Appallingly, I came across this question in regard to the Charlie Gard case: “What duty of care do we owe them simply on account of their being human beings, who are by nature possessed of an inalienable dignity?”
As a fellow human being, my only response (and what I thought was the only response) is that we owe all human beings the best care possible…and yes…simply because they are human beings with inalienable dignity.
I thought most leftists would agree with this sentiment, given their generally misguided obsession with universal healthcare; however, this was proven wrong in a Slate article titled “The Right is Turning the Charlie Gard Tragedy into a Case Against Single-Payer Health Care. It’s the Opposite.”
Although Ruth Graham seemed well-versed, there were a litany of problems that stuck out. The first stemmed from the same bias that feeds the media’s complete inability to accept Donald Trump’s presidency.
Graham’s thoughts go against the left’s supposed ideology that all people should be provided the best care. The presumed intention behind universal healthcare was that all humans should be afforded this care by their government. The U.K.’s reaction to Charlie Gard’s case is literally the opposite of providing care for its citizens. They’ve abandoned him to his own demise without any option of fighting for his life. That is not healthcare; that is death care. The left’s acceptance of this is a flip-flop in the name of politics rather than in the name of actual care. This is simply another ploy to brand themselves anti-Trump, as per his extremely supportive tweet to the Gard family.
What would be best for baby Charlie is to be allowed (which is a sad notion that anyone would approve of this tyrannical situation) to fight for his chance to life. As Graham pointed out, Charlie’s case has already been accepted by an American hospital, millions of dollars have been raised, and the parents are willing to make the move; what does this cost the U.K.’s government? Nothing. And yet, they will not budge. Again, this is NOT healthcare. This is pre-meditated murder.
Another issue was the denial of the single-payer healthcare system’s single-handed responsibility. No, this is not a political statement by conservatives. The single-payer healthcare system is quite literally the reason Charlie is being sentenced to die.
Because of the state’s involvement in doling out money for healthcare cases, and the extremely limited funds available for that purpose, the state was forced to pick and choose which cases to take and which, even if the parents have the money and willingness to go through treatment, are not worth their time. Charlie’s case had been deemed unworthy of state funds because he has a low rate of survival. These prediction rates are the only reason the U.K. has completely refused to let him leave the hospital and return home. So, yes, the single-payer healthcare system has caused this, and therefore, its adoption in the U.S. would be disastrous. The state should not have the power to decide who lives and who dies through this “death panel” approach particularly if the parents are ready, willing, and able to save their child’s life.
This note leads to the last critique; Graham’s article completely fails to address the rights of parents in their own child’s life or death, and in this case, the issue of parental rights cannot be skirted.
Charlie’s parents have fought tirelessly for him, seeking out treatment, raising money, and raising awareness to the issue, hoping to eventually bring their baby home. The government will not hear of it, making the claim that they know what is best for the child. They have decided they are the rightful owners of his fate.
In an attempt to tie the loose end of Charlie’s government enforced death, Graham argued: “‘Once the law is there, you have people asking themselves new questions,’ one Belgian scholar told New Yorker writer Rachel Aviv. ‘Do I really have quality of life? Am I not a burden on others?’”
These questions are irrelevant to government death panels of this sort because they resort to the first-hand “I” in their asking. “Do I have quality of life” implies a certain self-understanding and free-to- will decision process. Charlie has a right to fight for life because it is HIS life, even if the government does not wish it. Further, the government should have no business in deciding who lives and dies based off of an actuarial table on a piece of paper. Our lives are not theirs for the taking.
Giving the government full-reign on Charlie’s case strips every single parental right from the Gards and the chance of living at all from him. His case is a human tragedy that we need to be fighting against. Sorry Ruth, we won’t be silent because the left’s politics are getting in the way of their human decency.