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

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As