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.

Do YOU pass? Glenn Beck takes the WHITE PRIVILEGE test

Image source: BlazeTV video screenshot

On his Friday Exclusive show, Glenn Beck took Monitor Racism's white privilege test, administered by psychologist Dr. Karlyn Borysenko. The test is comprised of 26 questions designed to assess how much white privilege plays a role in the test-taker's life.

Watch the video clip below to see how Glenn measured up:

Watch the full episode now on BlazeTV.com. Use promo code SAVETHEFAMILY for $20 off a year subscription or try 30 days FREE.

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.

Dr. Scott Atlas, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow and former chief of Neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center, joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Monday to cut through the confusion and politics clouding our understanding of COVID-19 and to give the facts about the so-called second wave of this pandemic.

"I think everything should be done by looking at the data, instead of just models, or even just allowing fear to go into the exchange. So if we look at the data, we see there's no question that [COVID-19] cases are increasing in many states. And that's to be expected, for a few reasons," Atlas said.

"Of course, when we test more, we're going to detect more cases. And when they have thousands and thousands of people in the streets protesting, and screaming, and sharing megaphones, we're going to have more cases," he explained. "The question really is: What is the significance of these cases, and how we're going to handle these consequences?"

Atlas noted that the overwhelming majority of people getting COVID-19 in this "second wave" are younger, healthier people who are not at significant risk, according to "evidence from all over the world, including the United States."

"The overwhelming majority of people recover fully from the infection, so that's not really the issue. In fact, the issue is only two-fold," he said. "We need to protect the elderly high-risk people, particularly in nursing homes ... and prevent hospitals from being overcrowded. This is the point of the policy. The policy was never to stop all cases of COVID."

Dr. Atlas argued that political policies need to focus on protecting the most vulnerable without destroying the lives of those with extremely low risk.

"Frankly, one of the most egregious failures of the policy people is, not just allow[ing] fear to infiltrate their own thinking and do lockdowns, which are severely harmful," he emphasized. "But secondly, they have failed to reassure the public about the facts, and about the relative risk here. It's a very serious dangerous disease — for a group of people. And we know who those people are. They are high-risk, elderly people with comorbidities. Everyone else, it's not a high-risk disease."

Glenn asked Dr. Atlas to weigh in on whether or not schools should be opened in the fall.

"This is a slam-dunk issue," he answered. "There is zero science to back up claims that the schools should be closed or even opened with any constraints whatsoever."

Watch the video clip below for more details:

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.

Roger Stone is kind of a scumbag but the outrage over his commutation by President Trump has gone off the rails. Thus far in his presidency, Trump has commuted the sentence for 11 individuals while in comparison, Bill Clinton had 61. Even worse, Barack Obama commuted the sentence of 1,715 criminals! Just by the numbers, the outrage is insane. But then add in that both Obama and Clinton commuted or pardoned the sentence of terrorists and/or "friends" of the the president and the double standard is outrageous.

Here is a list of just a few of the worst offenders:

Bill Clinton Pardons/Commuted sentences

Terrorists

  • Commuted the sentences of 16 members of the FALN, a Puerto Rican paramilitary organization that set off 120 bombs in the United States, mostly in New York City and Chicago. There were convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as firearms and explosives violations.
  • Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg were both commuted and both were members of Weather Underground and the May 19 Communist Movement, and were convicted on weapons and explosives charges.

Case similar to Trump/Roger Stone

  • Susan McDougal was sentenced to 18 months in prison on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton in the Whitewater scandal only to have Clinton pardoned her.

Pardons/commutations that look like a response to bribes

  • Carlos Vignali was convicted for cocaine trafficking. Almon Glenn Braswell was convicted for mail fraud and perjury, and was under investigation for money laundering and tax evasion. Vignali was commuted while Braswell was pardoned, but they were also both caught paying approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency.
  • Marc Rich fled the U.S. after he was caught owing $48 million in taxes and was charged with 51 counts for tax fraud. Everyone was surprised when Clinton pardoned him. It was later revealed that Rich's wife made substantial donations to both the Clinton library and to Hillary Clinton's senate campaign.

Pardon for a member of Clinton's family

  • Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger Clinton, who had been convicted on drug charges. A year after the pardon he would be charged for Drunk driving and disorderly conduct.

Drug Cartel lawyer

  • Clinton commuted the sentence for Harvey Weinig, a former NY lawyer who was sentenced in 1996 to 11 years in prison for facilitating an extortion-kidnapping scheme and helping launder at least $19 million for the Cali cocaine cartel.

Obama Pardons/Commuted sentences - the most since Truman: Obama granted clemency to nearly 2,000 individuals, including 212 pardons and 1,715 commutations.

Terrorist

  • Obama commuted the sentence of another FALN terrorist, Oscar Lopez Rivera.

Traitors

  • Chelsea Manning: the former Army Intelligence analyst was convicted of leaking documents that revealed classified information on military and diplomatic activities all around the world only to have her sentence commuted.

Case similar to Micheal Flynn or Roger Stone

  • Obama pardoned General James Cartwright, who had been convicted for lying to the FBI (sound familiar?!). Cartwright was considered "Obama's favorite general".

On his Wednesday night special, Glenn Beck goes where the Left and the media don't want us to go. The protests, riots, pandemic — it's all one big distraction being weaponized to shield the Deep State from the big reveal.

The case against General Michael Flynn is bigger than a phone call with the Russian ambassador; it exposes everything. Glenn reveals multiple cogs in the Deep State wheel that tried to destroy Donald Trump's presidency.

This story has everything: secret meetings, spies, glamorous European locations. Glenn puts all of the pieces together and interviews the man who was an eyewitness to all of it — former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Specifically targeted by this Deep State coup, his reputation and life may never be the same. He reveals the names of those he believes were behind his setup and the coup against the president.

Watch a preview of the full episode below:


Watch the full episode only on BlazeTV. Not a subscriber? Use promo code FIGHTTHEMOB to get $20 off your BlazeTV subscription or start your 30-day free trial today.

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.