BREAKING: Word Wide Confusion As Court Sentences 10-Months Old Baby To Death With Immediate Effect, Their Reasons Will Shock You

0
BREAKING!!!This is so SAD!!! Tompolo shot Dead while other members escaped With Bullet Wounds

BREAKING: Word Wide Confusion As Court Sentences 10-Months Old Baby To Death With Immediate Effect, Their Reasons Will Shock You.

A 10-months old baby has been sentenced to death, by an European Human Rights Court.

BREAKING: Word Wide Confusion As Court Sentences 10-Months Old Baby To Death With Immediate Effect, Their Reasons Will Shock You
10-month-old Charlie Gard (pictured) suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage

The Court of Human Rights, backed British Doctors who reported the matter, saying it would be kinder to let the 10-months old baby die.

The Court gave its verdict on a case of human rights that will compel a couple to allow their sick baby to die.

The parents of the baby, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have been in a long legal battle to save their baby, Charlie Gard, who is suffering from a serious genetic illness.

The baby is currently on life support, while treatment options were being considered.

At 8 weeks old, Charlie was diagnosed with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, and is considered to be only one of 16 babies worldwide, with this disease. His condition is progressive and currently incurable, and eventually fatal.

Doctors are developing treatments for the various mitochondrial conditions, including the nucleoside treatment Charlie’s parents have been fighting for.

The baby’s parents prayed the Court to determine if they, as parents, have the right to continue to provide medical treatments for their son, or if he should be allowed to die

The parents of the 10-months old baby want the Court to let them use a potentially life-saving drug from the US on their son. The Gards believe that the drug (which is still experimental), would help their son’s genetic condition, rather than allow him to die as Doctors have recommended.

However, a ruling by the Court held that the application by the parents was “inadmissible.” The court said that the baby was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress, in pursuit of treatments that were unsure. It added that any additional treatment would continue to cause harm to the baby, stressing that its ruling is “Final.”