I feel sympathetic to Trump in this case. I am extremely uneasy with putting state hospitals and the state in charge of when a baby dies. I know people are going to bring up the Terri Schiavo example and I would respond, as long as the families can finance their care, they should remain in charge of the person's life.
In this case, the baby had 1.4 million pounds raised (or was it dollars) and there is a potential experimental treatment. I would feel, for once, Trump is right here.
In any case, if the parents can afford it, why don't they exhaust their options before their child has to die?
I have to agree with you on this issue. The parents are seeking the ability to pursue, at their own expense, an experimental treatment available in the United States. The British government has refused them that option and has instead concluded that the life support must be removed. I can certainly sympathize with the parents here since, if that was my child or anyone else's, I have no doubt we would all want the same option they want to save your child's life.
With that said, I do not believe Trump is saying this out of the kindness of his heart, but rather to score some kind of political points or assert a political viewpoint. He has made it that nobody can truly trust his motivations to be good.
