Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rationalization and Charlie Gard
Our ability to rationally evaluate and make choices upon our evaluation is what places us above the animals. Yet, our very rationality can sometimes work against us. We become too subtle and too arrogant. After our first clear ethical response, we start rationalizing to obtain a result that, however unethical, benefits our narrow interests. We can rationalize away the most basic human right. Because a few parents risk the health of their children, this serves as an excuse for a single-payer administrative state to remove all parental rights and make choices that are only appropriate for parents to make. After waiting 11 months for the child to die, now an immediate mercy killing is justified to save the face of the institution. Of course, we’ll rationalize this by talking about the best interests of the child determined by medical science, not emotion. Oh, what a brave new world.
Those who never accept an ethical view of life always assert an all-powerful state above the rights of individuals. They are a crafty enemy not to be underestimated.
Still, it is possible to overcome the enemy and return to the right path.
VP Mike Pence: ‘We Hope and Pray that Little Charlie Gard Gets Every Chance’
On Monday afternoon, High Court Judge Mr. Justice Francis, who made the initial High Court ruling in April, said the case would be listed for a full day Thursday. The judge explained a final decision may not come until Friday, meaning more delays to Charlie receiving treatment.
Chief Executive of Americans United for Life, Catherine Glenn-Foster, who is close to the Gard family, said on Sunday: “[Chris and Connie] are stressed as anyone would be in this situation, where their own parental rights are being stripped away by an institution that was hired to care for their son and instituted to care for the most vulnerable among us.
“That very institution hired to care for Charlie is trying to strip him of his rights and his parents of their rights to even just take him to get a second opinion.”
.
Published in Healthcare
But will they do so? (“They” being the people who think that they have the right to prevent his parents from taking him someplace else, for an experimental procedure.)
Does this judicial arrogance find its source in G-dlessness?
It used to be judges had a strong sense of accountability, not to themselves, but to G-d.
What do we learn about this world through this Charlie Gard test?
Where is our humanity? Where is our wisdom?
J’suis Charlie.
This case goes far beyond mere single-payer health care. After all, there’s no reason for a single-payer system that refuses to pay for treatment to allow the parents to pay for out-of-system treatment themselves. Furthermore, the UK does have a parallel private hospital system, and there are also out-of-country options the parents would like to try, with costs paid for by willing donors.
No, this case isn’t about single-payer. It has nothing to do with the cost to the UK health system. It’s much more insidious than that. It’s about government assuming guardianship rights over and above the child’s own parents.
Even if the UK had 100% privately-funded health care, the government could still order that treatment be withheld from the child.
This is about the ethos that government is supreme, not about the mere question of how best to pay for things.
Whattayamean “our”?
“We” aren’t the ones making this ruling. I accept zero responsibility for the decisions made by the NHS administrators or Mr. Justice Francis in this case.
Mis,
I think that the attitude of the government that you describe goes hand in hand with the ethos of single-payer. Experts know best, the Government knows best so why listen to anybody else the single payer system will handle everything. This is the excuse for overriding basic human rights. Of course, it’s not the money with Charlie but if money was involved then how much more would such a system feel entitled to override the rights of the individual. How much more would they make a zero sum calculation of your quality of life and render a life or death decision that would allow for no second opinion?
Regards,
Jim
“What if the reverse were true? And the parents wanted no treatment [for a treatable condition.]”
It is reasonable for a society to assume that, all other things being equal, a child’s best interest is in remaining alive. It’s not always true, but it’s true enough often enough to make life the default ethic. It should also be the default ethic that when life or death decisions re being made, people who know and love you shall decide for you. In this case, both default ethics support Charlie’s parents.
“Medical Science, not emotion, needs to best protect Charlie’s interests.” But what if medical science isn’t sure? It seems that “Medical Science” is not monolithic in this situation. As a neurologist in an ICU explained to me just recently, when the patient is a young person, we tend to go for the Hail Mary pass. Rightly so.
