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

Palm Oil production killing the planet

Bad trade and bad products are killing our planet. We have said this before on The Thin End. There is no better example than that of palm oil. It is used ubiquitously in so many products, and its production is a major factor destroying rainforests and threatening precious species.

Demand for palm oil is 'skyrocketing worldwide'. It is used in packaging and in so much of our snack foods, cookies, crackers, chocolate products, instant noodles, cereals, and doughnuts, and the list goes on.
Bad for the planet So, why is this so bad for the planet?

The oil is extracted from the fruit of the oil palms native to Africa. It is now grown primarily in Indonesia and Malaysia, but is also expanding across Central and West Africa and Latin America.

Palm oil production is now one of the world's leading causes of rainforest destruction, and this is impacting adversely some of the world's most culturally and biologically diverse ecosystems. Irreplaceable wildlife species like t…

Time to ban organophosphate pesticides?

How would you react if your neighbour told you he was going to spray his garden with a neurotoxin used in WW2? "Oh don't worry!" he assures you, "it's only a low dose!"
"A neurotoxin?" you ask incredulously "Are you crazy?"
"It's very effective!" he asserts.
"How does it work?" you ask.
"It stops the pests' brains working" he asserts with a smile.  "Everyone uses it."
"But..."

Campaigners in the USA hope that with Scott Pruitt’s resignation, and with a new administrator Andrew Wheeler at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this presents another chance to apply pressure and achieve a national ban in the United States on the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos once and for all.



Organophosphate insecticides, such as diazinon, chlorpyrifos, disulfoton, azinphos-methyl, and fonofos, have been used widely in agriculture and in household applications as pesticides si…

Hummingbird exposure to pesticides

Many have responded to the campaigns to stop the use of pesticides killing bees.  Bees are not the only animals affected.

Hummingbirds are noted as a species of conservation concern by Partners in Flight, and their populations are estimated to have declined by 60% between 1970 and 2014.



New research reveals that hummingbirds and bumble bees are being exposed to neonicotinoid and other pesticides through routes that are widespread and complex. The findings are published in Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry.

To measure exposure to pesticides in these avian pollinators, investigators made novel use of cloacal fluid and fecal pellets from hummingbirds living near blueberry fields in British Columbia. They also collected bumble bees native to Canada, and their pollen, and blueberry leaves and flowers from within conventionally sprayed and organic blueberry farms.

The researchers detected pesticides and related compounds in cloacal fluid and fecal pellets of hummingbirds revealing…