DOCSLIB.ORG

Ethics & Medics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ethics & Medics ETHICS & MEDICS NOVEMBER 2017 VOLUME 42, NUMBER 11 A Commentary of The National Catholic Bioethics Center on Health Care and the Life Sciences MY NAME My doctors believed that my ventilator should be switched off, but my parents disagreed, which is why my WAS CHARLIE GARD case ended up in the courts, which upheld the judgment of my doctors and decided that it was not in my best interests to receive further treatment and that I should be allowed to Rev. Gerald D. Coleman, PSS “die with dignity.” This difference of opinion introduced a thorny bioethical issue that divided global opinion about who should decide my fate: my parents, my doctors, or the courts?6 Justice in the United States is considerably affected by o the American esteem for personal autonomy and respect y name was Charles Gard, but everyone called me for personal rights: “Our health system . so powerfully Charlie. I was eleven months old when my par- protects the rights of the individual that we could not imag- 7 ents decided to end a contentious legal fight and ine justice . that did not privilege informed consent.” M Americans would insist that my rights would be properly allow me to die. I was born in West London on August 4, 2016. My dad, Chris, is a postman and my mom’s name interpreted only by my parents. This understanding of is Connie. They are still young, only in their thirties. At justice differs from that in the health care system of the birth, I seemed to be developing normally, but by October, United Kingdom, where it is presumed that the courts, it was apparent that I was not gaining weight. I was then relying on the evidence presented by doctors, are able to admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit at London’s make a more objective judgment on a child’s best interests Great Ormond Street Hospital, one of the world’s leading than parents are. It is impossible to appreciate the legal children’s hospitals, and treated for encephalomyopathic and moral complexity of my case without understanding mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, a rare genetic this distinction. condition which prevents cells from producing sufficient Parental Rights energy to maintain normal bodily functions.1 Experts on my form of MDDS, called RRM2B, unanimously agreed he sharp difference of opinion between my parents that there was no cure or treatment. At the time of my death Tand the doctors and courts regarding my best interests on July 27, 2017, it was thought that only sixteen children raised grave concerns over my parents’ right to be the globally have this condition.2 primary decision makers on my behalf. My case pitted the United Kingdom’s state-financed medical system against Who Decides My Case? my parents’ right to protect me. It was surprising to me that ecause I could not breathe on my own, I suffered cata- while the UK High Court of Justice wrote glowingly about Bstrophic and irreversible brain damage and was placed on my dad and mom, it in fact distanced them from any major life support.3 My muscles were weak, I was deaf, and I suffered role in deciding my fate. The court paid tribute to my par- from persistent epileptic seizures beginning on December 15, ents for “their dedication” and “tireless pursuit” of a cure 2016, despite being on four types of anti-seizure medica- for me but stated that my parents did not feel “that there tions.4 Doctors also observed that my skull had not grown in [was] any role for a Judge or a court” and that only they three months, an indicator of deficient brain development. “can and should speak” for me. The court acknowledged I was not able to respond to my parents, and I did not know that my parents felt that they had “been stripped of their 8 if I was awake or asleep. But I did experience some signifi- rights as parents.” Great Ormond Street Hospital agreed cant pain, and my doctors believed that “being ventilated, that my parents felt that only they had a right to speak for 5 me and that the hospital should not have the right to ask being suctioned . .. are all capable of causing pain.” These symptoms led them to describe me as nonresponsive. the courts for an independent judgment. Clearly, there was a fundamental and unbridgeable disagreement over 9 Rev. Gerald D. Coleman, PSS, was vice president of corporate parental rights. ethics for the Daughters of Charity Health System in Los Altos While not disparaging physicians’ expert opinions, Hills, California, and president and rector of St. Patrick’s Seminary I believe that parents are the best advocates for their chil- in Menlo Park. He currently teaches at Santa Clara University. dren’s rights. In this regard, the laws in the United Kingdom DEFENDING THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON IN HEALTH CARE AND THE LIFE SCIENCES SINCE 1972 ETHICS & MEDICS NOVEMBER 2017 place too great an emphasis on the courts. I understand my physiological existence. My parents argued to keep that Catholic teaching holds that the patient is the primary me on the ventilator, because it was doing exactly what it decision maker in health care decisions, and since I was was supposed to. It is this level of difficulty that makes the not able to speak for myself, this role fell to my dad and question of medical futility so problematic. mom. But my parents were not given the final word, and I My dad and mom raised more than $1.5 million from think this was misguided and demonstrates a weakness in over eighty thousand donors for the trip to New York, UK law. In the United States, the Ethical and Religious staking their hope on the experimental therapy: “He’s our Directives for Catholic Health Care Services clearly state that son. We feel it should be our right to decide to give him a “those who are in a position to know best the patient’s chance at life.”15 My dad and mom would not accept that wishes—usually family members and loved ones—should intervention was futile until every possible treatment option participate in the treatment decisions for [a] person” such had been exhausted. Dr. Hirano believed that there was 10 as myself. about a 10 percent chance that the treatment would give In Troxel v. Granville, the US Supreme Court unequivo- me some muscle strength and brain function and perhaps cally stated that parents have a “fundamental right” enable me “to smile and grab objects.”16 Because I did not regarding decisions about their children. Justice Sandra respond to anything but pain (I was on a low dose of oral Day O’Connor wrote, “The interest of parents in the care, morphine) and my gradual deterioration was noted by my custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest caretakers, it appeared that the treatment would not bring of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this me any sustained benefit even if it were successful. 11 Court.” In the absence of clear evidence that a parental Before they knew about the experimental treatment, my decision (medical or otherwise) is harming a child, I think parents went to court to prevent the hospital from with- that the law ought not to interfere. After all, “it is the parents drawing my ventilator, but on June 8, 2017, the Supreme who suffer the biggest impact of their child’s disease, and Court of the United Kingdom rejected their appeal.17 Once the ones who will be hurt the most by their child’s death. again, I think it is important to remember the difference In this way, parents are perhaps the greatest stakeholders between the English and American systems of law. In the in scenarios involving very young, very sick children.”12 United Kingdom, once any party to a family–physician The Hospital, My Parents, dispute asks for judicial direction, the court is to make an and Dr. Hirano independent objective judgment on the child’s best inter- ests. A UK court cannot simply defer to the wishes of the he hospital and my doctors were not being cruel. Their parents, and British judges have with rare exception sided Tintent was not to kill me but to place me on palliative with health care professionals.18 In contrast, when disputes care and permit me to die peacefully. The hospital’s state- of this nature have occurred in the United States, courts have ment is a testament to this fact: Charlie is “a beautiful, tiny invariably ruled in favor of life-sustaining medical treatment baby afflicted by one of the cruelest of diseases” which left requested by the family. It is misleading to conclude that me “with no muscle function at all now and deprived of his the UK courts immorally usurped the rights of my parents, senses, unable to breathe and, so far as can be discerned, as they were correctly following European legal procedure after many months of encephalomyopathy, without any and precedent. awareness.”13 My case was assigned to Mr. Justice Peter Francis of the My parents did not want to give up on me, but not out Family Division of the High Court. Regarding Dr. Hirano’s of selfishness. They anchored hope in a therapy offered by proposed treatment, Justice Francis wrote, “No one in the an American physician, Dr. Michio Hirano of Columbia world has ever treated this form of MDDS with nucleoside University, whose neurology department is one the world’s therapy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Logic & Legitimacy of American Bioethics at The
    Doing the Right Thing: The Logic & Legitimacy of American Bioethics at the turn of the Millennium Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Leinhos, Mary Rebecca Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 02/10/2021 11:11:58 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/193799 DOING THE RIGHT THING: THE LOGIC & LEGITIMACY OF AMERICAN BIOETHICS AT THE TURN OF THE MILLENNIUM by Mary Rebecca Leinhos ________________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2006 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Mary Rebecca Leinhos entitled Doing the Right Thing: The Logic & Legitimacy of American Bioethics at the Turn of the Millennium and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Higher Education _____________________________________________________Date: Nov. 21, 2005 Jennifer Croissant _____________________________________________________Date: Nov. 21, 2005 Sheila Slaughter _____________________________________________________Date: Nov. 21, 2005 Gary Rhoades Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Autonomia Jednostki W Międzynarodowym Prawie
