Being "permitted to die" is not in Charlie's best interests. Being euthanized is.
No, being cured is in his best interest. Nanny nanny booboo.
Curing him is not something doctors know how to do. Euthanizing him is.
Being "permitted to die" is not in Charlie's best interests. Being euthanized is. If the state were motivated by what is in Charlie's best interests then euthanasia would not be illegal in Britain.
It ought to be obvious that the context of the judge's statement is that given the laws of the England, it is Charliess best interest to not receive the experimental treatment. To expect a judge to flout or contradict the laws of the country is unrealistic.
This is a weird derail. Yes, euthanasia should be legal, but that is a different question. Right now, the claim is that the experimental treatments are not in his best interest.
A doctor's requirement to 'act in the patient's best interest' is obviously couched in the context of what is in their power for them to do, and we shouldn't say they are failing their duty to do so by not taking actions that they aren't able or allowed to do. The actions a doctor would/should take 'in best interests' now are not necessarily the same as they were 20 or 50 or 100 years ago, because of changes in medicine and law. So we shouldn't blame the doctors for not snapping their fingers and insta-curing the patient, for not using drugs that haven't been invented yet, for not breaking into pharmaceutical labs to steal drugs for their patients, for not going out on the street and forcibly treating patients, etc...
Trying to claim that the doctors aren't doing their best to act in Charlie's best interest, under the explicit restrictions that they face, is wrong. They simply don't have the ability or legal right to do anything else, and they shouldn't be blamed for doing what they can. For all we know they are right-to-die advocates, but that does not mean they have a moral obligation to euthanize anybody, even if they have the physical ability to do so. I have little doubt that if euthanasia was allowed in Britain, that would have been what the court case was about (and could you imagine the shrieks of the 'DEATH PANEL' people then...) But right now, that is not possible, and making it possible will take too long for Charlie. They are taking the best option available to them.
But I didn't argue for judges or doctors to flout the law. I argued for the doctors, judges and posters to not say things that are wrong and to not ignore the elephant in the room. I'm sorry you feel that's a derail; I'm sorry you feel the impossibility of snapping their fingers and insta-curing the patient is analogous to the illegality of euthanasia; I'm sorry you feel breaking into pharmaceutical labs to steal drugs, which would do serious harm to other people, is analogous to euthanizing Charlie, which would not; and I'm sorry you feel going out on the street and forcibly treating someone who in fact isn't a patient is analogous to doing your best for someone who is.
Moreover, even setting euthanasia aside, neither the judges nor the doctors are actually prioritizing what's best for Charlie. The UK Supreme Court straight-up admits it.
10. By his judgment dated 11 April 2017 Mr Justice Francis found, by
reference to all that evidence and in accordance with the submissions of the
hospital and on behalf of Charlie by his guardian, that:
...
(b) it was not certain whether Charlie is suffering pain but it is likely
that he is suffering it and at more than a low level (paras 22, 113, 114);
...
12. On 25 May 2017 the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the parents’
appeal. It had not been suggested to Mr. Justice Francis that a relevant test might
be whether the harm which Charlie was suffering was “significant”. But the
suggestion was made to the Court of Appeal, which considered it clear that the
effect of the judge’s findings was that the harm which he was suffering was
“significant” (para 114).
...
15. Every day since 11 April 2017 the stays have obliged the hospital to take a
course which, as is now clear beyond doubt or challenge, is not in the best interests
of Charlie. The hospital finds itself in an acutely difficult ethical dilemma:
although the stays have made it lawful to continue to provide him with AVNH, it
considers it professionally wrong for it to have continued for over two months to
act otherwise than in his best interests.
...
17. We three members of this court find ourselves in a situation which, so far as
we can recall, we have never previously experienced. By granting a stay, even of
short duration, we would in some sense be complicit in directing a course of action
which is contrary to Charlie’s best interests.
18. But, from a legal point of view and in this very limited procedural context,
are the best interests of Charlie necessarily always paramount ? There is, says Mr.
Gordon QC on behalf of the parents, another requirement in play, namely that such
rights as they have under articles 2 and 8 (and, added Mr. Gordon, possibly also
under 5) should be effective. Until the ECtHR has had at any rate some
opportunity to consider the application to be filed today, would not the court be
violating their right to an effective remedy by taking the course suggested by
Charlie’s guardian ?
...
20. With considerable hesitation we direct that the judge’s declarations be
further stayed for a period of three weeks, namely until midnight on 10/11 July
2017. We respectfully urge our colleagues in the ECtHR to do everything in their
power to address the proposed application by then. We consider at present that we
would feel the gravest difficulty if asked to act yet further against Charlie’s best
interests by directing an even longer extension of the stay.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/charlie-gard-190617.pdf
This isn't the first three-week stay the court has granted. Fortunately, to decide, it didn't take the ECtHR the ten weeks it took the British courts, or even the three weeks the British courts offered them. They decided in one week. That was two weeks ago. Life support was due to be withdrawn on June 30. On June 29 the hospital issued this statement:
...
'(The) decision by the European Court of Human Rights marks the end of what has been a very difficult process and our priority is to provide every possible support to Charlie's parents as we prepare for the next steps.
'There will be no rush by Great Ormond Street Hospital to change Charlie's care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion.'
...
There has been no rush. Charlie Gard is still on life support. And here's the latest development.
"Great Ormond Street Hospital has applied to the High Court for a fresh hearing in the case of sick baby Charlie Gard."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...ital-fresh-hearing-new-evidence-a7829756.html
