Charlie Guard: Do Parents or Judges Decide?
The United Kingdom’s highest court has determined it was in Charlie Gard’s “best interest” for his parents to give up on him and watch him die. The European Court of Human Rights sadly agreed. Under European law, this rendered Charlie hopeless, his parents powerless to intervene.
His parents raised more than $1.6 million in private funds for transport to the U.S. for further care. But the state hospital was granted the legal right to pull the plug on young Charlie.
This is what happens when the state, not loving parents, decides what is best for a child: it miraculously happens to match whatever is best for the government!
Sadly, what happens in Europe has a way of coming here as well. And with the Supreme Court’s Troxel v. Granville (2000) decision, the way has already been paved. Where once parental rights were afforded “strict judicial scrutiny” protection (Troxel, p. 80), now those same rights are granted only “some special weight” (ibid., p. 70)—and what that means varies from judge to judge and case to case.
Blow are a few other news articles about Charlie Gard, along with commentary.
- The president and the pope express concern for Charlie Gard.
- This opinion piece in the IJReview points out that this COULD come our way. – What if Charlie’s parents had the fundamental right to direct his care? What if you lost yours?
- The Court-Ordered Killing of Charlie Gard – “Under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection — those between parent and child — be subordinated to the judgment of the state?”
Clearly, when there is proven abuse, or gross or systemic neglect, the state has a role. But where there is neither abuse nor neglect?
If we cannot save Charlie, we can at least stand up and say, “Never here. Never again.” Partner with Parental Rights Foundation today.