A British judge told the parents of young Charlie Gard they have two days to prove why their son should be kept alive.
Think about that for a second: A government body has just told the parents they have to explain why their son should live.
Talk about evil. Talk about the take-down of parental rights and the dissolution of the traditional family unit — the replacement of government as family.
The fact that it’s all being couched in rational-sounding arguments, legalese, and expressions of compassion and understanding doesn’t hide the fact that government, not mom and dad, are deciding the life or death of a child.
The law should always fall on the side of life.
Judge Nicholas Francis put it this way to Charlie’s parents, in a Monday hearing: Bring me “new and powerful evidence” by Wednesday to show that Charlie is worthy of being kept alive to receive experimental medical treatment — else London’s Great Ormond Hospital will indeed switch off life support.
This — despite the fact that the parental abilities of Charlie’s parents have never been questioned. We’re not talking about an infant who’s been abandoned, or pulled from an abusive home.
We’re talking about a child with two loving parents who want to take him to the United States for experimental treatment for mitochondrial disease and brain damage — treatment that’s been offered by even by the president of the United States and supported by the pope.
Treatment that his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, want him to have, either in the United States or Italy, where some success with nucleoside therapy has been seen in other patients.
But the judge, and London’s hospital staff, say no.
“There is not a person alive who would not want to save Charlie,” the judge said, the Sun reported. “If there is new evidence, I will hear it. If you bring new evidence to me and I consider that evidence changes the situation … I will be the first to welcome that outcome.”
Not really. That’s not exactly true. The judge already has all the evidence he needs to make his decision — all the evidence that should be needed to show the parents have the absolute right to treat their child with the best medical care they can afford, provide and obtain. And it goes like this: They’re the parents.
That should be all the facts and evidence needed.
But under a government-run health care system, such as that guides Gard’s care, parental authority is just a phrase — just another consideration, equal to the consideration of the doctors, the hospital staff, the court room players.
Charlie’s parents may want their baby alive. But the state says they’ve not proven their case. And that’s that. That’s government-run health care. Evil is thy name.
Copyright © 2017 The Washington Times, LLC.