How Much Did It Cost the Hospital to Kill Charlie Gard?

Opinion   Jesi Smith   Aug 4, 2017   |   6:10PM    Washington, DC

Remember the good old days when the medical community used their time and money to wipe out disease not the patient? The strange and tragic case of baby Charlie Gard being sued by his own doctors so they could hold him hostage and end his life at the (not so) Great Ormond Street Hospital sickens the hearts of every loving, civilized mother and father. Who could have imagined those whose sole job it is to care for the sick would go to such drastic lengths to rob Charlie’s parents of any opportunity to seek out alternative treatment and even deny them the opportunity to take Charlie home for his final days on this earth?

Exactly how much did it cost to kill Charlie when one adds up the time, lawyer fees, publicity, and doctors testifying?

Would it have covered the alternative treatment his parents sought or even an ambulance ride home so he could breathe his last breath outside the presence of those who spent so much time and money to make sure he would die?  (Charlie’s parents, who had raised 1.3 million Pounds for Charlie’s treatment, recently pledged to donate it all to help sick children.) When did the good Dr. Jekyll who treats the sick and has compassion on the dying become the murderous and impatient Mr. Hyde? Both the British High Court and the European Court of Human Rights, to whom Charlie’s parents appealed to help their son, let the world know that killing is now an official hospital policy.

Let me get this straight, the medical community says you have an illness, declares that illness incurable, and if you do not die quickly enough, they hasten your death to prove their dire prediction was true. The one group the sick can turn to for help, the medical professionals, now are lobbying for legal restraints to be removed so that the medical worker can be the combined judge, jury, and executioner of the ill. The patient denied the basic status of protected citizen becomes a subhuman entity that can be denied basic human rights and be held prisoner in the hospital. This treatment is reminiscent of how the Japanese treated their own soldiers during WWII after battles, evacuating only the Japanese soldier who could walk away. The injured were expected to kill themselves.

The doctors, hospitals, and courts asked for the ridiculous — proof that experimental medicine would work on Charlie without allowing him the treatment. Every tried and true medication, surgery, or simple standard of care was considered experimental once — until it wasn’t. For example, imagine the same standard being applied to Florence Nightingale, a British native and medical pioneer. How could she prove that disease, which claimed more soldiers’ lives than actual wounds in the late 1800’s, would be significantly decreased with sanitation methods such as cleansing tools, patients, and linens…without ever letting her experiment with these sanitation standards?

PRO-LIFE COLLEGE STUDENT? LifeNews is looking for interns interested in writing, social media, or video creation. Contact us today.

Pioneering new medical procedures has historically been an uphill battle, with new ideas being shunned until overwhelming evidence and pressure for its use demands it. The medical community is filled with its own stubborn bureaucracy and red tape that weigh comfortable standards and cost effectiveness against innovation and the life of the patient. With the increased technology, we now know what the medical community in the 1800’s did not and could not yet know at the time — that germs and infection were causing huge death rates. Proof has always come in medicine through application, thus the saying, ‘doctors practice medicine.’  No possible breakthroughs, cures, or effective standards of care can come through such absurd measures of proof before any medical trial. The science of medicine died with such impossible standards on the same day Charlie Gard died.

Those who do not have a family member with special needs may be shaken by the attitude of the medical community towards the sick and handicapped, but it is nothing new. It turns out that such cruelty is not rare.  The global campaign for the medical community to have the legal right to kill their patients, especially those deemed terminal, has been wide and pervasive…let’s call it a moral cancer. The removal of legal culpability for killing another human being spreads under the guise of compassion and stays hidden in its mission to be the death of human dignity. The cost of killing the sick is too high of a price for any society to pay.

Kindness, protection, and brotherly love for the poor, rich, sick, well, young, and old are carefully guarded actions of any good society. As the fictional character Captain James T. Kirk profoundly noted in the movie Star Trek Beyond, “Better to die saving lives, than to live taking them. That’s what I was born into.”

LifeNews Note: Jesi Smith and her husband Brad are pro-life speakers with Save The 1, from Rochester Hills, Michigan. Smith is a wife and mother to five children including one very special girl named Faith.  Learn more at www.keepingourfaith.com.”