Skip to main content

Difficult ethical issues in Charlie Gard case

The news of death threats sent to staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital is disturbing. Whatever the opinion held on the issues surrounding the care of baby Charlie Gard, it has to be acknowledged that these are complex.

It would be easy enough to adopt the position that it should always be the parents choice to decide on the best treatment for their child, but this cannot always trump the legitimate concerns and responsibilities of doctors and nursing staff. It would of course be ideal if all choices on treatment, or of withdrawal of treatment and life support, could be made with agreement of both parents and doctors. But this cannot always be the case.

In the most difficult cases where there is disagreement about life support it will inevitably be decided by judges and through the legal process.

When the case was first heard I was asked as a medical ethicist to make a comment to the media. I chose not to do so because I could not know the full details of the case. This is true for most of us, and for many of those who chose freely to comment on it.

I can only comment in general terms, and not about a specific case. The facts need to be considered with compassion and understanding for all those involved - the medical staff and the parents, and of course baby Charlie.

We cannot expect doctors and nurses simply to provide treatment regardless of the overwhelming balance of probability that the treatment will cause more harm than it would relieve suffering. What we do understand about this particular case is that the treatment available in the USA has only a small chance of success.  Yes, that chance should be considered.

We might consider that any chance should be taken, but this would ignore the potential for needless suffering.

It is often said that the first rule in medicine is to do no harm. This is of course overly simplistic. It is often the case that treatment has both the potential for harm as well as for benefit. It is then a question of the balance of that benefit to harm.

These can be difficult to assess,  and the more so when dealing with the care of a baby. It is certainly the case that the progress in neonatal care and the improved outcomes would not have occurred if doctors had not pushed boundaries.

Whatever the 'rights' and 'wrongs' in the case of baby Charlie Gard, the staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital have legitimate concerns and are acting ethically in respect of their duties and responsibilities. They do not deserve to be threatened and abused.

Meanwhile our thoughts must be with the parents and with their baby. The parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard are acting with great dignity and love for their child. They did not condone abuse and have also faced "nasty and hurtful remarks". They deserve to be heard and respected. So also do the doctors and nurses. Abuse of parents or doctors does not serve the interests of this baby, and it is unclear what the motives are of those behind the abuse.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno