This baby’s life support can be pulled without parental consent, UK judge rules

Last updated on: April 11, 2017 at 9:44 pm by CNA Daily News

This baby’s life support can be pulled without parental consent, UK judge rules 2017-04-11T21:44:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

London, England, Apr 11, 2017 / 03:44 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Charlie Gard is an 8 month old in the United Kingdom who has been fighting for his life against a rare disease.

His parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, wanted to keep him on life support and transport him to the United States in order to try an experimental treatment.

But on Tuesday, a High Court judge ruled that it was in the child’s best interest for doctors to withdraw life support from Charlie and place him strictly on palliative care, in spite of his parents’ wishes.

In his decision, Justice Francis praised Charlie’s parents for “their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born,” but ultimately ruled that it was in the child’s best interest to withdraw life support.

“Some people may ask why the court has any function in this process; why can the parents not make this decision on their own?” Francis wrote.

“The answer is that, although the parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests. The Great Ormond Street Hospital has made an application and it is my duty to rule on it, given that the parents and the hospital cannot agree on the best way forward.”

Charlie has a rare disorder called mitochondrial depletion syndrome which causes progressive muscle weakness, believed to affect fewer than 20 children worldwide. He has suffered significant brain damage due to the disease and is currently fed through a tube, breathes with an artificial ventilator, and is unable to move.

Hospital experts from Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) argued in court that long-term life support should be withdrawn from Charlie because his quality of life was “so poor”. Charlie’s state-appointed counsel argued that the treatments available in the United States were only experimental and that long-term life support would only “prolong the process of dying” for Charlie.

However, Charlie’s parents’ legal representative argued that traveling to the U.S. for treatments would not have cause Charlie significant suffering or harm and could have given him another chance. She also argued that the parent’s wishes should carry “great weight” in the decision.

Yates, Charlie’s mother, previously told the BBC: “We just want to have our chance. It would never be a cure but it could help him live. If it saves him, amazing. I want to save others. Even if Charlie doesn’t make it through this, I don’t ever want another mum and their child to go through this.”

Yates and Gard had set up a public GoFundMe account for Charlie’s treatment in the U.S., which had raised nearly all of its £1.3 million ($1.6 million) goal.

However, the case was not about funding, but about what was in the best interest of Charlie, Francis said in his decision.

“There is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical science may benefit, objectively, from the experiment, but experimentation cannot be in Charlie’s best interests unless there is a prospect of benefit for him,” he said.

“It is with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie’s best interests, that I find it is in Charlie’s best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that GOSH may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity.”

Upon hearing the ruling, the BBC reports that Charlie’s parents were visibly distressed, and that his father shouted “No” and burst into tears, as did other family members present.

The parents’ representative said that they would be taking their time considering their next steps, but their first priority right now is spending time with Charlie. Charlie’s life support will not be immediately withdrawn as Yates and Gard consider appealing the ruling.

Europe

Previous Post

April 11, 2017

Bible scholar gives inside look at Vatican's Stations of the Cross

Next Post

April 11, 2017 West African bishops highlight challenges facing their nations

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What mountain did Jesus ascend from into heaven?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Mount of Olives Mount Zion Mount Carmel Mount Sinai