Christian Concern/The Christian Legal Centre are backing the parents of Charlie Gard who are seeking to lift an injunction on naming the Great Ormond Street medica who were involved in his care and the decision to withdraw life support
For those unfamiliar with the case, Charlie Gard was a little boy with a severe medical condition in 2017. It was concluded by his team that nothing more could be done and that treatment should end. There were various attempts to prevent this including an intervention from the US to offer pioneering treatment at a cost.
The first thing it is important to say is that we should have a huge amount of compassion for the Gard family and yes, that should include empathy. It is very hard to put yourself in the shoes of a young couple who have lost their previous son and still believe that more could have been done, that people have failed him and them, and that indeed there has been an injustice.
However, I think that we also need to consider other factors too. First, what exactly are Christian ethical duties in this kind of situation. Is there a duty to preserve life at all cost? I believe that there is a duty to not take life, we are commanded not to kill and so euthanasia is wrong. I also believe that there is a duty to seek to preserve life but that cannot for obvious reasons become a never ending, infinite duty. The question is whether or not those making decisions have acted reasonably with the best information available to them. The conclusion of the court process at the time was that they had.
So, the question to be asked is “what is being gained by this latest legal action?” The Court’s concern at the time will have been that the naming of clinicians potentially put them at risk whether of intrusive media attention or worse. Surely if there are outstanding questions, it would be best to determine them through legal routes, whether a further investigation and review or if criminality is suspected, a police investigation. I think that the reality is that there simply isn’t enough evidence to justify either of these.
This is not of course to say that there aren’t question marks around the proportionality of injunctions in number of cases. Families should be free to tell their stories, blanket injunctions preventing the naming of hospitals etc would be examples if this as the supreme Court has recently ruled. Though again, I think it is legitimate to ask what makes this a specific concern of a Christian campaigning group?
What then is the impact on the family. This feels like there is a need to do something, to keep trying, to keep fighting. Yet, this kind of action isn’t actually helping them. It is hurting.
I remain concerned that some Christian organizations are so caught up in a culture war, fighting perceived ethical battles that they cannot see the harm that they themselves risk doing.
Faithroots 