Physician-assisted
suicide is being packaged as a “dignified”, “self-affirming” choice for people
to end their suffering by ending their lives. In some cases, like the
book/movie, “Me Before You,” choosing death is even glamorized and
romanticized. But what about court-ordered death? Such is the case of Charlie
Gard, the 10-month-old baby in the United Kingdom who has a rare mitochondrial
disease, and who is having his life support withdrawn today after his parents
lost their appeal to transport him to America for an experimental
treatment.
Due to his condition,
Charlie cannot breathe on his own, has seizures, and suffered severe brain
damage as a result of his disease. Doctors told Charlie's parents earlier
this year that they felt they could do no more to treat him, and recommended they
withdraw life support.
But Charlie’s
parents wanted to try to save him. They heard about an experimental treatment
in America that could possibly help. Apparently a lot of people supported them
in this hope because they helped Charlie's parents raise over $1 million to move him to the US
for treatment.
Well, too
bad, according to the European Court of Human Rights: it ruled against Charlie’s
parents earlier this week, denying them the right to seek the treatment they
want to try for their son. The reason? The court said that they did not
believe the experimental treatment would benefit Charlie, and that it would
cause him "significant harm." So they ordered Charlie's ventilator be removed instead.
It’s bad enough that a court is tetlling Charlie’s parents
they cannot try at least one more time to help their son, but worse, the court
won’t even let the parents take their son home to die there. They are being
denied even this dignity, while the hospital is rushing to remove the
ventilator.
There are few words to describe the barbaric nature of this cruelty.
While the court takes it upon itself to decide that a baby should die on the court's terms, couldn’t the court at least allow the parents to decide the location of their son's death on their own terms?
This whole situation is a frightening commentary on how bureaucrats are increasingly taking it upon themselves to decide who gets to live and die, while trying to cloak it as compassion for the suffering. But is it compassion or simply a court-sanctioned co-opting of human life?