For quite a few days I've been following up the news about the case of little Charlie Gard, the struggle his parents are going through to convince the court and the medical team to permit them to take their child to the US for treatment. Honestly I don't see the logic of preventing the couple from taking their child to the US for treatment. One of the points of contention is that the treatment spoken of is only experimental and it has not really been medically proved. But precisely so, I argue, that since all possible options have been tried, in vain, this possible option should be permitted.
The main reason for not granting the parents to take their child to the US for treatment is that the proposed new treatment would only add to the suffering of the little baby. Hence the court now directs the hospital to take the child off the life support. (read the whole debate argument from the legal perspective here).
However, this particular case where the state takes into its hands, the decision about the well-being of the child, rather than let the parents decide is a bit too outrageous for me. This is peculiar to the UK. The predominant law which permits the state to intervene is often invoked - and rightly so - in care cases, when the child is at risk from its own parents. However, in this rare case, when there is an international panel of medical experts claims that there is a possibility of treatment available outside the UK, the court should consider that option. Somewhere I feel there is also this stubborn belief that the UK has the best doctors!!
Hope love for life and trust in God, will show everyone involved the right way.
The main reason for not granting the parents to take their child to the US for treatment is that the proposed new treatment would only add to the suffering of the little baby. Hence the court now directs the hospital to take the child off the life support. (read the whole debate argument from the legal perspective here).
However, this particular case where the state takes into its hands, the decision about the well-being of the child, rather than let the parents decide is a bit too outrageous for me. This is peculiar to the UK. The predominant law which permits the state to intervene is often invoked - and rightly so - in care cases, when the child is at risk from its own parents. However, in this rare case, when there is an international panel of medical experts claims that there is a possibility of treatment available outside the UK, the court should consider that option. Somewhere I feel there is also this stubborn belief that the UK has the best doctors!!
Hope love for life and trust in God, will show everyone involved the right way.
No comments:
Post a Comment