that went wrong, and it's because of your [Cuomo's] leadership that we're put into this situation."

Watch the video excerpt from the show below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

As America grows divided and afraid to disagree with the Democrats' woke plan for America, Megyn Kelly is ready to fight back for the truth. For nearly two decades, she navigated the volatile and broken world of the media. But as America leans on independent voices more than ever, she's breaking new ground with "The Megyn Kelly Show."

She joined the latest Glenn Beck Podcast to break down what's coming next after the election: Black Lives Matter is mainstream, leftists are making lists of Trump supporters, and the Hunter Biden scandal is on the back burner.

Megyn and Glenn reminisce about their cable news days (including her infamous run-in with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump) and to look into the chaotic and shady world of journalism and the growing entitlement it's bred. For example, many conservatives have been shocked by how Fox News handled the election.

Megyn defended Fox News, saying she believes Fox News' mission "is a good one," but also didn't hold back on hosts like Neil Cavuto, who cut off a White House briefing to fact check it — something she never would have done, even while covering President Obama.

Megyn also shared this insightful takeaway from her time at NBC: "Jane Fonda was an ass."

Watch the full podcast here:

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.