While Charlie Gard, the British infant who is suffering from a rare genetic disorder, clings to life, some new hope has arisen that he will have access to potentially life-saving treatment. Baby Charlie has been condemned to death by his British doctors and the courts in the UK who believe that no treatment can help him and that it is better for all concerned to take away his life support and make him die.
American hospital offers to send drug to Britain
Charlie’s parents have been fighting for the right to take their son to an American hospital that has a treatment that may save his life.
The chances are thought to be slight, but they are somewhat more than zero. British doctors working for the government-Run National Health Service have refused permission for Charlie to be taken to America and have signaled their intention to remove life support from him, killing him.
The American Hospital has offered a compromise. If the FDA approves, it will send the drug to great britain and instruct Charlie’s British doctors in its use. The baby would not be removed from the control of the NHS. However, he will be allowed a chance the treatment offers to save his life.
Pope Francis offers to give Charlie a Vatican passport
Pope Francis, who has taken a personal interest in the fate of Charlie Gard, has proposed to give him a Vatican passport.
This action, it is hoped, will circumnavigate bureaucratic rules thrown up by the British NHS that prevent the baby from being transferred to a Vatican-run hospital where efforts would be made to preserve his life.
Charlie’s death has been postponed
Even though the British courts and a European human rights court have given Charlie’s doctors permission to kill him, his execution date has been delayed to give his family time to be with him.
The delay has allowed the opposition to the idea that Charlie should be killed to grow.
As the New York Times, a newspaper not given to making pro-life opinions note, the optics are horrible from the point of view of Charlie’s doctors. The growing consensus is that Charlie should be allowed to receive the treatment that may give him a chance, however slight, of life.
No matter what happens with Charlie, the British NHS bureaucracy needs to have a hard look at itself and how it deals with matters of life and death. Charlie Gard has become, rightly, an argument against the kind of soulless, heartless government run healthcare of the sort that has adhered in Great Britain for the past several decades and which some politicians want to bring to America.
