home
radioMal Fletcher considers why it's important to maintain a bias, if there is one, on the side of preserving life, while preventing any definite signs of unnecessary suffering.
The case of 11-month-old British baby Charlie Gard represents an important opportunity for reflection on the ethics of life sciences and protecting the vulnerable.
The question British courts have faced is whether or not it would be more injurious to the child, to have hospital life-support removed - against the wishes of his parents - or to be flown to the US for an experimental treatment, which has never been tried on such a case.
Charlie is only the sixteenth person in the world to suffer with this condition. He cannot move or utter sound and doctors believe he has suffered significant brain damage.
As of this writing, his parents are waiting to hear when medicos at Great Ormond Street hospital will give the order, supported by the courts, to end Charlie's life.
In recent weeks, the Pope and President Trump have offered support for Charlie's parents.
Yesterday, another US hospital offered to admit Charlie or, if Great Ormond Street hospital approves, to fly their drug to Britain with instructions on how it is to be administered.
In considering Charlie's case, the courts faced an unenviable decision. There is a clear responsibility to protect the child from suffering.
However, because Charlie's condition is so rare there is no definitive evidence that the original treatment offered in the US would cause him further harm. Of course, there is also no evidence that it will add to his life expentancy or quality of life.
In the absence of evidence either way and despite the fact that Great Ormond Street has an excellent history, the parents should be allowed to try every reasonable measure to prolong their son's life.
As things stand - and we must rely on the information given via the media - it doesn't appear that every reasonable opportunity has yet been exhausted.
The bias, if there is one, should be on the side of preserving life, while preventing any definite signs of unnecessary suffering.
Once we turn from this principle, we open ourselves to utilitarianism - the idea that we should always, first and foremost, promote the highest good for the greatest number of people.
This principle, though often seen as a default in politics and sometimes in medicine, has limitations. A truly humane society will also focus on the rights of the individual - in this case, the rights of Charlie and his primary carers, who are not the courts but his parents.
No-one should suggest that either the courts or the hospital involved in this case are lacking in compassion. They clearly are not. However, the principle of care for the individual - and the rights of parents to oversee their child's care, unless obviously injuring the child - should be upheld.
It seems that much is unknown about the condition which has
brought about little Charlie's predicament. Some leeway should be
granted for any attempt to improve his lot, even if it has only a slim
possibility of success. 
Mal Fletcher is a social commentator and social futurist, global leadership speaker, broadcaster and author. He is chairman of the 
Comment
Bookmark
Tell a friend
Print version
The facts of the state of Charlie Gard's health were not reported accurately in the media. So we cannot rely on the media for our information. The american doctor who offered to treat Charlie Gard had never examined him and has been found to have a financial interest in trying to treat Charlie Gard.
Really, would Great Ormond Street Hospital not exhaust every avenue of treatment? This is insulting to the hospital staff who devote their lives to treating very ill children. These insults are dished out by people with no medical training or experience.
I have worked with people with brain injuries. Charlie Gard's brain scans showed no improvement between January and July. That is the worst sign. If the courts had ruled to keep.Charlie Gard on life support, he would have lived lying on a bed attached to life support until flu or another simple virus killed him. I work with adults who are very ill. They often receive no visitors at all. If we as christians can do anything, it is to visit the ill people and the people who are dying who are all shut away from.society in care homes. Let's start visiting care homes as a regular outliving of our faith.
The courts took over in this case because communicarion between GOSH and the parents had completely broken down. In court, Charlie Gard's parents shouted abuse at GOSH staff and their legal team. Then there were the death threats to staff. And that was probably why Charlie Gard wasn't allowed home - no employer is going to let their staff go to a place where they could be harmed as staff could have been by "Charlie's Army" if they had accompanied Charlie Gard home.
The media and well.meaning bystanders have made a complete mess of Charlie Gard's final weeks. Of course parents want to do everything possible for their child. Of course. But when some of the best doctors in the world who have no financial interests say that a child is suffering and keeping him.alive is doing him harm we should listen to them.