STATES CHRONICLE – A lot of efforts concentrated around Charlie Gard, the 11-month-old terminally ill baby from UK who the court decided should be taken off life support. After his parents were refused to transfer the baby for treatment in the US, the children’s hospital of Vatican offered to receive the boy.

Charlie cannot breathe without life support

Charlie is suffering from a rare mitochondrial disease, which gradually affects the baby’s brain and makes his muscles weaker. This genetic condition leaves him no longer able to move, so he cannot breathe off life support.

A team of medical experts from the UK, together with many others who expressed their opinion regarding the condition of the boy, think there’s not much to do in his case, and no other treatment would help him survive. Therefore, the UK court decided the baby should be taken off life support.

The baby is not legally allowed to be moved to another country for treatment

Also, they didn’t allow the parents to move their baby to another country for treatment. They wanted to take Charlie to the US, where he would undergo a therapy trial. However, the court finds this experimental method ineffective. This gave rise to an intense legal battle, which got many officials involved.

Now, Mariella Enoc, president of Bambino Gesu Hospital in Vatican, decided to help the baby and offered him a place at their hospital for treatment. Therefore, she asked for permission from Great Ormond Street Hospital, where the baby is currently held, if he could be moved. This came after both the Pope and the US President, Donald Trump, intervened for Charlie.

However, the hospital still doesn’t allow the baby to be moved because legal reasons are involved. The parents refuse to give up, so they have been given more time before Charlie would be taken off life support. They are allowed to spend the rest of the time with their baby, and not leave him alone on his last days.
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

STATES CHRONICLE – Italian Health  Ministry, Beatrice Lorenzin, thought it would be a good idea to create a Fertility Day. This way she hoped couples would be encouraged to make babies when they are younger.  Women do not seem happy about this campaign and they started to show their feelings about it on social networks.

This Fertility Day, which will be held on September 22, seems to be a bizarre event for most people.  It will take place in the biggest cities of Italy, such as Rome, Bologna or Padua. There will be also tents for teenagers who want to learn more about sexual health and they should use condoms until they are ready to reproduce.

The ads made for this campaign were also strange for some people. The most popular one is with a woman who is holding an hourglass, which is supposed to be her biological clock, with the words: “Beauty has no age, but fertility does”. There were other ads there and most of them made women not happy about this campaign. They think that family planning is not a governmental matter and that they will make a child when they are prepared to. The Italian health minister, who had twins at the age of 42, seems to have another opinion.

Even though this Fertility Day was not a successful one, other countries with low-birth convinced people to get pregnant. Denmark has a similar event called “Do it or Denmark”, where pregnant women would get prizes and they had a lot of benefits. According to the news, the campaign worked because it was a small spike in births.

Most women said that it would be better if the Italian authorities tried to find ways to balance motherhood and work.  There are a lot of women who are afraid of getting pregnant because they think they will not be able to give their baby all that he/she needs. The officials should focus on how to raise the income for younger adults and they might see more women with babies.

There are a lot of factors which we need to pay attention to before having a baby. Are we able to provide everything a child needs? How are the authorities going to help us? Most women get pregnant at an older age when they feel they are able to take care of their child than having babies when they are younger.

Image source: Pixabay

 

The government of New Zealand has announced it is considering a possible change in the nation’s flag, thus encouraging the public to submit design ideas. As it turns out, more than 10,000 alternatives were sent in, and 40 finalists were finally chosen by a government-appointed panel.

One of the reasons for this change is the fact that many New Zealanders think their current flag is either too similar to Australia’s or too outdated to still be relevant. In their eagerness to put behind their colonial past depicted in the top left corner – where you can see Britain’s Union Jack – citizens took up the challenge with enthusiasm.

For a country that has been at times in the shadow of its larger neighbor, Australia, it’s no wonder that New Zealand would like to change the flag, seeing as it they are nearly identical, a detail that only adds fuel to the fire.

However, there are plenty who have no problem with the current flag. Veterans who have fought under it are even fighting to keep it as it is. Others believe this is just an expensive stunt that the Prime Minister John Key is using to distract the people’s attention from more urgent matters.

But when it comes to the new designs, there’s a visible pattern among them: almost all of them include at least one of these three elements: the silver fern, the koru, and the Southern Cross. The koru and the silver fern are basically the same thing – a fern frond, furled in one instance, and unfurled in the other.

Designers have preferred this symbol as it has both metaphorical meanings – such as the circular nature of life – and it is heavily featured in the New Zealander culture, starting from tattoo designs to the nation’s airline logo.

An open letter from the government panel explained what they were looking for: something great, but simple enough that a child could draw it from memory. Moreover, it needs timeless elements that would be relevant in any situation where New Zealanders might be represented.

However, those against the initiative might have a point as well; besides spending a great amount of taxpayer money – $17 million – it will take forever before all the people that need to be consulted will agree on a single design.

According to official statements, the Flag Consideration Panel has until mid-September to come up with a decision. But even after that decision is made, New Zealanders will still have a say in it by voting for their favorite in a November referendum.

But wait, job’s not done yet. The finalist will be pitted against the current flag and a second referendum – taking place next March – will finally decide the fate of the New Zealand’s flag.
Image Source: SBS