Socialist EU and the Vatican Agree with the State Decision to Let Baby Charlie Die


A decision in a case that’s been watched throughout the world has been rendered by Socialist bureaucrats in a European court. They have ruled that a terminally ill 10-month old baby named Charlie Gard must “die with dignity”.

Charlie’s parents raised the money to provide their baby with an experimental treatment in the United States. The court had ruled they could not seek the treatment even though they had raised the money to do so. The money will now go to other children who suffer from the same disease Charlie has.

Baby Charlie’s case is extreme and not the best example. But in general, with socialized healthcare, you turn your medical decisions over to the state. You no longer control your health or that of your loved ones. Once the state has control of your health, what else do they need to control you?

If the state is paying for the care, they get a say but in this case, it was the parents’ funds.

The doctors didn’t think the treatment would work. The baby has a rare genetic condition called mitochondrial depletion syndrome and, at this point, Charlie has developed severe brain damage.  He was born healthy.

The Orwellian European Court of Human Rights (EHR) refused the parents what they said is the one last chance to save Charlie’s life.

The EU court of appeasl said the application was “inadmissible” and their decision is “final”.

The court might have been right about Charlie’s chances, but that wasn’t the point. Since when does the state get to decide what parents can or cannot do?

Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, raised more than £1.3 million to take Charlie to the U.S. Once in the States, he would have received a partially untested, “experimental” treatment, which they believed could save his life.

If they had market-based healthcare in the U.K., the parents would have a choice.

“We just CAN’T let our baby die when there is something that might help him! We won’t give up on him because he has a rare disease.”

“He deserves a chance and he deserves a life as much as anyone else. We understand that rare diseases don’t get enough funding for research but why should that be a reason for a child to die?! He’s here now and this could help our baby.”

The Vatican agrees with the state

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, using the patronizing language of the euthanasia activists, gave his moral reasoning in a statement issued on behalf of the Vatican.

The proper question to be raised in this and in any other unfortunately similar case is this: what are the best interests of the patient? We must do what advances the health of the patient, but we must also accept the limits of medicine and, as stated in paragraph 65 of the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family.

Likewise, the wishes of parents must be heard and respected, but they too must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation and not be left to face their painful decisions alone.

If the relationship between doctor and patient (or parents as in Charlie’s case) is interfered with, everything becomes more difficult and legal action becomes a last resort, with the accompanying risk of ideological or political manipulation, which is always to be avoided, or of media sensationalism, which can be sadly superficial.

There is no invasive treatment planned. Once in the U.S., Charlie would have received oral medication. Some children have seen a level of recovery with this drug and while it might not be likely in Charlie’s case, why should the parents not have been allowed to try? No one knows what would have happened.

Even the church will not stand up for the right to life and the rights of the parents to make the decisions about their baby’s life.


  1. NAT…What is your expertise in this situation? Are you one of the physicians? Where did you get your information? For you to have all this information, if accurate, you’d have to be involved. If not, then you don’t know any more than the rest of us.

    • Dee Dee, I am a physician in the UK, although not involved in this case. However, it has been a huge ‘public interest’ story over the past 4-6 months with constant updates in the press and the parents’ social media giving us every step of Baby Charlie’s story. Furthermore, all of the Court’s extremely detailed proceedings and judgements are freely available online to the public to explain their decisions. Everything I have stated in my first comment above is accurate and quite common knowledge here in the U.K.
      I have every sympathy with the parents. They are going through hell, and any parent will understand their desire to have more time with Charlie, but his quality of life, or lack thereof, trumps his parents’ emotional pain.

  2. (Assuming you pre-screen comments to ensure no-one dilutes your message, but just in case any of your readers are actually interested in the facts, I’m commenting anyway.)
    This article is so appallingly biased and ill-researched that it barely skims the surface of the truth.
    Baby Charlie was born with a condition so devastating that he is left, at 10 months old, unable to eat, see, hear or even breathe without medical assistance. He is so badly brain damaged that there is no chance of recovery, and every day is what could only be described as a living hell. Every single expert in the field agrees.
    The doctor in the US offered an experimental treatment that has shown signs of improvement in people with other illnesses. Please note, not Charlie’s specific condition. That has never been tested, not even on rats. It involves the administering of an oral medication. Again, please note, oral, i.e. by mouth, and remember that Charlie cannot physically eat. This same doctor has since withdrawn his offer of treatment as he had been misled by the parents as to the severity of the baby’s condition.
    The courts in the U.K. stepped in when there was such a breakdown in communication between the doctors and parents that there needed to be a neutral third party involved. Charlie’s parents wanted permission to remove him from the relative safety of the hospital, fly him thousands of miles to a treatment that would potentially allow him an extra 2-3 months of the life that he currently suffers. The hospital, on the other hand, with all the experts having agreed that there was zero chance of improvement in his condition, and considering that they believe he is in constant pain, want to remove his life support and allow nature to take its course. The Church and Vatican have no say in any of this. They have merely released a statement due to it being such a worldwide news story.

    Those are the facts. Now to the crux of your article. Universal Healthcare had nothing whatsoever to do with this decision. If the treatment had been available in the UK, and suitable for Charlie (please remember here that the US doctor withdrew the treatment offer due to the severity of his condition) then he could have paid for it under the private healthcare system available to everyone who wishes to pay. In the UK nobody goes untreated. Everyone is entitled to medical care, regardless of their wealth and status.

    Your article is disgusting in its blatant falsehoods.

    • The point of the article is the government should never be able to usurp parents’ rights. It’s too late now of course for the baby.

      How you can say it has nothing to do with your Socialist healthcare is baffling. The government in the EU gets to decide what parents can do or cannot do with money they’ve raised?

    • This has been going on since January and perhaps something would have helped then. The parents only wanted the opportunity to try The articles say no one knows if he’s in pain. How would anyone know if he’s in pain? You can’t know that.

      Obviously, the time is now over. That wasn’t the point.

      No one said the Vatican had a say.

      By the way, you’re very nasty. Glad you’re not my doctor.

    • You lied at least once Nat. The EU court didn’t step in as mediator. The parents appealed to the court. It’s their only means of appeal.

      The problem you have is you don’t want anyone speaking against your state healthcare system.

  3. I’m Catholic and this is disturbing. I honestly thought that the only thing we could refuse was medication. We cant refuse food or drink aka nourishment. Something is a little whaky here. No other grounds have ever been approved for possibly ending life. That is Gods decision. As a soldier I learned lots of things. BUT THIS STANDS OUT. NEVER EVER EVER EVER GIVE UP, on ANYTHING. I will not fight the Church on a comment. I will say something has got to be amiss. very troubling.

  4. I’ve followed this case for a little while now. The Vatican has the audacity to refer to “limits of medicine”, “aggressive medicine” and “burdensome” as a rationale? What pomposity.

    First of all, as stated, the parents had garnered a large sum that abrogates the idea of “burdensome”. Furthermore, who Knows the limits of medicine. Not so long ago heart transplants would have been deemed “aggressive medicine”, yet, Dr. Jarvik undertook the challenge and great strides in medicine resulted. Aggressive medical care is key to the advancement of medical science.

    I find it disgusting the courts intervened in this case. It is eerily similar to the Connecticut case where the family had to fight the hospital. This is what breeds revolutions.

    It reminds of the events of one man’s unbelievable hurdles to save his son.

Leave a Reply