Replies

The ^{government-employed} Physicians made the underlying ^moral decisions that ~~are just~~ ^{should, on moral grounds, be} ignored.

Ideology trumps professionalism

No one doubts that philosophy underlies both sides of the issue.
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
If you think that a doctor, because he is employed by the government, is above having anyone getting a second opinion, fine. That is your business. Unless it dooms someone else, to whom you have no emotional attachment. In that case, you can expect to get blowback on a site devoted to American "conservatism” (“Conservatism” belongs in scare quotes because what Americans conserve is the freedom to do things differently. Which is a funny kind of “conservatism").
The planted axiom of the opposition to allowing Charlie Gard’s parents to take Charlie to America is that no respectable medical opinion supported the hope that Charlie’s life might - might - have been saved by experimental treatment. But do you actually think that people would have contributed $1.5 million to promote the suffering of a baby they will never even see? It is sheer cynicism to think so.