The parents and guardians speak for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Unless you live in a country with socialized medicine then the government and the courts decide. You belong to them. Your child belongs to them. It's not a difficult truth to grasp.
Not always. Sometimes the courts are needed to speak for the voiceless, because what the parents are doing is child abuse. A child isn't property.
In Socialized Medicine, a child is the property of the state. That is blatantly obvious in this case. There was no child abuse, it was exactly the opposite.
That is not the case here. It was a case of medical ethics and the child's interests vs the parents. It has nothing to do with socialized medicine.
The parents wanted to give him a chance at gene therapy. How is that NOT in the child's interest? The NHS told him to die.. WITHOUT the ability to TRY a new procedure that NHS doesn't WANT to cover.
What is this shit about being AGAINST the child's interest? He WAS dying rapidly... Do you understand that situation? WHY would anyone PROHIBIT by LAW of the realm taking him to America for experimental treatment?
The fact you don't see the REAL FAMILY abuse here -- worries me... This disease is POTENTIALLY reversible with custom gene therapy. You cannot bring a syringe on an Airplane and fix him 8,000 miles away.
In socialized medicine, the child is NOT the property of the state. That is what I'm trying to tell you. The argument is deliberately being framed in political terms when it is NOT a political problem for the purpose of attacking socialized medicine. Socialized medicine has it's pitfalls but every country (that I'm aware of) allows people to go OUTSIDE the system for PRIVATE treatment if they can afford it.
What makes this case different is medical ethics laws and the rights of the child. Every civilized country - regardless of whether or not they have socialized medicine or something else - has laws to protect the rights of the child from potential medical abuse in a conflict between parents and whomever advocates for the child (doctors, social workers, courts).
Here are some similar cases without socialized medicine:
http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/jco.2006.06.4709
Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
The sad saga of an Amish girl with a curable cancer whose parents are refusing chemotherapy in favor of “natural healing”
She Had a 'Grapefruit-Sized Tumor' on Her Shoulder. Her Mom Chose Prayer Over the E.R.
In all those cases there are similarities and differences to Charlie Gard.
One of the things that the doctors were concerned about was whether the infant was suffering.- no one could say for sure because he was incapable of showing how he felt. It's easy to assume that neural diseases like motor neuron diseases or degeneration isn't painful, but people with MS for example can and do experience a great deal of pain. No one knows what he is suffering because all they see is the imobile exterior. So ARE they prolonging a child's suffering for a treatment that is - CURRENTLY - the equivalent of pumping them full of Vit-C? We laught at that, but take this one seriously because it involves test tubes and labs but like Vit C - has undergone NO clinical trials and has never been tried on this defect based on the statements of a doctor who had not looked at a single record when he gave his statistics.
You can choose either way - I certainly sympathize with the parents, hell who wouldn't? It's a nightmare and any normal parent would grasp at anything that could offer a glimmer of hope - even quackery. But I also understand the doctors point of view - they are bound by certain ethics to NOT cause suffering. They aren't villains either. And I understand the courts - SOMEONE should be speaking for the child's interest since he can not and the parents might not be able to see that. They aren't villains either. It's a heartrending case no matter what and each thinks they are doing the best for the child.
And it IS a VERY VERY political argument. I'm not trying to sound cruel but you have a picture circulated of a beautiful white European infant boy looking like he's just asleep. Attached to it you have labels like "State passes death sentance on baby Charlie". You have a concerted AMERICAN rightwing attack on socialized medicine and "death panels" at the same time as the latest attempt to repeal ACA falls flat. You couldn't ask for a better political poster child - who's going to really check the facts in the face of that lovely tragic child? Not many...because if they do...they're going to be labeled "baby killers". In fact they are.
It's very political because around the world we have children in desperate need of life saving or life altering treatment they can't get at home - either they're too poor, their countries are too war torn or in political upheavel or there simply is no decent healthcare. They never make it to the news. How many infants have been badly damaged in the Syrian conflict or the Iraq war? Is anyone making waves? Demanding those children be brought to the US...or making them American citizens? Charlie lived in a nation with excellent health care - not perfect, but no system is including our own. He was attended to by doctors who are pretty top notch in their field - we're not talking physician assistents. HIS heavily criticized healthcare system has paid for everything including the very expensive process of keeping him alive. Had he been in the US, unable to afford insurance but not poor enough for medicaid - his parents couldn't have afforded that care and would likely have bankrupted themselves and accumulated high medical bills in an effort to keep their child alive. And - in this country, because our laws are a little different - they MIGHT have been able to get the treatment they were trying for. But it wouldn't have involved taking a medically fragile dying child on a transatlantic flight, causing an unknown mount of suffering.
I don't blame the parents.
I don't blame the doctors.
I don't blame the courts.
They all tried to make the best of a very difficult decision.