There is such a thing as a rotten situation in which the best medical guess is that the baby is, very simply, going to die. This was true of my baby grandson. There was no Hail Mary pass to try. The only question was how many days, and how much suffering he would have to go through. Increasing the pain relief and removing the life support systems meant he got to die peacefully in his mother’s arms, surrounded by his family who adored his little five-day-old self with all our hearts. We still miss him.
The notion that strangers are more likely to have your best interests at heart than the members of your own family is a modern novelty—bizarre by historical standards.
No reason, but what I feared most about Obamacare was that such a system was its goal. Because fairness, you know.
The arrogance is breathtaking — literally, in Charlie’s case. And, yes, I believe these officious officials do not hold themselves accountable to a higher power.
I once saw a BBC special on PBS. It featured a young woman from a working class family; she was going to be the first member of her family to go to college.I think she had studied karate, too. She looked a bit odd: She had congenital hydrocephalus, which hadn’t been diagnosed in time. She had been around two or three when they put the shunt in, and a lot of her brain had already been severely compromised. The program showed us the PET scan of her head: huge ventricles, not much cortex lighting up, except, IIRC, some in the cerebellum and occipital region. The reporter talked to her. It went something like this:
“Are you aware of your medical condition?”
“Oh, yes.”
“Well, given what it shows about your brain, how do you explain what you’ve been able to accomplish?”
Pause.
“Well, I’m the sort of person who if you tell me I can’t do something, I can’t rest until I’ve done it.” (Camera shows her mother standing behind her wide eyed and nodding emphatically.)
In another thread it was said.
Unfortunately little Charlie being a ward the state, while having two loving parents, is a product of secularism/post modernism.
Kate, I am so sorry for the loss of your grandson. My condolences.
Kate,
In Jewish theology, oddly enough, there is sort of a trinity of evil. The Yetzer Hara (the evil inclination) tempts you to sin. The Satan (Gd’s prosecutorial angel in the heavenly court) convicts you of the sin. The Angel of Death (needs no introduction) then comes to collect your life. This is not a dream team but a nightmare team. If you are going to argue for the defense in the Heavenly High Court against the Satan you’d better have the right stuff.
Kate, you’ve got the right stuff. Excellent.
Regards,
Jim
The Satan is sort of like a French juge d’instruction and a prosecutor all in one. There are some who would have it that the Yetzer and the Satan are one and the same, which adds a sort of the secret policeman function in there too.
You mean like the Kedushas Levi? He makes Dan’l Webster look puny.
To all,
The Hospital claims there is no chance for success. They expect Charlie’s parents to somehow prove that the treatment will work an impossibly high standard. Take a look at this video. There is a chance of success.
Regards,
Jim
It shouldn’t matter whether or not there is a chance of success, the resources are there, the people controlling the resources are willing; this is about control.
and it is evil.
Je suis Terry Schiavo.
This case and the Michelle Carter case have focused my attention on the way we regard human life–in a way the abortion issue never did.
In the USSCt Cruzan case, and the Schiavo case, the question was whether these now-incompetent individuals would have wanted life support terminated. A question of individual autonomy.
In the case of an infant who has never been mentally competent, the infant’s wishes are not at issue. The parents may not have the right to choose death–even if they believe they are releasing the child to an eternity of bliss. (Remember the “little lambs” of Jonestown and Waco?) But few would argue they don’t have the right, even the moral duty, to choose life.
The Carter case exposes the relatively new ambivalence . The boy’s suicide death was regarded as an unmitigated evil by his parents, who wanted to hold his sociopathic girlfriend legally responsible. (In my opinion, her conviction would probably be overturned, according to traditional principles of criminal responsibility, if she appeals .) There used to be a consensus that a young healthy person who considered suicide was sick and in need of rescue. But no more. The ACLU sees the issue as one of individual autonomy. In Belgium, depressed young adults may qualify for medically-assisted suicide.
