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.”
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.