I'd just like to reiterate some points that I think may have been overlooked, or that some JUBbers may be unaware of in this discussion:
(1) The parents HAVE the money available from fundraising (nearly £1.5 million i.e. nearly $2.5 million) so no expense need be paid from the British taxpayer, and I suspect that once in America any further costs would in a similar way be privately raised, quite easily.
(2) With the backing of the judiciary, the hospital is, in effect, holding Charlie as a 'possession' in their ownership, and preventing his parents from taking their baby out of the country, thereby removing from them their freedom of choice over the treatment of their own child. Should they have such a right?
(3) Charlie's extremely rare condition may not have rendered him definitively brain dead, only very severely impaired, giving him the remote chance of a possible, but admittedly minimal, improvement. If this possibility exists, then, by reverse, it also means that the same possibility can be taken away from him, and I think that is vitally important.
(4) Speaking strictly in the legal sense, there is an alarming precedent being made here, which can then be applied over every single British citizen if they have the misfortune to be rendered in a similar condition to Charlie, whereby medical officials are given supreme authority to
mandate and
demand the taking of a human being's life,
irrespective of the individual's wishes or that of the next of kin. This is the path towards state-controlled euthanasia, and the judges and the courts and frankly all of us should be very careful before heading down that road because of the potentially horrific consequences that it can lead to.
(5) There is a profound philosophical argument about precisely what a human life is, what it means, and under what circumstances it is deemed permissible to take that life away, and the morality and the ethics behind doing so. Under what authority or guiding principles does that decision take place? For what reasons? Does the prevention of 'suffering' justify the act? How does one quantify this 'suffering'? What level of it makes the intervention to ending a life 'acceptable'? How many lives would be taken before one gave any pause for thought over what is 'right' or 'wrong'? Who has the authority to make the decision over what is 'right' and 'wrong'?
