Gard ‘soap opera’ slammed
Interventions and abuse didn’t help dying baby and undermined hospital, says angry clinician.
A member of the medical team that helped to treat Charlie Gard has derided ill-informed politicians and religious leaders for stoking abuse of London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital and undermining confidence in the treatment of its young patients.
The clinician said the furore over Charlie’s case had already led some ‘‘nervous parents’’ of other children to start questioning the judgments of doctors in the hospital’s intensive care unit, fearing ‘‘they might not do the right thing for their child’’.
The health worker said the case became a distressing soap opera for some commentators that had prolonged the agony of Charlie’s parents. It had also clouded the heartbreaking truth that their son was critically ill and that the hospital was right to conclude it had done everything it could to save him.
The medic said Charlie had effectively been kept alive for people such as Donald Trump, Pope Francis and Boris Johnson, who ‘‘suddenly knew more about mitochondrial diseases than our expert consultants’’.
‘‘We didn’t want to lose him, and we didn’t want his mum and dad to be without him, but it’s our job, our legal and moral obligation, to stand up for Charlie and say when we think that enough is enough,’’ the health worker wrote in The Guardian on condition of anonymity.
‘‘My colleagues and I worked our hardest, tried everything, fought so hard for this family, but there was nowhere else to go. It was obvious to all those people who treated him.
‘‘We gave him drugs and fluids, we did everything that we could, even though we thought he should be allowed to slip away in his parents’ arms, peacefully, loved.’’
Charlie died on July 28, a week before what would have been his first birthday. He had a rare genetic disease that meant he needed to be on a life support system.
His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, fought a five-month court battle against Great Ormond Street, which said his treatment should be stopped to prevent him suffering further.
The family had believed Charlie could still be treated, and questioned the analysis of experts at the hospital. But his parents gave up the legal challenge last week after accepting that their son no longer had any prospect of a meaningful life.
We didn’t want to lose him . . . but it’s our job, our legal and moral obligation, to stand up for Charlie and say when we think that enough is enough.
The clinician said the decision to speak out was highly unusual, but reflected how months of concern and frustration had taken its toll on staff in the 200-strong intensive care unit.
The medic said colleagues had been deeply affected by the case and were shocked to become the target of ‘‘horrendous and offensive’’ abuse online and also from campaigners who camped outside the hospital.
‘‘It’s things like ‘Why are you trying to kill this child? You are all murderers’. It is horrendous and offensive. It is my job to stop people from dying, not to kill them.’’
The team of healthcare professionals also felt dismayed by interventions from people who ‘‘knew nothing’’ about the condition Charlie suffered from, or the care he had been given.
‘‘Over the last few weeks, parts of the media and some members of the public have turned a poorly baby’s life into a soap opera, into a hot legal issue being discussed around the world.
‘‘The case has also had an effect on other families here. Parents are nervous, they worry that we might not do the right thing for their child. That worry is not based on the care we are giving; it’s based on what you have been saying about medical staff you have never met.’’
The health worker criticised the ‘‘keyboard warriors’’ who bombarded social media with opinions and messages calling hospital staff ‘‘evil’’ for wanting to give Charlie palliative care until he died.
‘‘You have contributed to the family’s pain, you have been fighting a cause you know nothing about. It’s not been helpful to anyone.
‘‘His parents will live with this forever; they will go over and over whether they made the right choices for their beautiful baby. But we will live with this forever, too.’’
The case had previously gone to the European Court of Human Rights, with judges at every turn backing the view of Great Ormond Street doctors who said Charlie’s condition was irreversible and that further treatment could cause him suffering.
The hospital requested a new hearing after receiving two letters – one from seven doctors, and another from a lawyer representing Charlie’s parents – claiming that the chances of the treatment being successful were higher than previously thought.
However, the hospital was critical of Dr Michio Hirano, an eminent doctor and expert in his field who had suggested Charlie could still be treated, for not declaring earlier his ‘‘financial interest’’ in some of the drugs he wanted to prescribe.