Donald Trump policies

A poster-boy for the culture of death - Sunday 23rd to Saturday 29th of July

There is really only one place to start in a review of this week, and that is with the most tragic death - in the true meaning of the word tragic - of Charlie Gard. This is one of the saddest and certainly most frightening stories that I have come to know in all of Western history.

If my understanding of the facts is correct, this is what happened:

  • An unwed couple gives birth to a boy with a rare genetic defect, untreatable to date.
  • The doctors decide that the boy's disease is so serious that he will not survive and they want to turn off the life support.
  • The parents then say that he should be able to die at home, in the loving embrace of a loving home instead of a sterile hospital.
  • The hospital refuses to discharge him insisting that he must die there.
  • The parents file a suit to bring him home.
  • The hospital challenges this.
  • In the meantime, this case has brought enough international attention to it that a doctor working in the U.S. proposes to have him flown there for further treatment, insisting that there is a slight chance that he could lead a relatively normal life if the treatment works.
  • The hospital still refuses to dismiss him. The courts still agree.
  • The parents have in the meantime managed to raise the money required to take him to the U.S., almost $2 million at the time of the boy's death.
  • The high court rules that the hospital can keep him.
  • The parents keep fighting.
  • The parents appeal to the EU.
  • The European Court refuses to hear the case.
  • Trump and Bergoglio get involved, with the former saying he is willing to fly the child to the U.S. for help and the latter that he is willing to have him flown to Rome.
  • The court case drags on.
  • The parents give up, having had the U.S. doctor fly in to the U.K. to physically examine the boy and with the doctor concluding that too much time has passed without treatment for there to be any hope. Had the treatment come earlier his chances might have been good.
  • The parents still want to take him to die.
  • The hospital refuses to do that and finally...
  • Little Charlie Gard dies in a sterile and cold hospital, surrounded by his parents.

I'll have to admit that I didn't really follow this story from the start, so some of the details and timeline might be a bit off, but I think I have captured the gist of it.

My readers can rest assured that I shall not insult their intelligence by even entertaining the idea that the state of the U.K. could at any time in these proceedings have been interested in the well-being of Charlie Gard. So we must look at why the state fought so hard to make sure that little Charlie Gard died in a hospital and was prevented from leaving the country to seek treatment elsewhere.

Beneath all the headlines, the principles that the U.K., and EU were fighting for are not that difficult to piece out. They are that the government:

  • Has an absolute right to decide who gets to live or die, depending on what they deem to be a worthy life.
  • Has supreme rights which trump parental rights - primarily the parents' rights to decide what is best for the child. This is in spite of the fact that nobody in the governent will mourn for the child, hold a wake for him, or even attend their funeral - that is, assuming they are generous enough to release the body from the hospital for burial.
  • Decides when you die.
  • Decides where  you die.

I'll simply point out that the reason for keeping him a prisoner instead of releasing him abroad for treatment was because the hospital decided that his life, even if the treatment had worked, would not have been worth living. In other words, if the government determines that your quality of life is low enough, it can keep you locked up in a hospital, preventing  you from seeking treatment from a doctor of your choice anywhere else, and depriving you of any life support.

How is this any different than the most despotic and evil regimes frequently brought up in these conversations? Is it not always the case that the principal at stake for these regimes, and what made their evil snowball, was the very idea that the government assumed the power to decide which lives were worthy of not killing and which ones could be disposed of?

If this doesn't sum up the culture of death, it's hard to think what does. The most startling thing is that the very premise that the government decides what is a life worth living based on its subjective quality measure was not even challenged, as far as I could tell. It has become so ingrained in us that the governnment has absolute power of all within its borders that nobody even notices when a fundamental right is at stake.

I mean, it's so obvious that the government was morally wrong that even Bergoglio intervened on the side of Charlie Gard! In other words, he must have seen it as a very safe space for grandstanding, this being the man who tells us not to obsess with the killing of the unborn, after all.

This is what 3 generations of legal killing of the unborn has led to. We have a society in which children can be killed in plain sight with nobody batting an eyelid. Yes, I know he died naturally, but in preventing him from seeking medical aid which could have saved his life, the government in effect murdered him.

The only other issue of any note is Donald Trump re-introducing the ban on transexuals in the military. What is common sense in every non-Western countries, and what would have been common sense in any country bar none just...

Pages

Subscribe to Donald Trump policies