Charlie’s parents, of course. The state, (government), the doctors, no one conceived him, birthed him, fed him, supported him or any type of responsibility other than what they are paid for. And they are not paid to decide what type of care they can provide once they are beyond what they can give. All they can do at that point is recommend, not demand. And the state is not supposed to determine what the use of legal health care is if they already legalized it. So their stopping a possible remedy for the child to extend it’s life if the parents wish, is none of their business if they have no idea other than allow nature to take it’s course. Whether I agree with that decision, is based upon factors we do not know.
rwood
My thoughts:
1) If the state pays for your health care and cuts you off, sucks to be you. You just lost your deal with the devil. State don’t and won’t care that there’s an inherent conflict of interest inherent in the system.
2) After having made a few of these decisions, I can’t imagine trying to make one for strangers. If folks can pay their own way, and there are no issues of abuse, neglect, unlicensed and/or unaccredited providers, I’m very much for letting folks take care of their own. I can see no good reason for the UK to keep Charlie when his parents can pay and have qualified providers willing to care for Charlie.
3) Words like “quality of life” get used a lot. Maybe “quality of death” should be, too. If you’ve ever watched someone die a lingering death, you know what I’m talking about. Sometimes the best that can be hoped for is managing the decline in such a way as to minimize suffering. But that avenue is not always the quickest or cheapest.