Posted on 07/06/2017 7:56:11 AM PDT by Heartlander
There is a controversy going on in England over a child with a fatal disease. The child, Charlie Gard, was born with a mitochondrial disorder that causes brain damage and eventually death. He is currently on a respirator and his parents want to bring him to the U.S. for experimental treatment. The British health service (the NHS) has insisted that Charlie’s respirator be removed and that he be allowed to die, and they have denied his parents permission to take Charlie out of the country for treatment. British courts have sided with the NHS, and it appears that Charlie will soon be removed from the ventilator to die, against his family’s wishes.
There are complexities to the case from an ethical standpoint. All parties agree that due to his disease, Charlie has little to no chance of survival. His parents’ plea to take him abroad for treatment is a desperate one, and is highly unlikely to save his life. However, the parents are not asking the NHS to pay for the experimental care. They have raised funds privately. They are merely asking for the custody of their child so they may pursue treatment elsewhere.
Yet the NHS and the British courts refuse to release Charlie to his family, and the NHS plans to disconnect his respirator.
Here, in my view, are the ethical principles involved.
First, there is no ethical obligation to prolong the process of dying using heroic treatments. Removing a respirator from a dying patient with his/his family’s consent is perfectly ethical. I have complied with such requests from families many times, and I believe that for many dying patients removal of heroic care (such as ventilators, surgery, antibiotics, etc.) is appropriate and compassionate. I hope that my own family doesn’t put me through heroic treatments that will merely prolong my death when my time comes.
I make a clear distinction between heroic care and ordinary care. Ordinary care includes hydration, nourishment, clothing, shelter, and hygiene, and I believe that all people, including dying people, have a right to ordinary care. I would no sooner remove nourishment from a dying person than I would remove clothing or shelter from a dying person.
But I believe that removal of heroic extraordinary care can be ethical for the dying, if they or their family consent.
The problem with the NHS’s and the courts’ decision in Charlie’s case is that the decision to remove the ventilator is being forced on Charlie’s family, against their will. Decisions to remove heroic care from the dying can be ethical, but these decisions must be made by the patient or his family, not by the hospital or by the government. Final end-of-life decisions are personal and private, and are not the purview of the medical profession or of the government. It is the responsibility of medical professionals and the government to advise and support the terminally ill in accordance with their wishes, not to hasten their death.
And just a word on the notions of “quality of life” and “futility.” Both concepts seem central to ethical decision-making in terminal illness, but acceptance of these concepts runs great risks. “Quality of life” can mean different things: it can mean that a person is suffering, and it can mean that the person’s life is judged to be of lesser value than the lives of others. All too often an ethical statement that a person has a “poor quality of life” — which may be true in the sense that the person is suffering — is twisted to mean that a person’s life is intrinsically worth less than that of another person in better circumstances. “Poor quality of life” must never be intended or taken to mean that the life of the suffering person is of diminished value, or that their life may be extinguished because of its “poor quality.” The ethical standard in the West for the better part of 2000 years has been that the least among us — those who are dependent or suffering — deserve greater protection and care, not less. People with “poor quality of life” need help and care, not death.
The other term that can be misused is “medical futility.” It is a term employed to mean that further heroic treatment is unlikely to be of value to the patient, and in that sense it can be true. But “futility” should not be a basis for denying routine care — hydration, feeding, clothing, shelter, hygiene — to seriously or terminally ill persons. It may be futile to provide someone with another round of chemotherapy or with another operation, but it is not futile to feed someone who is dying.
In the de-Christianizing West, we are facing dangerous trends in medical ethics. The rising acceptance of euthanasia and the devaluation of the lives of disabled and dying persons is a manifestation of those trends. The behavior of the NHS and the British courts in the case of little Charlie Gard is emblematic of the growing disregard for the sanctity of life and the dignity of seriously ill people. End-of-life decisions should be left to the patient and his family, and it is the responsibility of the medical profession and the government to protect the dignity and the right to life of patients with terminal illnesses.
No child should ne born British...
Like fractals England and the Europe are lost,
from this, to embracing their own deaths by Islam
and terrorists KNOWN TO THEM,
to ignoring the ultimate loss of normal travelers
who no longer want to be raped and killed.
If some wealthy and famous Brit ended up in a coma in a NHS hospital, with little hope for being revived, would the same bureaucratic decisions be made? If there were experimental treatments in the US, would the guardians of a wealthy and famous Brit be prevented from removing him or her from the NHS hospital?
The Charlie Gard situation has really lowered my opinion of the Brits, and I don’t think these black hearted bureaucrats have thought this through very thoroughly.
Parents should be the ones who decide the fate of their child.
The Gards have raised money for experimental treatment in the U.S.
for Charlie.
