Charlie Gard and this age of medicine: “Do Harm”

Charlie Gard and the Age of “Do Harm” Medicine
An interview with Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism.

I call [what happened to Charlie] a “bioethical aggression,” By which I mean that the value beliefs of mainstream Bioethics and the medical intelligentsia are being imposed on people who have a more traditional sanctity of life value system. The “quality of life ethic” is now aggressive.  It’s not just these doctors saying, “This is against my ethics to keep this baby alive because I don’t think this is right for the baby.” They’re saying that the parents don’t have a right to make a different choice, and that’s an aggressive act. It is expanding the power of Bioethics, doctors, and courts, into areas of intimate decision making and family life where they do not belong.

This article is a great analysis of what’s happening in the UK with this court decision to allow Charlie Gard to die against the baby’s parent’s wishes. The hearing the parents requested with the courts happened today and the parents feel the court is biased on the side of the hospital/doctors. This baby is on life support and the ‘trial’ continues tomorrow.

It’s a lesson for us in the U.S. Get government out of health care! The maxim in health care is still “Do NO Harm”. Let’s keep it that way!


Categories: General, Political

Tags: , , , , , ,

9 replies

  1. Get a load of this – at least they’re letting an American doctor go over and take a look at Charlie.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “The hospital has said that “a world where only parents speak and decide for children and where children have no separate identity or rights and no court to hear and protect them is far from the world in which [Great Ormond Street Hospital ] treats its child patients.”

      It’s the hospital that has decided the parents have no rights. The hospital is made up of people who work under a system with rules. Social medicine. The rules and regulations from social medicine are universal in Britain. Everyone abides by them to be treated by medicine.

      In our old health system, the one where we had free market medical care and the individual was the decider. If you didn’t want to go to the doctor you didn’t need to. You made your own decisions. This gets lost, I think, in social medicine.

      Aristotle said what separates us from the animals is our sense of justice. This is a good example of that.

      This entire situation is an injustice. And their courts and social medicine have brought it about.

      So glad to see a physician here will try to see this little one. I’m praying for this kid.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. I’ve tried to keep up with Charlie’s story, but I still don’t understand how the UK can have so much authority over this infant, to the point of ignoring the parents’ rights. I would not want the death of this (or any) infant to be my responsibility without having tried every possible avenue to keep him alive. The ego of these guys must be so huge they’d dwarf O’s ego, and I didn’t think that possible.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. What Garnet said.

    I wasn’t following this case all that closely and had to keep asking my husband: “So WHY can’t they take him to the U.S.?”

    The great rub of socialized medicine is that when everyone is sharing the cost, everyone deserves a say in how much treatment you get. But when outside sources are offering to pay and a court STILL says you can’t take your child, or that you can’t take your child home, that’s an outrageous violation of parental rights. Makes me angry to think about it.

    I only hope people are paying attention.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I’ve been following this story for some time and it is simply assinine that the hospital and courts in the UK refuse to allow either of two heartfelt pleas by Charlie’s parents – one, to let them travel to the U.S. (or even the Vatican) for experimental treatment. Yes, it may not save his life, but Charlie deserves a chance. And two, failing that, that they be allowed to take him home and spend his final hours in their family home.

    I believe that it’s simply a matter of egotism on the part of the “experts” who don’t want to be proven wrong by the experimental treatment working and allowing Charlie to live – it would make them look bad and they don’t want that. It’s disgusting. Everything and anything that might save Charlie should be available to his parents, they’ve had contributions galore, flights and accommodations offered and free treatment. Why prevent it?

    Liked by 2 people

    • I have had experience on bioethics committees. I was VP and responstible for program evaluations and many other things. The phrase that had the worst effect on end of life decisions was ‘quality of life’. Who is to say that a person doesn’t have quality of life.
      Joni Erickson Tada was a Christian singer and broke her neck diving into water that was too shallow. Paralyzed from the shoulders down she continued her life with great Christian joy! and has accoplished much. Quality of life?
      And there are so many others.

      If government were to judge whether people should have medical care based on their ‘quality of life’ this is the kind of thing that happens. Withdrawal of care. No charity there.

      The other problem is government/courts don’t really have the respect for life that our Christian faith requries of us. Result: abortion, euthanasia, withdrawing treatment against a persons wishes.
      We’re in very evil times and it’s getting worse

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: