Many have likely been following the tragic case of Charlie Gard, fighting for his life in Great Britain.

He was born a healthy baby boy to his two adoring parents, Chris and Connie, last August.

And then in September, the unthinkable, the dreaded nightmare of every parent, happened. After noticing he was losing, not gaining, weight, his parents took him to the hospital for testing. He was diagnosed with a rare genetic condition called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. This condition causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

He became only the 16th person in the world to be diagnosed with the condition.

Devastated, but willing to fight for his life, his parents found a doctor in America who offered a trial therapy for their son. They quickly raised over 1.4 million pounds (over 1.8 million dollars) via GoFundMe to pay for the ambulatory flight and therapy. Suddenly, after months of shock and heartache, there seemed to be a light, though faint, at the end of their very dark tunnel.

And then, in a sickening and twisted turn of events, Connie and Chris faced an even more unthinkable devastation than the discovery of their child’s rare genetic condition: Charlie’s doctors said they thought it best that he “die with dignity.” They argued that the therapy in the US is experimental, wouldn’t help (a judgment call they made on their own), and decided Charlie’s life support should stop as a result.

Connie and Chris lost one legal battle after another in an effort to reverse the doctors’ decision and they hoped the European Court of Human Rights would come to their aid this past week. But the ECHR rejected their plea. This means Charlie’s life support machine will be turned off.

What kind of world do we live in that allows courts, doctors, and the human rights community to decide that “death with dignity” supersedes the parents’ wishes for life?

A statement from the ECHR reads, in part, ‘The domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.’

This brings us to some significant questions we as a society need to be prepared to answer, questions related to what kind of world we want to live in, what kind of decisions we’re okay with making, and the kind of value we decide to place on other human beings.

A hospital, court system, and international human rights court shouldn’t have greater jurisdiction than parents when it comes to decisions about the health and wellbeing of their child. The hospital and doctors have violated their Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm” under the guise of doing no harm.

Typically, “death with dignity” is promoted as the ability of a terminally ill patient to choose when to die — to end their pain — on their own terms. In this case, the terminally ill patient is a 10-month-old boy incapable of making his own decisions.

So let’s say “death with dignity” is a thing, an actual possibility. Charlie’s case can’t be touted as a “death with dignity” case because the patient isn’t making the decision.

But can we take a step back for a moment to consider what death with dignity actually means, and what the ramifications of widespread acceptance of this belief are?

  • Teen suicide can’t be discouraged anymore if they’re choosing death as a way to escape physical or emotional pain they no longer desire to cope with or manage.
  • Comatose, terminally ill patients lose their right to life if a hospital, doctors, courts, or caretakers or family members deem it more “appropriate” for their life to end than continue.
  • The very young or very old can fall prey to this dangerous ideology that promotes death over life if their value isn’t deemed greater than their “burden” to society.
  • People other than the patients or individuals can begin to have more authority over the decision for death than the actual life in question.
  • Doctors who no longer want to provide care or insurance agencies who no longer want to provide services can suggest or demand “death with dignity” because society has decided death can be dignified or not. Why should they have to continue providing care or service to individuals who will eventually die anyway?

Aren’t we all going to die anyway?

Is it really dignified to promote death over life?

When we start to assign value to life that is extrinsic and not intrinsic, we begin to play God, and when that happens, anything is permissible. We can decide that life has no meaning, that individuals have no purpose in suffering, and therefore exterminate their life.

Unless a miracle with the courts or hospital takes place, Charlie’s parents no longer have the right to fight for their son’s life.

They’ll never have the chance to watch him grow, because therapy was deemed experimental and therefore not worth the time and money.

They’ll never experience his pain, his joy, his first day of school, his first time to fly a kite, his first trip to the sea, his first crush … his first birthday, because our society believes in “death with dignity.”

Death with dignity robs us of life. Death with dignity says a life of pain has no meaning, a life of suffering has no value, and a future full of unknowns isn’t worth venturing into.

It’s a dangerous ideology and path. Is it one we’re willing to continue down?

*All photos taken from The Daily Mail

(Visited 1 times, 58 visits today)
Marcie Little

Marcie moved from Georgia to Colorado to be the first employee at Save the Storks. She is now the Communications Director and loves exploring the beauty of the mountains, writing, reading, and educating people about the pro-life movement.

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)

  • Maria Tierney Koehn

    European Court of Human Rights ECHR,
    what on Earth! Stop playing God and Give Charlie back to his parents, Connie and Chris, so they can care for him.

    “When we start to assign value to life that is extrinsic and not intrinsic, we begin to play God, and when that happens, anything is permissible. We can decide that life has no meaning, that individuals have no purpose in suffering, and therefore exterminate their life.”

    • William Wilson

      Whether you agree or disagree with the values or lack thereof shown by the people and organizations, They are not playing God but putting the child’s life in God’s hands.

      • Maria Tierney Koehn

        “The couple, determined to save their son’s life, found a doctor in America willing to administer a trial therapy. With the help of friends and strangers on GoFundMe, they managed to raise the necessary 1.8 million dollars for the ambulatory flight and treatment.”

        Connie and Chris Gard are the parents, the doctors are not nor the government and Charlie is alive.

        Sign the petition to help Charlie’s Life.

  • TellItLikeItIs

    In socialist societies, there’s a full right to die, but no right to life.
    They call this progress.

    • Monika Woods

      sad and true. And this is where the “Affordable Care Act” was heading. We need to RID our country of Strict Socialism!

      • Ed Chavez

        Such an idiotic statement. You argue for life? But have no concept of health and care? Nor it’s associated cost?

        Your politics even fails to recognize that the story pushed the parents to “Go Fund Me” to raise the money for medical treatment!

        Read it again, and again. Maybe you’ll realize that sudden health conditions requiring medical care is reality. And you will always have a medical bill for it.

        In this specific story, it’s almost $2M.

        I suppose you have access to that much money then. Otherwise, yeah pin your notion of “for life”, on the charity of others.

        • J R Moses

          Hey bozo…….this family did not “MOOCH” off of the government. Individuals rose up to help them……….yet the government becomes a “death panel,” and takes away the rights of parents to try and save their child. I don’t care WHAT your argument about healthcare may be……..this has NOTHING to do with taxpayer money……so you are totally off base……and heartless as well.

          • anonymous

            They raised the money for unproven treatment in another country. The government won’t pay for that anyways. How do you know they have money for long term care? Say that the treatment doesn’t work, at what point are you trying to help your child, or keeping them alive for your own selfish needs. If he is destined to be trapped inside his failing body, possibly in pain, unable to communicate, maybe unaware of anything, how is that “life?” I’m all for trying, but if it is causing pain, and not helping, it would kill me to know I am doing harm to my child. It is a tough situation for sure, and one that I’m thankful to not have to make. My heart truly goes out to this couple.

          • J R Moses

            All of your points are valid……and we share similar feelings. You only miss ONE simple point. Is a human being worth at least one TRY……especially if it is not at the expense of any who would disapprove? There are volumes of stories about so called “miracles.” A very dear friend of mine had a similar situation. They worked with the child, and sorrowfully failed. They fought the fight…..and accepted the defeat. The family came together, spent the last day with the child, and had the Dr.s turn off the machines. Plenty of sorrow…..but no regrets about not giving their beautiful child at least a CHANCE.

            In my own family, I had an uncle who had TB…….before there was a cure for TB. He was sent to a sanatorium with others like himself…… die. One Dr. who was not able to cure those patients under his care, nevertheless, was very good at prolonging their lives. His dogged determination to save his patients, kept many alive considerably longer than the usual TB victim. My uncle lived to be 89 years old, because this wonderful, caring Dr. kept him alive until a cure was discovered.

          • Ed Chavez

            Yo bozo, who said the family “mooched”? They resorted to asking for help, which isn’t wrong, and that’s not what I pointed out. When faced with a bill that you can’t pay for, without coverage, what were they supposed to do? Not try?

            When I’m faced with a bill that I can’t pay for, so I can stay 6 feet above ground, what am I supposed to do?

            That’s the point.

            Comprehension is a wonderful thing.

          • J R Moses

            I didn’t say the family “mooched,” I was making the point about them NOT being moochers. That they are being denied the RIGHT to try and save their child with help from caring individuals……not the government…….is MY point.

            Seems that COMPASSION should be a word that you need to understand. (And far more important in life than comprehension, in my opinion.) If you started caring about OTHERS, maybe you would be lucky enough to have people step up for you, should you ever have the need.

          • Ed Chavez

            Hmm. I think you really need to comprehend what I was originally responding to. Just swipe or scroll up a bit. You’re arguing FOR ME.

        • Kristen Nations

          Maybe YOU should read it again. They HAVE the money and are still not allowed to get the treatment. There is no justifying that.

          • Ed Chavez

            Agreed, that wasn’t my point. Read the thread and what I’m responding to. Ditto on reading and comprehension.

          • Valerie Dawn Hale Chapman

            That’s what I was thinking? They have money, I might could see the doctors point of view if they were not getting paid. Still very sad

        • Jami

          Who do you love that you would pin a 2 million price tag on? So easy to decide that for someone else.

          • Ed Chavez

            Huh? I “decided”??? SMH

        • Monika Woods

          Your ad hominem argument is invalid.

          • Ed Chavez

            Of course it won’t for you. That’s a given, and the point.

        • Heidi Stanton

          Ed who ever you are, you’re worthless piece of …. never mind you’re less than that.

        • bubbleguru

          People can’t afford insurance, but (with Obamacare) now they are force to get something they cannot afford.
          Hard for you to understand this.
          Ignorant SJW’s -_-“

          • Ed Chavez

            LMAO – you obviously don’t understand Obamacare/ACA – talk about ignorant. Based on your income, Obamacare/ACA provides you with subsidized health care. You didn’t know that, or maybe your elected State leaders foolishly just said no…because, well, I don’t know. Ask them.

            Or, we can all go Single Payer…but then again, ignorance rules and that will be deemed “socialist”.

  • Ninja Warrior

    LIFE vs nazi euginics

  • Carlos Gutierrez

    WTF? How can a medic have more decision power than the parents? In Mexico we have socialized medice but doctors don’t have that sort of power to make decisions even less to choose who dies and who lives
    A doctor that dare to attempt to do it here, doctor that will be prosecuted for murder attempt

    • bubbleguru

      Amen, that’s how it should be! Charge them with murder!

    • Yaw Ansong


  • LaughingMonkey

    None of these idiots know if the experimental treatment will work or not. How many people would have been effectually killed if we terminated the life of every coma patient? Only God decides these things. Shame on people. These parents have the right to try whatever they want and can pay for to help their son and everyone else needs to stay the hell out of it.

    • William Wilson

      you are correct …. it is God’s decision.. if someone lives without life support or dies without it.. It is God’s will.. God did not put us on earth to live forever.

      • The parents put this child on this earth and it should be their right to keep him on this earth. Not Doctors.

        • anonymous

          At what expense? What about quality of the child’s life. How selfish it is to keep a person on life support, trapped in a body, unable to communicate, or move, because you can’t let go. That child’s brain will deteriorate, his body will, and who knows what pain he will feel. That is not something I would want my child to experience.

          • bubbleguru

            How selfish it is to kill the child because he is a burden to the doctors. How selfish it is to kill him, not be able to communicate his choices (to live or die).
            And if the procedure works on the child, it could save his life! But, kill the child, because it’s only experimental and may not work; but how can one know unless they get to try it out? Can’t perfect the procedure without being able to try/test it; How can they do that if the child is going to be killed? An opportunity to help a procedure advance (that may one day be an effective cure for such patients), but… kill the child (a lost opportunity).

      • Carol Walters

        “God did not put us on earth to live forever”……read your Bible closer and you will find out that he actually did. That’s why these parents are still fighting for their child’s life and so would I. I signed the petition too to see if it would help in the battle for this child. They are setting a dangerous president in allowing the government to decide who lives and who dies. You know, like the death panels we have for Obama care. Nice, huh? That’s socialized medicine for you.

    • Jihan Alfar

      Shame on these people. Who are they to decide to end this child’s life. They are not God. What kind of world do we life in if we allow these monsters to kill that child. Yes, i wrote kill because that is exactly what they are trying to do to this child.

  • Mike and Masha

    Abortion is allowed and that causes pain and suffering and death. This has the possibility of offering life but that’s not allowed? It is a sad day when the government can override the best interests of the parents.

  • “A hospital, court system, and international human rights court shouldn’t have greater jurisdiction than parents when it comes to decisions about the health and wellbeing of their child.”

    Um. Yes they should. And they are 100% right. Read up on this disease. It is NO WAY for a child, or anyone, to live.

    I am really not okay with this clickbaity headline implying that people actually want this baby to have to die. It’s misleading and wrong. They don’t want him to die. They want him to not have to suffer. And yes, the word of dozens of doctors and a human rights court should ABSOLUTELY count for more than the word of parents whose decision-making is clouded by emotion.

    That doesn’t mean their emotions are invalid or wrong, of course. It’s an incredibly tragic situation no matter how you slice it, but I’m going to have to stand with the professionals on this one. I don’t believe you can realistically identify as “pro-life” if you support this. You can’t be “pro-life” if quality of life means nothing to you.

    • regie

      ummm, hello?! they want to pull the plug off that’s keeping the baby alive,the result would be that the baby will die right?! ergo, those who are favoring for the move, do want the baby to die-even coating it with words like “die with dignity”! One organization even citing words like “the experimental drugs… continue to cause him significant harm” . My question is what is more “significant harm” than causing death to a person?because dead is dead, there is nothing dignified or noble being dead..At least with the parents efforts there is still hope.. who is to say that maybe while they are battling that disease today a significant breakthrough in medicine can occur tomorrow that will help the child.every he is alive is a day closer to a cure, but if he’s dead there is nothing to be done anymore .if it is the child’s fate to die tomorrow, let it be because God has called Him home, not because a Doctor( who is sworn to protect life forsworn his oath and took it upon himself to play God) pulled the plug. Just my two cents.
      PS: my country is poor, uncivilized to some; but even then, the decision to pull the plug is left to the family to decide not to persons who are at best, only have impersonal interest in the welfare of the patient.

      • I think we have fundamentally different ideas of what “significant harm” is. This baby already has such severe brain damage that he can’t breathe, swallow or move on his own. He will never be able to walk and talk. All he will ever know is pain. That, to me, constitutes significant harm.

        And I would argue that they are “playing God” by keeping him alive artificially, not by cutting off that support.

        • bubbleguru
        • Anynomous

          I believe that what some are saying is like an oxymoron. They are saying they are playing God by taking the child off of life support. Actually they are playing God if they were to keep him on life support. If they unplug the the life support and he continues to live then so be it. Then I would argue that they are playing God by allowing him to die. Poor family. I understand exactly what you are saying. I witnessed this with two of my baby nieces, one hung herself on the crib and one died from routine shots. They both became brain dead. I am sure it was hard for their mom but they didn’t want them to suffer any longer than they had too.

    • It shouldn’t matter. The parents should get the final say, not the doctors.

      • That might be justifiable if he was comatose and not feeling any pain, or if there was any rational hope of reversing his condition. But why let him suffer?

        • bubbleguru

          It is a sad time when we lose our right to life (and our right to our children)! Such is socialism!

          Who painfully agonized in labor to give birth to this child? Not the gov’t or doctor(s)!

          $#%^*#! SJW’s (cold heartless, selfish beast)!

          • Right, because delivering a baby makes you automatically smarter than a team of people who spent years studying science and law and making decisions like these for a living…

            Just because you grew and delivered a baby doesn’t mean you actually know anything about anything. If we always deferred to the parents’ wishes, we wouldn’t have repercussions for child abusers because it would be what the parents wanted. There are many parents out there who engage in abusive behaviors without even believing they are doing anything wrong. They are too emotional to see the obvious flaws in their logic.

            And judging by the majority of commenters here, you’d probably be calling them murderers if they DID choose palliative care and a peaceful death.

            It’s like I said…you can be pro-life, but “quality of life” should be more important than simply “not death.”

  • Meadowfritillary

    It’s quite possible that this experimental therapy won’t work. When my youngest sister had a rare form of cancer they wanted to try a new medication. It might not have helped her (and in the end did not), BUT– the information the doctors got from trying it will now help others suffering with this going forward. Medicine is not an exact science, much as we’d like to believe it is, and without these trials and experiments, we will never advance far.

    It’s tragic, and might not help this poor baby. But on the other hand it might. At the very least, doctors and scientists will know more and that will help everyone going forward. If these parents want to do this, and they have the money (and let’s face it– in America anyway, money talks) they should be able to do this.

    • Jami

      Exactly, aside from his intrinsic right to live what can be learned from him to help other people.

  • Cindy Millikin Shelton

    It is THEIR freaking money. They don’t have the right to take him out AMA?

  • Monika Woods

    As we celebrate Independence Day on July 4th, we in America need to remember to continue to fight for the rights of the innocents such as this young boy. He is a child of the parents, NOT the state!

  • Susan Stirling

    All life saving therapies were at one time experimental. Who’s to say whether this therapy will save his life. They’ve raised the money; let them try.

    • bubbleguru

      Exactly! His experiment could be the one that creates the cure! But the doctors and gov’ts being selfish and consider the child a burden do not want that to happen! But then again, what can we expect with socialism where death is a right and life is not.

  • At any rate, we are all ignoring the real issue, which is, why the fuck should a young couple have to crowdsource nearly 2 million dollars for an experimental treatment to help their child possibly live a marginally better life–or at least make a significant contribution towards research and treatment of his disease?

    At least part of it should be funded by the hospitals. And by taxpayers. Not by the parents. They’re already dealing with the probability of losing their baby. They shouldn’t have to pay money to have him experimented on.

  • Linda L. Peterson

    They should be allowed to try the experimental treatment how will we know whether or not it will work. We all should be allowed to try what ever might work to help this child live. If not it is no different then abortion.

  • Linda L. Peterson

    Progress for who?

  • Cool Breeze

    This is not about preserving life; it’s about allowing a human being to die without going through endless medical treatments. I understand his parents want him to live no matter what that child has to go through, but it isn’t fair. I agree with the doctors. The parents are being selfish.

    • Lare

      Do you have children, Cool Breeze?

      • Cool Breeze

        WTF does that have to do with this discussion? And besides, it’s none of your business. Most of the parents today know little about parenting so if you’re one of those people who has children and think she knows it all, think again bitch.

    • Justin Scott

      Its the right of the parents to make that decision whether you agree or not.

      • Cool Breeze

        And I have a right to my opinion, so STFU.

    • bubbleguru

      @Cool Breeze:
      biased propaganda!

  • Valerie Webb

    They should grab him and RUN!!!

  • Matthew F. McGrath

    The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good. Charlie is already safe in the Lord. His parents have made the good and godly choice for him. The civil and medical “authorities” will one day answer to a higher Authority. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.

  • Jennifer Amanda Knight

    I see a lot of the parents and doctors point of view but what about the child ? Do they know if he’s in pain? I can’t see this from a political correct view just my own and as someone who had open heart surgery at 13 hrs old and have spent most of my 41yr on this earth in and out of hospital sometimes cold logic makes a better decision than emotion.

    • bubbleguru

      If you were able to choose back then, would you choose to live life or die without getting to live life?

      • Jennifer Amanda Knight

        Die,no question.All my life I have been the child that wasn’t supposed to have lived,after openh eart surgery at 13hrs old,a artificial heart valve and at least one hosp stay a year,then at 16 liver surgery,at 21 my first back surgery then 2 more that left me with 2 rods 8 pins and a plate holding my back together,then a complete hysterectomy at 31 and pain that most could not take 24hrs/365.,yes,that would be my choice.

  • Rocky

    All these articles do is remind me to have an advanced directive so I don’t become a pawn for a political agenda.

    One side will use this to denounce publicly funded health care. The other will see it as evidence that “Pro-Life” is synonymous with “Pro-Suffering/Torture”.

  • Lindsay Smith

    The state controls the child’s legal entity via his birth certificate just as they control the parents.
    But, “Legal” and “lawful” are two totally different things.
    Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
    The most fundamental lawful right is to preserve life and do no harm to others.
    Thus the real live flesh and blood parents have the right to preserve the life of their real life flesh and blood son.
    Thus the legal system is unjust and as the the child’s life is at risk non-compliance with the system is fully justified.

  • patriot 1

    The judges in this case have shown themselves as educated fools and are making the same mistake our original parents made when they chose to be god. May the true GOD have mercy and spare us from such judges and spare the child’s life

  • Patti Mann Mitchell

    This is so very wrong!!! Without experimental drugs, I would be dead. However, I am cancer free right now due to a research program at Vanderbilt Hospital. Cancer free for almost three yrs now.

  • Veritas

    How much time do we have to promote this?

  • designlucas

    Just playing Devil’s advocate here (to a degree), but could it be that [due to the capitalist nature of healthcare here in the US] this company saw an opportunity to make a quick buck with the experimental therapy? They get paid whether it’s successful or not. I would be very skeptical of the viability of such a procedure especially considering all the money raised on the family’s behalf. I don’t wish to sound like [kevorkian] but you have to ask yourself if the prolonged suffering of a human life is ethical when a condition is terminal.
    Again, not necessarily my viewpoint (based on this one article) but it’s worth looking at both sides. Based on the comments here, it seems like the viewers of this particular website are extremely opinionated.

    • This family is from the UK, not the US.

      If the child were living in the US, they are typically able to access experimental treatments at no cost.

      • designlucas

        I understand that, but the experimental therapy was in the US.
        “Devastated, but willing to fight for his life, his parents found a doctor in America who offered a trial therapy for their son. They quickly raised over 1.4 million pounds (over 1.8 million dollars) via GoFundMe to pay for the ambulatory flight and therapy.”
        I suspect the clinic here in America wanted the money! $$$

      • designlucas

        Also, I’m not sure if you live in the US (like myself). But NOTHING medical is free. People go bankrupt from routine child-birth bills in this county!!

