Matt Walsh: Stop pretending you’re killing Charlie Gard ‘for his own benefit,’ you monsters

[Revmitchell]

...
But perhaps the most monstrous thing about this whole ghastly affair is the reason repeatedly given for euthanizing a baby against the wishes of his parents: that he has a “right” to die. He must be killed for his own benefit. An AP article quotes a British professor of health care law who sums up this deranged position:

“Unlike the USA, English law is focused on the protection of children’s rights,” said Jonathan Montgomery, professor of health care law at University College London. “The USA is the only country in the world that is not party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child; it does not recognize that children have rights independent of their parents.”

Montgomery said that while it was right to consider the views of Charlie’s parents, the court will not make a determination on this basis.

Matt Walsh: Stop pretending you’re killing Charlie Gard ‘for his own benefit,’ you monsters

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Now, this is an interesting bit of information.

 

[777]

Pretty ghoulish there, Matty. You know if this child was Teresa May/that Muzzie London mayor/Prince Harry/et al's child, he would already be in the US getting this experimental treatment.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

children have rights independent of their parents.”

They certainly do, the right to life being the most basic one.

 

[David Kent]

I have just a couple or three points to make on this:
1 If he is being kept alive artificially, it is not murder to withdraw the support.
2 On rare occasions those who have life support withdrawn have actually recovered.
3 A friend of ours who had a pacemaker said that if he heart stopped again, they would not try to revive her as they would only be keeping the heart going but she would not be alive.
4 If the parents were wealthy they would not be using Great Ormond Street, but a private hospital and they would be able to whisk him off to the USA for treatment.

By the way, Great Ormond Street, is a great hospital,

 

[Matt Black]

What David said. The link in the OP is once again sensationalist and, as someone else has said, rather ghoulish as well as being misinformative. Rest assured that should cogent medical evidence be presented to the High Court that contradicts the expert consensus that further treatment will be of benefit and outweigh the harm inflicted, anything other than withdrawal of intervention breaches the 'First Do No Harm' rule of medicine.

 

[Revmitchell]

You cannot do any greater harm than letting a child die without having taken all possible measures to heal the child.

 

[Matt Black]

...and the medical evidence (as opposed to speculation) thus far is that all possible measures other than those which would inflict harm on him have been exhausted.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no greater harm that allowing one to die.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes there is: inflicting further pain and suffering before that person dies. That is the issue here and why the courts - absolutely correctly based on the evidence presented to them - have ruled against abusing him in this way.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes there is: inflicting further pain and suffering before that person dies. That is the issue here and why the courts - absolutely correctly based on the evidence presented to them - have ruled against abusing him in this way.

There is no evidence that the child is suffering. The parents are responsible for the child. They have raised the money necessary for the treatment. Let the child go. It could have been there and back by now if the doctors hadn't got the courts involved.

 

[Matt Black]

It is arguable at best whether he isn't presently suffering: he endures fits as a result of his condition. But what is beyond medical doubt on the present evidence is that seeking to move him - to his home, let alone the US or the Vatican which are two of the ideas mooted - will increase his suffering - and that's before they start turning him into a human pin cushion in the hope they might find a blood vessel that hasn't already had a needle stuck in it to start the 'treatment'.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is nothing about this that cares about the suffering of the church. It is a socialist state who wants to override parents and control life and death issues. This is a fine example of government overreach and it is a horrific injustice.

 

[Matt Black]

What's the relevance of the suffering of the Church? The government have nothing to do with it by the way: they are separate from the courts and also the hospital trust concerned, both of which are independent of the government.

 

[just-want-peace]

Yes there is: inflicting further pain and suffering before that person dies. That is the issue here and why the courts - absolutely correctly based on the evidence presented to them - have ruled against abusing him in this way.

Like Terry Shiavo

 

[Matt Black]

The Schiavo case is an interesting comparison. There are similarities and differences, both medically and legally/ ethically. The obvious similarity is that you had a patient unable to speak for herself, just as Charlie is unable. Also the courts were called upon to intervene to attempt to resolve a dispute over her treatment and whether to let her die and, to a degree, try to determine what was in her best interests based at least partly on medical evidence. But there are significant differences: the main division in the Terri Schiavo case was not between her family and the medics but rather within her family itself. Also, her condition was not deteriorating further but stable, unlike Charlie's. Lastly, although not legally competent at the time of the litigation, she had been before, and much hinged on the weight to be attached both to statements she had allegedly made concerning life-prolonging treatment and also her Catholic faith in trying to determine whether she would have requested or refused treatment had she been legally competent.

So not quite ad idem with the present case.

 

[church mouse guy]

If the parents have the money to seek treatment elsewhere, what business is it of the government? Shouldn't the parents be allowed to move the child out of that hospital? How can a hospital overrule the parents?

 

[Matt Black]

Because the child has rights, not just the parents. And, for the umpteenth time, the government is not involved in this case, other than passing the occasional comment.

 

[church mouse guy]

Why is the case in the courts and how can an infant overrule his parents on a medical treatment?

 

[Matt Black]

All children have rights and the courts have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, not in the best interests of the parents. Obviously an infant cannot represent himself in court so a 'Next Friend' will be appointed to speak up for the child. That however is not quite the case here as I understand it: this is not a case of child - v - parents but rather the hospital trust -v - the parents. The trust's view, based on the medical evidence, is that were they to continue to treat Charlie, that would (in essence) do more harm than good and thus would be in breach of their duty of care which they owe to him as a patient. The parents disagree and are demanding that the trust continue the treatment and indeed allow Charlie to be moved to another venue to have yet more treatment. They cannot reach agreement on this issue, and the courts are therefore involved. There is I suspect another force at play: the trust don't want to be on the receiving end of an even more expensive lawsuit from the parents in the (inevitable) event of Charlie's death, so they want to cover their backs.