You may remember I wrote last week – and I’m sure you’ve heard of it elsewhere - about the story of Charlie Gard, the little tyke dying of a DNA disorder which British Courts kept from experimental treatment, against his parent’s wishes.
It seems that Charlie will soon be a casualty of the state.
The American doctor who was given permission to come examine the child to discern the potential effectiveness of the experimental treatment ascertained that the boy’s muscles and brain had been weakened and damaged over the past few months to a degree that the parents decided would not allow him a high quality of life. They then decided to end the legal battle to allow the treatment.
Connie Yates, the boy’s mother, gave a statement following their decision saying, in part, “Our son has an extremely rare disease for which there is no accepted cure but that does not mean that this treatment would not have worked, and it certainly does not mean that this shouldn't have been tried. We have only been asking for a 3 month trial of treatment to see if there was any improvement.
We have been asking for this short trial for the past 8 months. Charlie did have a real chance of getting better if only therapy was started sooner…”
I can only imagine the frustration and helplessness those poor parents have been through.
I’ve read of several British legal experts such as Professor Jonathan Montgomery going on about how the UK recognizes the “rights of a child,”: "Unlike the USA, English law is focused on the protection of children's rights. The USA is the only country in the world that is not party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child; it does not recognize that children have rights independent of their parents."
But examples like that of Charlie Gard show that it really isn’t the rights of the child that the courts are concerned with.
The rights of the court are what the court is concerned with. The child has rights (or had rights, depending on when you read this), not enumerated from the court as it would have you believe, but from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence enshrines.
It’s not a question of what rights Charlie Gard has, so much as it’s a question of who is the primary executor of those rights until he is old enough or capable enough to do that himself.
This kid will be dead because the British high courts decided that ought to be their right, and effectively killed him in defense of it.
Of the rights mentioned in the Declaration, the right to life is the first. As any other rights are moot points without life, it is obviously foundational to the rest. That is the very right which the British court denied Charlie.
If the courts can deny that right, isn’t it time to recognize it has too much power?
To support our efforts please click here or mail your gift to American Decency Association (ADA), PO Box 202, Fremont, MI 49412.
American Decency Association is a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.