New York City Hospital Offers to Admit Charlie Gard or Ship Treatment

On the condition that "legal hurdles are cleared" and the FDA approves of the experimental treatment.

Connie Yates, mother of Charlie Gard, the UK baby with a rare genetic disorder, speaks on Good Morning Britain about her son's case in June 2017.

By Liberty McArtor Published on July 7, 2017

A New York City hospital has offered to admit Charlie Gard or ship treatment to his hospital in the U.K.

New York Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center issued the statement Thursday Night. According to a report by CBS, it has “agreed to admit and evaluate Charlie.” 

The hospital made the offer on the condition that “arrangements are made to safely transfer him to our facility, legal hurdles are cleared, and we receive emergency approval from the FDA for an experimental treatment as appropriate.”

The hospital also offered to ship the experimental treatment to the U.K., should the FDA approve.

Eleven-month-old Charlie has a rare mitochondrial depletion disorder. He cannot move or breathe on his own. His parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, want to take him to the U.S. for experimental treatment. They have raised over $1 million in private funds to do so.

However, Charlie’s doctors say the treatment won’t work. They insisted he must be taken off life support to prevent further suffering. British courts have ruled in favor of the doctors. Charlie’s parents even appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. But last week, the court declined to hear their case. Currently, the previous court rulings against Yates and Gard stand.

On Friday, Yates appeared on Good Morning Britain

“I’ve heard from the doctors that there’s around a 10 percent chance of this working for Charlie,” she said of the experimental treatment. “So I think that’s a good enough chance to take … In some sense people may say that’s a small chance, but when it comes to medicine that’s quite a big chance. Because sometimes you’ll do chemotherapy and there’s only a 2 percent chance of it working, but you still try, cause everybody wants to live, you know.”

“Euthanasia’s illegal, suicide’s illegal, how is this legal?” she added.

According to the BBC, Yates also told Good Morning Britain that Charlie is not suffering as his doctors insist.

“We are not bad parents,” she said. “We are there for him all the time, we are completely devoted to him and he’s not in pain and suffering, and I promise everyone I would not sit there and watch my son in pain and suffering, I couldn’t do it.”

Though their legal options seem all but exhausted, Charlie’s parents haven’t given up. Yates has reached out to the Vatican, which also expressed support for Charlie.

On Sunday, Pope Francis issued a statement saying he prays Charlie’s parents will be able to treat him until the end. He also tweeted his support:

Earlier this week, the Vatican children’s hospital offered to take Charlie, free of charge. But when Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano officially made the offer in a phone call to British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Johnson declined. He said decisions should “be led by expert medical opinion, supported by the courts,” according to his spokesman. 

According to The Sun, an unnamed source claims the Pope is looking into making Charlie a citizen of the Vatican City in order to transfer him out of the U.K. The Sun also quotes Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who says “we are doing whatever we can.”

President Donald Trump also expressed his support for and interest in helping Charlie. 

On Monday he tweeted that “if there is a way the U.S. can help, “we would be delighted.”

According to the BBC, Yates told Good Morning Britain she believes the White House could be responsible for helping to postpone Charlie’s death. Originally he was scheduled to be taken off life support last Friday, but the hospital postponed. 

“And then it was going to be on the Monday instead but I think the White House got involved over the weekend and then that changed things,” she said.

According to The Telegraph, Trump will broach the difficult topic with British Prime Minister Theresa May during the G20 Summit. May previously backed Great Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie is staying.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Az1seeit

    No where have I seen any reason stated to override the parents desire to do everything in their power to help their child. Honest question. Is there any truly compelling reason to refuse them this hope?

    • Liberty McArtor

      Charlie’s doctors have argued that he has irreversible brain damage and the experimental treatment won’t work, and that he may also be experiencing suffering. Courts have backed their argument, asserting it is in Charlie’s best interest to be taken off the ventilator and die. They believe this will be the course of least suffering for Charlie.

      But many argue that the parents ought to be free to seek out every option for their child, even if the treatment they want to try has a small chance of working. There is no guarantee it will work, as the U.S. doctor who is offering the treatment admits. But the parents want to exhaust all of their medical options. The medical situation is very complex and heart wrenching. But what many people are singling out as the primary issue is whether Charlie’s parents or the doctors/courts have the right to decide what ultimately happens to him.

