WARNING: long(ish) screed to follow :-)
I'm sure most (everyone?) are aware of the case of Charlie Gard. If you are somehow living under a rock and missed it, you can Google him or start with the Wikipedia page for him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case). I've been having an ongoing Twitter "argument" about this case for a couple of days and wanted to get the INGO take on some of the issues (either real or fabricated) that this case brings up. You can see my Twitter timeline at https://twitter.com/bdw_indiana.
Here are a few of the points of "argument" that I've found with my Twitter "discussions":
In short, I believe GOSH and the UK courts greatly overstepped their authority in intervening to prevent the treatment of Charlie by Dr. Michio Hirano.
What does INGO think?
I'm sure most (everyone?) are aware of the case of Charlie Gard. If you are somehow living under a rock and missed it, you can Google him or start with the Wikipedia page for him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case). I've been having an ongoing Twitter "argument" about this case for a couple of days and wanted to get the INGO take on some of the issues (either real or fabricated) that this case brings up. You can see my Twitter timeline at https://twitter.com/bdw_indiana.
Here are a few of the points of "argument" that I've found with my Twitter "discussions":
- the UK courts are not part of the "government", so it wasn't the "government" that prevented Charlie Gard from obtaining treatment in the USA. This is just semantics. Whether you want to call the UK courts part of "government" or not doesn't matter; the UK courts still render decisions on cases that are based on UK law as passed by Parliament and enforced by UK government via the police, military, etc. as necessary. If the UK courts weren't part of the "government" then they would be rendering "recommendations" not legally binding "decisions".
- Charlie Gard's health condition was "futile" and he should be allowed to die in "peace". Charlie's parents are the ones to make the decision, not the UK court system and not the GOSH ("Great Ormond Street Hospital"). Everyone has a right to an opinion on the matter, but no right to impose it on Charlie or his parents. The exception being cases where harm can be shown (more on that later).
- the USA physician (Dr. Michio Hirano) failed to come to the UK to examine Charlie until it was too late. Perhaps, but is that a reason to withhold treatment? Your personal distaste for Dr. Michio Hirano's actions in this case means Charlie must die? Really?
- the USA physician (Dr. Michio Hirano) could not provide any certainty that his proposed treatment would help Charlie at all. Again, beside the point. If there is any chance for Charlie to be treated, it is Charlie's parents right to pursue that treatment no matter how slim the chances of it's success. Of course, that is contingent on Charlie's parents ability to personally fund the treatment which they apparently were due to a £1.3 million GoFundMe campaign (https://www.gofundme.com/please-help-to-save-charlies-life). If the parents needed to rely on public funding, then the public (via the courts, if necessary) are involved in deciding whether the expenditure is justified.
- the USA physican (Dr. Michio Hirano) is a charlatan and only using Charlie Gard to further his research and prominence in the medical fields. Perhaps, but if he manages to cure Charlie I'm sure his parents won't care. Again, this is beside the point; it is Charlie's parents decision.
- the treatment would have caused him "pain and suffering". If we proscribed all treatment regimens that imposed any kind of "pain and suffering" on the patient then millions more people will be forced to die. I know from personal experience with a MRSA liver infection that treatment often involves "pain". "Suffering" is just a synonym for "pain" except in the context of the pain being imposed as part of a "futile" effort (i.e., it is a loaded term and designed to be appeal to our emotions and desire not to impose "suffering" on anyone).
- Charlie was too sick to be transported to the USA to receive treatment. Perhaps. However, the court proceedings in the UK went on for months during which time Charlie *may* have been able to be transported to the USA safely. Even if transporting Charlie would present dire risks to his survival, what did he have to lose? The worst that could happen was that he would die, which the GOSH physicians were unanimous agreement was inevitable anyway.
- parents don't have "absolute" rights over their children. Agreed. However, parents do have *nearly* absolute rights over the welfare of their children (at least, I believe, in the USA; but IANAL). Parents rights end when the child's welfare can be shown to be "harmed" (I believe there are some extenuating circumstances related to what is called "proximate cause"; but, again, IANAL). I have not seen any conclusive evidence that Charlie would have been "harmed" by the proposed USA treatment (more on that later).
- the treatment was "experimental" and there was no evidence that it would help Charlie. Beside the point. If there was *any* chance the treatment could help Charlie, his parents were entitled to pursue it against the wished of the GOSH physicians.
- the treatment had not even been done on mice. Beside the point. As long as Charlie's parents were willing to accept the risks of the treatment and there was no evidence that it would harm Charlie, they should be free to pursue it. ALL treatments are "experimental" and "unproven" until someone is treated using the regimen.
- Charlie would be worse off under the proposed USA treatment than he would be staying at GOSH and going to hospice. Perhaps. Since the treatment was experimental, there were no guarantees of *anything*. However, my understanding of the proposed USA treatment is that it is a "medical" not "surgical" treatment that was unlikely to cause "pain and suffering" to Charlie. In the case that the USA treatment did cause "pain and suffering" in excess to it's benefits to Charlie, he could be taken off the treatment at any time and put on "palliative" care. In short, how would Charlie be worse off under the experimental USA treatment than he was in the UK? The worst case scenario was death, with it being a certainty for the treatment plan that GOSH was proposing. The USA treatment plan at least offering a chance at treating Charlie's condition, however slight.
In short, I believe GOSH and the UK courts greatly overstepped their authority in intervening to prevent the treatment of Charlie by Dr. Michio Hirano.
What does INGO think?
Last edited: