The Untimely Death of Charlie Gard

A baby died in England this week. This baby’s death shouldn’t go unsung because a tiny infant showed the world what becomes of the humans of the world when the ways of the world have come to a pass that full-term, living babies can be deprived of necessary treatment and not allowed a chance at life.

Although little Charlie Gard seemed in perfect health his first couple of months of life, he suddenly started failing and ended up in a hospital with a diagnosis that could be considered a definite death sentence if left untreated. Although it was a chance, at best, Charlie’s parents researched options, begged for financial help, and got in touch with an American doctor who said he would examine the baby. Seems like a ray of home in what was being touted as a no-win situation.

Even with money in hand and a place to take their baby, the United Kingdom’s courts and doctors refused to allow the parents this option. There would have not been a single charge to the hospital for taking the baby to that one chance of help but the doctors said an adamant, unexplained ‘NO!’ and the courts backed them up on their say so. The time line for saving Charlie began in January when first diagnosed. At that point in time, the treatment just might have been beneficial giving the parents a feeling of hope in doing all they could for their first child. The doctors dragged on the process and the court trials didn’t get the immediate hearings you would think the situation merited so we end up seven months later with a baby slowly deteriorating in health.

Even in the condition he was in this month, the American doctor made the trip over to examine the baby and met with the UK doctors. A doctor in Rome offered his help on this as the Pope was also anxiously watching this turn of events. Everything was rejected and the courts sided with the doctors.

It got worse even after the parents realized that time had run out on treating their baby due to the doctors’ lack of action. They allowed that their son’s little life was fast running it’s course and only asked that they could take him home to die. This was refused. From what I read, they took the baby to an undisclosed place where the doctors removed him from his life support and Charlie died.

I only wonder how much celebration was enjoyed by those grown men who fought so hard for the death of this baby. I wonder if the judges breathed a sign of relief to have this pesky situation finally put to rest being glad little Charlie was finally being put to rest.

To basically recap: The parents of a sick baby had the wherewithal to transport him to the United States for experimental treatment. There would be no further cost to the UK hospital. The doctors refused to give the baby this once chance and regulated the time the parents could spend with the baby. When the parents persisted, the courts stepped in and took away their parental rights to do the best they could for their son.

You have to ponder what was going through these people’s minds to constantly refuse to move an inch on possibly saving this innocent child. Do these doctors have children? Would they appreciate a stranger telling them they couldn’t decide what was good for their own children? Yet, the doctors involved and the courts thought nothing of depriving this little family of their God-given free will and rather than have their word contradicted and take an ego bruising, felt it was better to get rid of the evidence . . . little Charlie Gard.

I’m thinking there are a great many people in the world today shedding tears for this family and not thinking well of how the helpless are treated under the medical guidelines of the medical health care system of the United Kingdom. A doctor vows to do no harm. I didn’t see any evidence of compassion in the events of the last few months.

Over the years, so many atrocities have been committed under the guise of medical treatment, especially in what unborn get to live and who are thrown away. It seems to follow, in a way, that if you get used to dumping aborted babies into the trash that helping a live baby to their demise would just be another day’s work. AND, if you have the backing of the court, it looks like one takes a huge chance in trusting their health and eventual outcome to the powers that be who want to run our lives.

Unfortunately, this is not isolated to the UK. People might remember Terri Schiavo who was deliberately starved to death because that was her husband’s wish with the backing of doctors in spite of her having a family who wanted to save her. Another case was the teenager, Justina Pelletier, who held by the Boston Children’s Hospital based on a doctor’s view that she wasn’t being properly treated medically. She went in a healthy young lady and finally left in need of much health care and rehabilitation from her time in that hospital.

Many prayers needed, today, for Charlie Gard’s family as well as other people/children who might be in similar situations and not allowed their freedom of choice.

Bedtime Stories Should be Banned?

When I was growing up, one of my fondest memories was the chapter of a book my mother would read to us each night after we said our prayers. We raised our children the same way with prayers and then everyone gathered around the bed, favorite book in hand, waiting for their turn to have Dad read it to them. Dad got the job because he did the voices much better than I did, besides, I usually had a baby in arms to tend to but we were still there for the reading time. Imagine my surprise to see these ‘studies’ released on the subject:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/reading-to-children-at-bedtime-abc-questions-value-of-time-honoured-practice/story-fni0cx12-1227335151442

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058

The first link pertains to it being unfair that some children were read to by their parents and other children were less fortunate so, instead of encouraging ALL parents to read bedtime stories, it is discussed whether it would be more ‘fair’ to discourage the parents who read bedtime stories. It seems children who were read to did better in their choices, academics, and life than others who did not have this ‘unfair’ advantage.

The second link seems very worried about the impact of family in the social structure and muse over the premise that the social structure would be more ‘fair’ if there was not a family unit that takes a side swipe at the ‘impaired’ family units. Seems like both are a case of ‘don’t amend what needs fixing but take away the working group in order to make it more ‘fair’ to the ones that aren’t working.

The word ‘fair’ is used a lot in our liberal culture of today and appears in most every country. When I was growing up and someone wasn’t chosen for a team or got a bad grade, you were sure to hear the one that didn’t work for the goal of being on a team or studied for a good grade complain, “It’s not fair!” The cure in our culture that seems to be circling the drain is to ‘make’ it all fair even if it isn’t fair to the group that is doing well with their family life and horrors or horrors, reading to their children!

This sort of thinking is a long time in coming and has been simmering for a long time. About twenty years ago, I was at the grocery store and chatting with the cashier who I had gotten to know over my years of shopping there. She mentioned that her five year old was reading at a second grade level because she read to her at bedtime and they played games learning words . . . but would have to stop. Naturally, I asked WHY? She said the teacher informed her that having a child in Kindergarten that was so advanced of the rest of the class was disruptive and if she continued teaching her child at home and usurping the teacher’s ‘authority’, the teacher felt she had no choice but to turn her into Child Services for child abuse. The cashier later studied to get her teaching degree and I imagine it was to try and provide a sane corner of the world in the school system.