      • designlucas

        I understand that, but the clinic wanting to exploit this couple are here in the US. $2m – I’m sure they would like to try some experimental therapy. Not sure where you get the idea that we have access to free healthcare in this country – that’s simply not true!

  • Abigail Engel

    No Government should be allowed to make them force their child to die period. Death is natural, so is the parents need to fight for their child’s right for a fighting chance at life. I had a child die naturally. I would fight with all my heart and soul. Forcing death is not the same as Dying with Dignity. I am a formally trained and certified Thanatologist. I fully understand my choice to sign for his parents right to fight for their baby’s life.

  • designlucas

    Those of you bashing British healthcare should know two things. No-one there goes bankrupt due to medical bills, and they generally enjoy much longer lives than us – Look it up! This clinic wanted this poor couple’s money – praying on their desperation!

  • Millie White

    Hope. Some professions seem to thrive on stealing it. My son was born with not one single hope for survival. Not one. First report said ‘Not compatible with life’. He is disabled mind you, and cognitively delayed as well. He has spina bifida, massive progressive hydrocephalus, possible semi lobar holoprocencephaly, can’t really see as the brain matter is all pushed out around the interior of his skull. Myelomeningocele at birth, absent septum pellucidem and agenesis of the corpus collossum..etc etc. He is also very happy, funny and with it. People…he is 22 years old! Not bad for a kid with zero on his apgars at birth. Now, where do I sign that petition?

  • Millie White

    P!us, it’s their lives, not just a story, not something for people to spout their own agendas on. If you haven’t walked those miles, don’t judge. You can’t possibly comprehend it

  • This child cannot breathe unaided, has irreversible brain damage, is deaf, blind, paralysed and suffering. The courts appointed a guardian because the parents have lost objectivity and were not acting in the child’s best interests.

    The parents talk about nucleotide therapy as giving them a chance to take Charlie home, the US doctors’ deposition to the court made if absolutely clear that will not happen, the treatment may (but cannot be guaranteed to) stabilise him in that condition for an unknown period of time.

    It is very much like the Terri Schiavo case, where the parents also could not accept that their child was, to all intents and purposes, gone. It’s absolutely nothing to do with socialised medicine, the doctors feel that the parents are demanding they collude in something that is causing suffering.

    It is very sad, and the best thing for politicians and religious nuts to do is STFU and stop making a horrible situation worse.

  • Thinking

    If I was the parents I would be heartbroken. However… people in the healthcare field have the responsibility to advocate for their patients, especially if the patient is unable to make their own decisions/too young. If the treatment is experimental (and with there only being 16 people with this disease according to this article) it could go either way. Depending on what occurs during the treatment his doctors and healthcare team would have to weigh the risks, upsides, and downsides with his current situation. If the chance of survival with treatment is low (which with the low number of people having this disease is quite possible), and if the process of going through the treatment is painful or damaging to the patient, then they need to be the advocate for the patient.
    If I was the parent I would be absolutely heartbroken that the one chance I thought I had for my child was taken away.
    But.. looking at it objectively, I also don’t think I would want my child to go through unnecessary pain for a treatment that likely (again assuming, I have not done research on this treatment) will not work, and that will only prolong their suffering.

  • Mary Lepak Dyrda

    More of the breaking up of families. Parents have the right to get and control the medical care for their children, yet these doctors seem to think that they can supersede that guardianship so that someone else doesn’t even get to TRY to save a life. Is it about the life of a child or power and jealousy that those elsewhere may have a cure when you don’t?

  • Charles Bubba Carver

    im sry but if i was told i would not be able to at least try and save my child i would have to be handed down a death sentence myself

  • WhyDoesMURDOCHBlacklistSavage

    “Free Healthcare” = not so awesome after all

  • narniagirl55

    It’s not “death with dignity”. It’s death because it death is cheaper than keeping a human alive!! It’s death because the insurance company doesn’t want to pay for it. It’s death because less humans means more resources for the global elite who believe a struggling life isn’t worth saving and that one less human helps support the myth of population control!

    The Hippocratic oath only exists with PROLIFE doctors. The rest of the liberal doctors want us dead. Lives are now expendable. Humans are only considered useful if the government and insurance says we are.

    Car insurance will save a car faster than health insurance will save a human.