“Why gamble with money when you
can gamble with people's lives?” – high-powered lawyer
Martin Vail played by Richard Gere in “Primal Fear” (1996)
What a heady power for a judge to hold
the fate of terminally ill infant in his hands! If he wishes, this
black robed figure may act as a state-sanctioned, de facto Grim
Reaper. Should a British barrister—not a doctor, not the child's
parents—be the ultimate arbiter of life or death for an innocent?
At issue is
the welfare of 11-month-old Charlie Gard, born on August 4, 2016.
Beyond being deaf, blind and severely epileptic, he's so infirm he
cannot breathe without the assistance of a ventilator. Charlie's
debilitating genetic condition is so rare there are only 16 reported
cases worldwide. His malady—a RRM2B mutation of Mitochondrial DNA
Depletion Syndrome (MDDS)—saps the vital organs of energy, causing
progressive muscle weakness, loss of motor skills and brain damage.
Hence, any further treatment is experimental; and only available in
the United States with emergency FDA approval.
Ironically, the therapy for Charlie
would be a simple oral medication. While not reversing any brain
damage, it could help to manage Charlie’s symptoms and increase his
life expectancy. Medically speaking, the treatment is a long shot,
as acknowledged by Charlie’s mother Connie Yates, 31. She pleaded
with the judge, “Ten percent. You would if it was your son,
wouldn’t you? Well, precisely. Complicating matters is the fact
that the medicine, beneficial to other children less afflicted, has
never been tried on a patient as ill as Charlie. Essentially,
British socialized medicine is currently “treating” Charlie like
a prisoner. They want him to “die with dignity” and refuse to
release him to his parent's care.
This tragedy has become a political
firestorm reaching around the globe. In America, President Trump and
members of Congress have weighed in. Specifically, Brad Wenstrup
(R-OH) and Trent Franks (R-AZ) are planning special legislation to
make Charlie Gard a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
All in the hope to increase Charlie's chances to receive treatment
stateside. Likewise, Pope Francis has offered a Vatican passport,
and access to the Vatican hospital. Before any of that can
potentially happen, Judge Nicholas Francis must make his final
determination. Reportedly, that will happen by July 25.
His current position (read: the
state's) bars travel, and authorizes London's Great Ormond Street
Hospital (GOSH) to remove Charlie from life support. Justice Francis
previously said, “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.” In my view, that's an impossible standard to meet;
especially under these heart-wrenching circumstances! Therefore,
only informed medical opinions will be offered—in other words,
educated assumptions—nothing more. What an ego-trip for this judge
to play God like Martin Vail! What of the age-old natural right of
any parent to preserve the life of an offspring? Should that
biological impulse be superseded by the flawed human perception of
one wigged stranger in High Court silks?
Up until this point, his parents have
moved metaphorical mountains to assist their ailing child. For
example, they collected 350,000 signatures asking the hospital to
release their son. Also, they set up a GoFundMe campaign, raising
the equivalent of more than $1.7 million dollars to pay for Charlie's
medical care without further burdening the British health-care
system. Fortuitously, a U.S. hospital has even offered to give
Charlie free treatment if he is able to relocate here. Given all of
these positive developments, Charlie's mother is hopeful, “There’s
18 children currently on this medication [nucleoside bypass therapy],
they’re all getting stronger, they’re all getting better. It’s
a miracle what happens.”
Perhaps the miracle will take the form
of Dr. Michio Hirano, a neurologist at New York's Columbia University
Medical Center. He will consult with Charlie's doctors in London on
Monday. In the interim, Hirano told the judge that a MRI scan of the
baby's brain did not necessarily indicate structural damage. Per
CNN, he stated there was an “11% to 56% chance of clinically
meaningful improvement” in muscular function with the new therapy.
Furthermore, this expert stated that keeping Charlie on a ventilator
would not contribute to his problems because he did not appear to be
in any significant discomfort.
Only three months of treatment at
Columbia University will determine whether Charlie is improving.
Thus, the old adage: “While there's life, there's hope.”
Certainly, dealing with such grief and adverse circumstances is
enough for any parent without the additional stresses of an
intransigent hospital—and an ongoing legal battle. Even if those
hurtles are overcome, Charlie's father, Chris, 32, is realistic about
the equally daunting future medical challenge. He said, “If there
is no improvement we will let him go. We just want to give him a
chance.” Just the basic freedom to decide what’s best for their
own child.
As the bill-sponsoring U.S. Congressmen
said in a joint statement, “Should this little boy to be ordered to
die—because a third party, overriding the wishes of his parents,
believes it can conclusively determine that immediate death is what
is best for him?” Hence a universal lesson is gleaned:
government-run, nanny state medicine fails compared to the
patient-centered variety. That's because the state imposes itself
where it has no business being. Matters of mortality should remain
with individuals and their families—not judges, bureaucrats and
politicians.
Witness the danger of all-powerful
governing bodies! The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) refused
to intervene, and the British courts have previously sided against
Charlie's parents. Politically, aren't these imperial powers
equivalent to the autonomous attorneys populating the 115th
U.S. Congress (read: 167 members of the House (37.8 percent) and 55
Senators (55 percent))? Once again, lawyers—not doctors (only 14
physicians in Congress: 11 in the House, 3 in the Senate)—are
determining a gerrymandered replacement for ObamaCare. Like mute and
helpless Charlie, our health-care system hangs precariously in the
balance. For better or worse, its destiny also in the wrong hands of
the powerful and the political.
Our best solution, like Charlie's, is a
long shot. Congress should return our society to free market,
privatized medicine. The kind that existed pre-Obama: before
progressives used government to seize control of 1/6 of the economy.
That liberation of doctors and patients might save patients like
Charlie Gard—and perhaps the rest of us as well. A gamble best
left to those directly involved, rather than the state and its
autocratic representatives.
Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976
http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002