      For more commentary on the moral/legal issue, I’d recommend Deacon Keith Fournier’s “Stop the Killing of Charlie Gard!” here at The Stream, or John Zmirak’s “Who’s Killing Charlie Gard?” also here at The Stream.

      • Az1seeit

        Great…yes. I’m thinking the parental rights issue IS primary. Thank so much for clarification Ms. McArtor.

        • GeneP54

          What if there is a situation where the family has lost their perspective and they are holding on simply because they can’t let go?

          • Az1seeit

            I’m thinking you do your best to give them truth. But at the end of the day, if they do not agree, then it is their choice. If you take away their right to that, then you become the problem, and not just the issue at hand. Here…they may BE completely in denial. But for the parents sake, they should not be prevented from doing everything in their power to help their child.

          • GeneP54

            And I’m not saying that they should be prevented from doing whatever they can do, but I’ve seen repeatedly people who will NOT recognize that there is no chance of recovery and will keep their family members on life support when all of the ‘experimental’ treatments in the world are not going to help. They just won’t. Then the courts have to step in. They do it every day, even right here in the US. I’ve taken scores of people off of vents when the courts demand that it’s done.
            This child has brain damage and it evidently is the part of the brain that controls breathing. This disease kills brain cells, cells that won’t reproduce. This means that the child, even if he were to survive, would be on a vent the rest of his life. The parents keep saying that he’s not in pain (which they don’t know), so he isn’t suffering. There are more kinds of suffering than pain. They don’t want to acknowledge that, and I get it. But let’s not discount that maybe it’s just time for them to let go. They need to do what’s best or Charlie, not whats best for them.

          • Az1seeit

            Yes. It is a very difficult position for all. Thanks for your insights.

    • MK75Gunner

      Can’t have parents making decisions in your socialist health care system, now can you? Nope, unelected bureaucrats and heartless medical staff will decide who lives and dies. Hell, they wouldn’t even let the parents take the poor little guy home to die in peace with them.

      • Az1seeit

        While I would love to join you in your wholesale judgement of socialized medicine – I too am NOT a fan – I always want to know the other side as they see it, before I take a stand. I’ve been missing those facts. I have learned from personal experience the detrimental effects of spin, so have developed a healthy skepticism. But yes, I see no justification for anyone refusing parental rights here.

        • MK75Gunner

          And I have learned from personal experience the detrimental effects of (G)overnment control.

  • Laura Ann Register

    GOD IS IN CONTROL!!!! If He did not want Little Charlie to live and knew that he was in pain and is suffering, He would have already taken the little home to Heaven. His parents would not allow him to be in pain and discomfort if they really thought that he was, and they are not being cruel by wanting for him to get the treatment that he is needing. God can and will and I believe is healing Little Charlie because I said a heart felt prayer for him this morning and I can trust God and know that He is healing Charlie right now! Christ died on the Cross and took EVERY known and unknown sickness and disease there is upon His own body so that we would not have to go through any of it or accept any kind of diagnosis. The diagnosis might be a fact but God’s Healing is THE TRUTH and I know that Little Charlie is going to come out of this with out any kind of brain damage or disability, he will live a full happy and healthy life because I have Faith in My God and My Savior.

    • Wanna bet?

      • Laura Ann Register

        I don’t make bets on God and what He can do and has done since the beginning of mankind. You my friend need to do some deep soul searching.

  • MK75Gunner

    Charlie’s doctors say the treatment won’t work. They insisted he must be taken off life support to prevent further suffering.
    And yet, you have Doctors and hospitals outside the UK that are willing to try and say there is a chance. Is there any other reason for the UK and these heartless, soulless, bureaucrats to thwart these parents and their child other than their fear that their broken and pathetic socialist health care system might be proven to be flawed and callous? They hide behind false compassion while deciding who lives and dies.

  • O’Pinyon

    The hypocrisy of opposing these parents in their quest for treatment, while abortion is touted as “a woman’s right to choose.”

    • I find it hypocritical how the same people who get all weepy over this child have no problem with over 20 million Americans losing their health insurance under the AHCA.

      • O’Pinyon

        Health care is important because individual people are important.

      • GeneP54

        Of course, that figure doesn’t take into account the fact that people will now be able to afford their own insurance, or insurance that can now be provided by their employer, or now they can buy common group policies.

On Pentecost: The Misunderstood Church
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us