Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Compassion and Contradictions Re: Charlie

We live in a world of contradictions.

Look no further than the case of little Charlie Gard in the United Kingdom.

If you are not familiar with the case, the Chicago Tribune provides the background.

Eleven-month-old Charlie Gard is desperately ill with a rare genetic disorder. He can't breathe or move on his own. He's blind and deaf. He suffers from epileptic seizures. Doctors in London say his illness can't be treated effectively and that he likely will die soon after life-support is withdrawn.
Charlie's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, are fighting to bring their son to the U.S. for experimental treatment. They've raised $1.7 million on a crowdfunding website to do so.

What is the problem?

The British government is prohibiting Charlie's parents from either taking their son home to die or to seek alternative treatments in the United States.


Simply stated, the Brits do not want to undermine their single-payer government health care system. It wants to be in total control of the health decisions of its citizens since it is paying the bill. However, this case shows that the British government wants to be in total control even when it is not paying the bill.

The case received more attention over the weekend when President Trump tweeted this out.

You would think that Trump's compassionate tweet would have garnered the President some badly needed praise from the media.

You would be wrong.

Consider this report on how the "Media Downplays Trump Tweet Offering To Help Terminally-Ill Baby" from The Daily Caller.

What I have found most interesting about the case is the vitriol and venom about Trump from the liberal left on the subject.

A few responses to his tweet on Twitter.

What is most interesting is that, as can be particularly seen in the last two tweets, by attacking Trump they are effectively arguing that Charlie's parents should not have a choice in the matter.

Consider the contradiction.

I am almost certain that if you took a deeper look at the political views of each of the individuals above you would find that each of them are vociferously Pro-Choice on the question of abortion.

However, when presented with the question of whether Charlie Gard's parents should have a choice in his care (even when the government health care system will not have to foot the bill), they oppose Pro-Choice for the parents.

Isn't it ironic that that these people are pro-choice before Charlie was born but are opposed to choice after?

The parents have absolute rights regarding their child before birth but those rights are forfeited in favor of the government thereafter?

We truly do live in a world of contradictions.


  1. Thanks for highlighting this incredible abuse of authority by the British NHS. Both it and Charlie's case are tragic.