Sunday, July 30, 2017

On Charlie Gard's Death

Rest in Peace Charlie Gard. I feel sorry for the loss of his family.

This situation sheds a light on what is going on in the healthcare of United Kingdom.

After reading this article, I understood why the parents weren't able to practice their rights over their own child. Socialized healthcare.

When I first heard of this situation, I was confused why the state or even the hospital itself has a say on what the parents can and cannot do for their child. I mean they can give suggestions, but to command the parents to do something they don't want to?

The hospital basically just said that they don't see the importance of the life of this child and so they will not do anything to further his life. The state can decide who lives or dies because they are the ones providing it for free. The sad thing about this was that the parents already raised the fund, there were doctors willing to give treatment, but the parents never got back the right to decide for their son. Imagine, they had to deal with courts, courts!! Time was of the essence for the child but they had to have legal battles which eventually led to Charlie's early death.

In the U.S.A., I'm not sure what's going on, but it seems some of the people there prefer socialized healthcare in exchange for their rights. They might see the benefit of free healthcare for all, but the right to decide whether you live or die is given to the state.

As what the article mentioned:
For Harnwell, Charlie Gard's case is a perfect illustration of the risks involved in allowing third parties “to assume the role of providing our own safety net.”
Socialized healthcare, he said, “offers a universal reach available (ostensibly) to all irrespective of means, but eventually rationing – decided by bureaucrats, and presumably backed up by the courts – will kick in at some point.”
I think Charlie Gard would've a chance to live a few years longer if the treatment was given to him earlier.

Where is God in this
I saw one tweet where the person basically says that it is God's will that Charlie gets this sickness, this mitochondrial condition, and eventually dies. I don't really understand even now, what the meaning of "God's will" is, how do you decide what is His will or not. I mean, we are the ones deciding what actions to take. I think the only will of God is for us not to sin and be holy. So, you can do anything in this world, achieve anything, as long as you don't sin. I don't know the cause of the sickness to the child, but I don't believe that God gives sickness to anyone.

The death of Charlie Gard was because of the decisions of people. I point the fingers to the people in authority in that hospital and the judges, they are people who decided to not let Charlie out of that hospital to be taken to usa where the experimental treatment was available. Gosh, I don't know why I remember the lines from the movie V for Vendetta. I am sorry to say this, but of course, I cannot say this in front of the parents of Charlie Gard, but when you step back from the canvas and try to see the bigger picture, you will see that the decisions made by every citizen of that country to "let" the government take control of their healthcare is partly also to blame for Charlie's death. The citizens didn't fight for their right.

Every decision we make have domino effect or ripple effect. As what V said: "But, again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"

He is talking about the freedom of speech there in that particular scene in the movie, but it also applies to this. The freedom to make decisions for their baby should be on the parents if they are capable, don't have any mental illness of their own or something. But, as the Charlie Gard case has shown, that freedom has long been given up to the state.

No comments:

Post a Comment