I’ve read that in the Nazi death camps, guards were instructed not to intervene if a prisoner was attempting suicide, because that was the only human right they had left.
If we no longer agree that Carter’s boyfriend’s suicide was wrong or was a manifestation of illness
then how can we determine whether her encouragement of that act was wrong ?
This ambivalence may have been an inevitable consequence of the length, and quality, of life increasing so dramatically for so many people. Anything that becomes more abundant becomes less precious.
Now we have more control over the lengths of our lives, even over the course of illnesses which formerly would have been a peremptory death sentence–
who would have thought that at this juncture, we’d be expending so much energy debating the value of human life itself?
Life is of infinite value because we are image bearers of God.
When a culture no longer takes the idea that there is a God seriously . Then life becomes a commodity and the state sets the price. Slippery slope indeed.
I’m with you Misthiocracy. So many of us still embrace humanity, but we suffer the consequences of those who don’t.
It seems anymore being alive is left to a vote, mob rule. Prove your relevance, or die.
Who knew we’ve been moving toward Ultimate Survivor, where judges and citizens place themselves as little Caesars, showing the lifegiving thumbs up or life taking thumbs down to an infant.
When judges and citizens have no vision of eternal accountability, and no hope, I guess it’s all just a Craps game.
Snakes eyes…
Hypatia,
You get to the very core of it. We are rushing forward in technology but falling backward in our most fundamental ethical foundation. We need to reverse this trend and soon. I believe there is such a thing as moral freefall. Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, these were societies who had strong ethical foundations that served well for centuries but when they cracked complete ethical collapse resulted in a totalitarian nightmare. The cases you bring up should serve as early warning alarms.
Excellent.
Regards,
Jim
Some friends of ours recently had to take their teenage daughter for a skin biopsy. During the intake, the nurse asked our friends to leave the room so she could survey their teenager about suicide. She was very apologetic and explained that teen suicide has become such a problem, they’re now required to ask these questions, and that teens give more honest answers when their parents aren’t in the room.
So my friends and I were discussing what’s happening to our teens and why it might be they’re more disposed to suicide than ever before, despite living in times of relative peace and prosperity. My speculation is taken from my recent reading of Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning. I think people lack meaning and purpose in their lives. They’ve been convinced that life is about seeking pleasure and avoiding suffering and find themselves psychologically frail, either when they’re bored by what was formerly pleasurable (how many video games can sustain you over a lifetime?) or when they encounter even the mildest form of suffering (getting dumped by your boyfriend of two months).
On the other hand, people with a sense of purpose can tolerate a lot — even the depredation of imprisonment in Auschwitz — and come out the other side with hope and happiness. I don’t think you have to have (good) religion to have meaning, but it certainly helps most people and has supporting evidence over a long duration to show it.
CCC: 1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church.
And I firmly believe the experience of respect for life and dignity of persons enjoyed in the West is solidly grounded in the Judeo-Christian belief that man is created in the Creator’s image and likeness. Secularists are living off the sap of the dying tree of their Judeo-Christian western heritage. Once it’s gone, no one will be safe. It’s all will to power at that point.
MAJOR UPDATE ON CHARLIE GARD’S CONDITION: MUST READ!!! MUST READ!!!
Eight Myths Debunked: Parents of Baby Charlie Gard Set Record Straight on Son’s Health
The Great Ormond Street Hospital and the EU Court are full of it!!! The High Court, if it hasn’t gone insane also, should rule in Charlie’s favor. They go to the hearing Thursday. The possible ruling Friday. May Gd bless Charlie & his Parents.
Regards,
Jim
Terry Schiavo is a poor example.
Xray records which were not released until after her death showed that her brain was utterly withered away, a finding that was confirmed at autopsy. Her case was indeed hopeless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/us/schiavo-autopsy-says-brain-withered-was-untreatable.html
Je suis Charlie. May God bless him and his family.