Trump wades into case of baby Charlie Gard
President says on Twitter he would be “delighted” to offer assistance following the parents’ legal battle
Donald Trump made an extraordinary intervention in the case of the terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard by offering to help save him. The 10-month-old boy was at the centre of a lengthy legal battle as his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, fought for him to be allowed to undergo a therapy trial in the United States. Mr Trump waded into the legal struggle via Twitter to state that he would be “delighted” to help the baby, who is on a life-support machine in London.
DONALD TRUMP has made an eleventh-hour intervention in the case of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard by offering help to save him.
The 10-month-old boy has been at the centre of a lengthy legal battle as his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, fought for him to be allowed to undergo a therapy trial in the United States. Having lost the fight, the couple are spending their last hours with him before his life-support is turned off.
Mr Trump waded into the legal struggle via Twitter to state that he would be “delighted” to help the terminally ill baby. “If we can help little #Charliegard, as per our friends in the UK and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so,” he wrote.
His intervention came after Pope Francis called for Charlie’s parents to be allowed to “accompany and treat their child until the end”.
The support will likely offer Charlie’s parents a glimmer of hope after exhausting every avenue in their heartbreaking legal battle.
A White House spokeswoman said: “Although the President himself has not spoken to the family – he does not want to pressure them in any way – members of the administration have spoken to the family in calls facilitated by the British government. The Presi- dent is just trying to be helpful if at all possible.”
It is understood that a doctor and a hospital have been lined up to help if an agreement is reached.
Theresa May’s official spokesman said that the Prime Minister’s thoughts were with Charlie and his family but declined to comment on Mr Trump’s tweet. Her official spokesman said: “This is a very sensitive case. I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to talk about it here at this point other than to say our thoughts are with him and his family.”
Charlie’s parents were given more time to say goodbye to their son, who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage, after making an emotional video plea. Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London had been due to turn off his life support last Friday. His plight has touched people around the world and the family received donations totalling more than £1.3million to take him to the United States for therapy.
His parents, both in their 30s and from Bedfont, west London, asked European court judges in Strasbourg to consider their case after judges in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in London ruled in favour of GOSH doctors.
But last week the European Court of Human Rights refused to intervene. On Sunday, campaigners carrying a banner that said “It’s Murder” gathered outside Buckingham Palace to protest against the court’s decision.
A specialist who would oversee any treatment Charlie had at a hospital in the United States told the High Court that therapy would provide a “small chance” of a meaningful improvement in Charlie’s brain function.
Giving evidence via a telephone link from America, he said: “It may be a treatment, but not a cure.
“(Charlie) may be able to interact. To smile. To look at objects.”
There are such things as moral truths. One is that life is precious. We Catholics hold that life is sacred – and although you don’t have to believe in God to accept the inviolability of life, the religious add an extra layer of protection by saying that to take it is to break God’s law. The law is simple: preserve life.
But applying first principles to the real world can be difficult, especially when it’s hard to tell which is the right path to take to the outcome we all generally seek.
Take the case of Charlie Gard. When Charlie was born in August 2016, he appeared to be a healthy baby boy. After about a month, he began to show signs of mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition that causes muscle weakness and brain damage.
In October, he was moved to Great Ormond Street Hospital. His parents wanted to take him to the United States for privately financed experimental treatment. Doctors disagreed. The matter went to the courts. The Gards argued that Charlie had a right to seek help and, because he is their child, the decision should rest with them. The doctors argued that the treatment would not cure Charlie, that all it could offer was the preservation of a “state of existence” – so it would be more compassionate to turn to end-of-life care.
The courts found in favour of the doctors. The Pope and then Donald Trump came out for the Gards. I have never witnessed such passion surrounding a medical dilemma. The explanation has to be the involvement of a baby, but also, on a level that we might not admit but must discuss, what the story of that innocent child means for the rest of us.
Thanks to the miracle of science, growing numbers of people are surviving things they would once have died of. But they have not necessarily been cured. How we react to that situation varies from person to person. For the Gards, a “state of existence” clearly meant “hope”: they wanted to fight on. Others, in different circumstances, might actively seek to die. The same state that denies the right to seek medical help abroad could also refuse someone else dying of cancer the right to assisted suicide.
We talk a lot about personal agency in the West but the state does not grant it when it matters most – and for good reasons. What if a patient is too ill to make an unclouded choice? What if they are being pressured by third parties? What if they are only a baby? If a fundamentalist denies their child medicine, we would cheer the state for intervening because the child’s human rights trump the parent’s religious beliefs. Well, doesn’t the same principle apply in the Gard case?
The Catholic Church appears as uncertain as you or I. First the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life issued a statement that seemed to sympathise with the view that end-of-life care was best for Charlie. Then the Pope issued a statement that apparently sided with his parents. Or did it? One translation of Pope Francis’ Italian could mean that he stood by the parents’ right to “treat” their child, another by their right to “care” for him. If you find the ambiguity of the Church surprising, remember this: its teachings are pro-life but not to the point of extending the suffering of a patient.
It is not unreasonable at times to throw one’s hands up in the air and say: “I’m just not sure what to do.” This is human. Constant negotiation with our conscience separates us from the animals. And we can also acknowledge all the complexity yet still return to the timeless moral truth. If there is a hope of life, we should seize it. If the choice is between the state wanting one thing and parents – who favour a reasonable alternative – desiring another, we should side with the parents.
I am sad to say that siding with the dying and their families is not something we presently do as well as we could. People need the kind of radical, straightforward love that our culture is unused to giving. When my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer two years ago, I was stunned by the inarticulacy of the medical establishment. Some NHS staff were wonderful; the compassion shown in the hospice was humbling. But many doctors mistook speaking in jargon for breaking the news gently: my father took a long while to understand that he was dying because no one told him directly. One doctor finally put it very bluntly and dad said: “You don’t beat about the bush, do you?” The doctor replied: “I’m not a social worker.” To this day, I am still angry about a lot of the treatment my father received. I am not a member of the cult of the NHS. Too many doctors act like gods: venerated and never questioned.
That’s one more reason why the Gards attracted such sympathy: their cause has felt like another revolt by the powerless against the elites. But as the heated debate over what is right or wrong continues, I hope that the quieter case for life is catching up with the science and moving into a new era.
It has taken human beings a long time to realise that the lives of the disabled and infirm have purpose. Hopefully, we are now closer to acknowledging the worth of those who rest in the twilight between life and death. FOLLOW Tim Stanley on Twitter @timothy_stanley; READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion