Doing right by Charlie Gard
Re “I’d act like Charlie Gard’s parents,” Opinion, July 11
It’s understandable for the distraught parents of a child in Charlie Gard’s sadly precarious condition to desperately pursue all possible healthcare remedies — no matter the resources, and no matter how long the odds of improvement or a cure. It’s equally understandable for the doctors and the courts to evaluate the same circumstances and arrive at the diametrically opposite conclusion: that the 11month-old British infant’s condition is irreversible and terminal, and he should be allowed to die without any further suffering.
Both parties’ choices are equally moral. The reason is that “agency” — which party makes the decision — matters.
For the parents, their love for Charlie is acute and unbounded and, although other parents may morally choose differently, extending Charlie’s life is uppermost. For the doctors and courts, their love for what Charlie represents — life in a deeply complex society — is likewise inspired by conscience. The difference, however, is that their perspective leans to the “institutional” and is thus bounded by rules, laws, resources, medical knowledge and probabilities.
Whatever the outcome might be for Charlie, one should bear in mind that both parties wish to adhere to moral prescripts. Keith Tidman
Bethesda, Md.
I concur with most everything Jonah Goldberg writes about the sad case of Charlie Gard. It’s understandable that parents of an 11-month-old suffering from a rare, fatal disease that defies medical treatment would want to pursue some miraculous experimental cure.
Goldberg sides with medical experts who militate against artificially prolonging the braindamaged infant’s painracked existence. He even disowns fellow conservatives’ push to use Charlie’s case to support their rightto-life positions.
So far, so good. But Goldberg concludes that any parent, no matter how strong the evidence that his or her child is braindead and suffering constant, untreatable pain, should be entitled to prolong the child’s agonized existence indefinitely.
Empathy is fine, but it shouldn’t trump medical realities. If Charlie’s parents won’t do right by him, the state should step in. Robin Groves
Pacific Palisades