Charlie Gard Has Passed

Let's get this straight. The parents of Charlie Gard were acting irrationally according to the medical experts (their actions are emotionally understandable, but that doesn't make them rational). This story is about medical ethics. The parents were judged to not be acting in the best interest of their child. This was a judgement that was made by doctors and medical experts (not by the government).

Kids die all the time. It sad, but there are many cases where parents lose their children. This is not the fault of government.

The question is about medical ethics. If the doctors believe that it is unethical to pursue a course of treatment for a child, can the parents override them.

The doctors believed that these parents were clinging to a false hope, and that their wishes would cause further damage.

I don't think this story fits the "government overreach" narrative.

This is the story of the medical ethics surrounding a critically ill child.

Not knowing the specifics, I think I tend to side with the doctors.

I am not claiming that there is a contradiction in your position, but I want to point out that you are accepting that there are cases where it is appropriate for the State to be involved.

Why? I've stated the very thing on several occasions in this thread, before you felt the need to point it out.

So, this becomes a question of medical ethics. Your position is based on what you are calling the "sanctity of life". Medical ethics don't mandate that you keep some one alive at all costs. I am not sure what "sanctity of life" means, but it shouldn't mean refusing to accept the fact that people (including children) die.

It is not a question of medical ethics. I am not questioning the reasons for why the GOSH doctors came to their conclusion. Also on several occasions I have indicated I believed they came to their decision in good faith, with medical competence, and not insensitive to Charlies parents. Because they are human beings, however, and not medical demigods, they are subject to the same flaws and foibles the rest of us are and so while I'm not claiming that it is the case, it's possible that at some point in the dispute process, the doctors felt the need to dig in their heels or resented the intrusion of the American medical experts. In the material Walter linked, an expert witness for GOSH testified that there are differing medical cultures in the UK vs the US. One doesn't have to be overly defensive to recognize that she was offering a value judgement on those cultures, and found the UK culture superior. That's fine and dandy, I've no problem with UK doctors believing their medical culture is superior to that of their colleagues in the US, but to the degree, if any, that it factored in their decision making, it would be wrong.

It is a question of individual rights vs the rights of the State.



My position on this case is that questions on medical ethics should be made by the medical establishment. The parents obviously have a very strong interest, and they should a voice... but the parents aren't in the position to make a rational decision on the most ethical course of action, or what is medically in the best interest of the child.

OK, but we disagree. I think that in this case the parents were in the best position to decide what was best of their child, and there was nothing irrational about it.

There are many cases where medical ethics means letting critically ill people die. There was an interesting story about lives that could be saved by allowing people to sell organs... we as a society have decided that this practice, even though it would save lives, would cause serious ethical problems and opportunities for abuse.

Again, I have no problem whatsoever with the GOSH doctors coming to the conclusion that they could not provide any further treatment to Charlie and that in their opinion he should be disconnected from life support and be allowed to die. My problem is their assertion that they were in a better position to determine Charlie's fate than his parents and to go so far as to prevent them from seeking treatment from another facility...no matter how unlikely it was to be successful. We need to keep in mind that there was never any testimony that moving Charlie to the US and his undergoing the treatment would without question, materially increase his suffering, or prolong it any further than the litigation would.

I will reiterate an earlier point that no one has chosen to respond to. Understanding that their concern was for a prolonging of what they were convinced was Charlie's suffering they embarked on a legal process to enforce their decision. It stretches credulity to suggest that someone on their side (even if it was, at first, only their lawyers) didn't understand that this process was not going to be concluded in a matter of days. (in reality in took months and this was not unpredictable). I'm sure at some point GOSH considered that it was necessary to pursue the legal remedy for the sake of precedent. In and of itself that is not a horrific decision. They appropriately were thinking of future cases and how this one would impact them, but that consideration had absolutely nothing to do with Charlie's condition or best interests. On the other hand, his parents's consideration was focused entirely on their son. There is zero evidence that they were motivated in anyway by the attention they received (as, unfortunately, can sometimes be the case)

Not knowing the specifics, I think I tend to side with the doctors.

If you side with the doctors, so be it. I understand the argument for that case, and I don't find it at all reprehensible. I would appreciate from some of those who have chosen to participate in this thread at least the same degree of respect I give their position, for mine.

The thread, at times has, unfortunately gone off on some silly tangents.

I suggest a better course of action: Never take any side unless you know all the specifics.

I feel like this is a contradiction in your argument Finn.

You are willing to allow the State to prevent parents from pulling the plug when doctors feel that there is a reasonable chance of a child surviving. This means that you accept that the State does have a role in deciding medical ethics, at least in the case when medical ethics is defined as "sanctity of life". You are stating that the State does have an interest in making some medical decisions even against the will of the parents.

You claim that this is "individual rights versus the right of the State". If this is true, we aren't arguing that individual rights (in this case parental rights) trump the rights of the State, we are merely arguing where the line should be drawn.

"Sanctity of life" is a great slogan. But, it doesn't really draw a clear line...

Doctors are in a better position to assess the condition of a patient than parents are, unless one or both parents are medical professionals in the relevant field of medicine. Putative "parent's rights" don't apply in this case or in other situations such as vaccination. In this instance it was the hospital, not the parents, who were prolonging the life of the child. That's why they brought him there. They entrusted the hospital with their child's care. Knowledgeable medical professionals evaluated the chances that a novel experimental procedure in another country might work and decided that the risk of failure was too high. Case closed.

What exactly would have been the harm of allowing the parents to take the child to the US ...?

Why is it that when parents use religious grounds to deny care to a child, doctors and courts don't supercede...?


I think I've heard of...I don't think that was in the US.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What exactly would have been the harm of allowing the parents to take the child to the US ...?

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision.

I suggest you read the material from my link since it's explained there.

Perhaps laws and legal procedures will be changed now in the UK (or in England/Wales at least).

With all due respect Oralloy, based on the public positions you have taken on this thread, and on politics threads in general... it's hard to take you seriously when you say this.

Doctors are in a better position to assess the condition of a patient than parents are, unless one or both parents are medical professionals in the relevant field of medicine.

Putative "parent's rights" don't apply in this case

Knowledgeable medical professionals evaluated the chances that a novel experimental procedure in another country might work and decided that the risk of failure was too high.

Case closed.

Doctors make mistakes all the time. That's why we have second opinions.

Why don't/didn't these parents have a right to have their child treated?

How can the risk of failure possibly be too high when the only alternative is a 100% chance of death?

People are still speaking out against this travesty.