Did Charlie Gard just settle our health care debate?
Jul 7, 2017, 5:42 AM
Charlie Gard is the 11-month old terminally-ill child in Great Britain whose parents were told by medical experts that further treatment was of no use, that Charlie could not be transferred to another hospital for experimental treatments, and that his parents couldn’t even take him home to die. He would have to remain at a government hospital and die there.
Darren Adam has followed the story at LBC Radio in London.
“This has been to the Court of Appeal and then to the Court of Human Rights, and they’ve all upheld the decisions and the advice of those medical experts.”
“Why can’t they bring him home?”
“Perhaps the decision is to do so in itself would be an additional cruelty which is perhaps best avoided.”
Here in the U.S., there was outrage: “A baby is condemned to death by socialized medicine,” said one headline.
But here’s what else I noticed. None of the commentators condemning Britain’s socialized health care questioned the cost of keeping little Charlie alive. Nobody questioned the right of the parents to overrule the medical experts (who said further treatment would be useless). Even President Trump tweeted an offer of unconditional support – for a patient who doesn’t even live here!
If this is indeed the prevailing opinion in America, that settles it! The debate is over.
If we’re saying America, regardless of the cost, should come to the rescue of Charlie Gard, who isn’t even a citizen, and whose condition appears to be incurable, we can’t very well deny medical treatment to Americans whose conditions are curable, can we?
-
Tune in to KIRO Newsradio weekdays at 5am for Dave Ross on Seattle's Morning News.