Regardless of the outcome of this treatment, the Gards should be allowed
to try it.
Who knows, they might make energetic noises to try to raise consciousness of their plight.
Would I want someone to make a heroic attempt to revive me? Maybe... maybe... so much rides on circumstances. I’d pray to the Lord on my part that He would not leave me or mine in a situation of agonizing limbo. That when I’m gone, I’m GONE. Without any doubt.
It doesn’t help to call the disease fatal. It hasn’t killed the child. It is potentially fatal, life-threatening disease. Treatment is available although success is not guaranteed. It may even be a long shot. But it isn’t fatal until the child dies.
For what it is worth... I pray that not only will the Gards be allowed, but that a success will be seen. And a witness to the Lord will arise.
Same here.
The British government has no right to decide whether this child lives or dies. Only God or, his parents can make that choice, and he or they will. The Queen and her government are killing this child, which they have no moral or legal right to do!!! When each of these Brits that doomed this innocent child passes, I pray Satan is waiting to take them all to hell, which is where they belong!!!
Thank you...Pope Francis and POTUS, Donald J. Trump for your compassion, understanding and love for life!!! Yes...the child may indeed die, even if he has a one in a million chance to live,...it is worth the effort. UK low life, send this child to either the Vatican Hospital or, have POTUS, Trump bring this child and his family to the USA for the treatment the little tyke deserves. We...who believe in God are asking the Lord in Heaven for a miracle...a miracle of life!!! The Queen & the Prime Minister should be ashamed of themselves. This...folks is not “Churchill’s”, England!!! This is the England of “Orwell’s” “1984”!!! Sad!!!
Meanwhile NHS pays for dickchopping, aids treatment, and euthanasia.
I have a friend who is a research geneticist on pediatric diseases. We just had a conversation about this case, and he stated there is no cure for Charlie Gards genetic disease. He is curious about who this doctor is who even offered to try this experimental treatment, because he considers it unethical and malpractice.
Evil bastards. If they said we aren’t paying for anything else, ok, I get that. But to forbid parents with money from trying something in the USA?
What -exactly- did we accomplish by helping the British in WWII?
“The Gards have raised money for experimental treatment in the U.S.”
After the government does its foul deed, I think I would publically offer that money as a bounty on the individual who decided this and sighed off on it. Find a way to destroy their life.
Does the USA have a legal agreement with the parents that if the treatment does not work, the US hospital can stop life support?
Or, does the USA have an agreement with Britain to accept this patient back when either the treatment does not work or the money runs out?
When it’s someone else’s life, we ask if the treatment is justified. If it is your life, do you want people debating the quality of your life before offering treatment? And, I don’t think that there is enough information in any news article to base a decision that can end someone’s life upon. All the Monday morning doctors with their superior thought processes make me sick.
Actually, debating the quality of life and the future treatment plan based on that is done on a daily basis in hospitals. What I am is consistent, unlike a lot of people here on this forum. A lot of you ( including me) are against Americans paying for illegal aliens medical care. Yet, on a British baby, you all want the American medical system to treat this baby with no assurances at all that the Gards will pay for the whole cost of treatment. The money they raised will be gone pretty quickly, and then what? The physician who is offering the treatment has stated it is not going to help. So why are the Gards pushing to bring the baby here? Because they know , once on American soil, they can have our medical system pay for his future care. This baby cannot move, has constant seizures, cannot eat or breathe, is blind.
The best scenario that could happen is the Vatican hospital can accept this baby, and pay heir money out for expenses and leave the USA out of this.
The issue here is the State is calling the shots. The parents know how sick their baby is and that he cannot be “cured” - maybe symptoms can be relieved in this experimental treatment - who knows? You and I sure don’t. They raised more than a million pounds to help pay for Charlie’s care. The questions you ask can all be answered, but should not be used as delaying obstruction.
At the very least, Charlie’s parents asked to take their child home to die. Is there no home hospice care in England?
This child is being Terri Schiavo’d and that is wrong and evil. Every child in a NICU could end up with this test case sending them down the chute as well. All about the $$$$$$ even when it isn’t.
The cost of this care will be 150,000 in the first five days. How long do you think the money will last?
Yes, the baby should be allowed to go home and die. And no, this is not a Schiavo case as Schiavodid not require extraordinary care to keep her alive.This baby needs all organs stabilized. I have read also kidney and liver issues.
This also happens in NICU. Age cutoff when ICU care is not offered to premature babies happens all the time. You just don’t hear about it.
Life slowly slips away from that baby while the British government has gone stone cold silent trying to play out the clock. Trump needs to tell PM May in Hamburg, AF 1 will land in London on my way home. Have Charlie and his folks at the airport ready to go. Now do it Madame PM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.