The Tragic Case of Charlie Gard Reveals the Essence of the State: Institutionalised Inhumanity
Gary J. Hall
1

“They wanted Charlie to die at home with his parents”

They expected NHS to continue provide the support for free in the place of their choosing (i.e. their home), on which the NHS reasonable objected as they could not possibly deliver necessary equipment to their house and provide a doctor to support it (at the tax-payer expense). I don’t think this is something that they would be able to get if they had to pay for this care.

The tax-payer provided a very expensive care throughout this story. While his parent were raising the money, their child’s care was paid for every day by the tax-payer (and it was not cheap).

As for the question whether the judges with the help should decide what is cruel and/or beneficial in terms of treatment of a child and what is not, it is an interesting question.

It might be, that it should be the sole right of the parents to decide everything about the child. Which leaves us with a question — why the State in both the USA and Great Britain punishes the parents who kill their own children?

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Sceptical Meerkat’s story.