    Agata Wnukiewicz-Kozłowska Wybór tematu recenzowanej monografii należy uznać za wyjątkowo trafny. Aktualność i doniosłość poznawcza podjętej problematyki, a tak- że, co ważne, również jej wartość praktyczna, nie budzą wątpliwości. Syn- tetyczny tytuł pracy jest w pełni adekwatny, dobrze oddaje jej zawartość Agata Wnukiewicz-Kozłowska i główną ideę. [...] Całość rozważań zawartych w monografii koncentruje się na uzasad- nieniu jej głównej tezy o wykształceniu się nowego rodzaju prawa, wywo- Autonomia jednostki w międzynarodowym prawie biomedycznym dzącego się z prawa międzynarodowego publicznego oraz uwzględniają- cego klasyczny kanon praw i wolności jednostki, ale charakteryzującego się istotną odrębnością przedmiotową i specyfiką podmiotową. [...] za- prezentowane w pracy bardzo szerokie uzasadnienie głównej tezy jest wyjątkowo solidne, wszechstronne i przekonywające. Zostało ono oparte Autonomia na imponującym pod względem wielkości i różnorodności materiale ze- branym i wykorzystanym przez Autorkę w toku badań. [...] poza bardzo jednostki licznymi źródłami prawa w ścisłym tego słowa znaczeniu (traktaty, akty w prawa UE, ustawy i inne akty normatywne) w pracy wykorzystano boga- te orzecznictwo sądów międzynarodowych i krajowych, różnego rodzaju międzynarodowym dokumenty, wyniki badań empirycznych, a nawet materiały publicystycz- ne. Autorka dostrzegła i uwzględniła rosnącą, choć ciągle jeszcze niedo- prawie określoną rolę soft law. To bogactwo materiału wykorzystanego w pracy biomedycznym jest jej niewątpliwą zaletą. z recenzji wydawniczej
    [Show full text]
  • When Human Experimentation Is Criminal L
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 99 Article 3 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2008 When Human Experimentation is Criminal L. Song Richardson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation L. Song Richardson, When Human Experimentation is Criminal, 99 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 89 (2008-2009) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/09/9901-0089 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 99, No. I Copyright 0 2009 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. WHEN HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION IS CRIMINAL L. SONG RICHARDSON* Medical researchers engaged in human experimentation commit criminal acts seemingly without consequence. Whereas other actors who violate bodily integrity and autonomy are routinely penalized with convictions for assault, fraud, and homicide, researchers escape criminal punishment. This Article begins to scrutinize this undercriminalization phenomenon and provides a framework for understandingwhy researchers are not prosecuted for their crimes. It argues that their exalted social status, combined with the perceived social benefit of their research, immunizes them from use of the criminal sanction. Whether these constitute sufficient grounds to give researchers a pass from punishment is a significant question because the state's failure to act creates expressive harms. It displays attitudes towards victims and perpetrators that negatively affect the values of autonomy and dignity in medical research.
    [Show full text]
  • To See the Full Programme for the Battle of Ideas 2017
    CONTENTS The Battle of Ideas is an annual festival which 2 Ticket prices and festival information 3 Why the Battle of Ideas? brings together 400-plus speakers for over 3 Registration times 100 debates over the course of the weekend, and through stand-alone satellite events held SATURDAY from September to November throughout the 4 Welcome Address UK and Europe. You can find out more about 4 Saturday Keynote Controversies 6 The Politics of the Personal these satellite events on pages 52–59. 8 Intellectual Life 10 Understanding America This brochure will help you plan and navigate your visit to 12 The New Political Landscape the festival weekend. The debates are organised by room 14 Battle for the Economy or by themed topic areas we call ‘strands’. For example, the 16 Culture Wars ‘Science and Ethics’ strand covers contemporary issues in 18 City Life medicine, genetics and space exploration. The festival is 20 Contemporary Controversies organised so that you can follow one strand throughout the day, or pick and choose debates from different strands on WEEKEND ATTRACTIONS topics that interest you. 22 Battle Specials Whatever you decide to do, with such a wide range of 23 Book Club Salons debates and discussion, we are sure there will be plenty for 24 Lunchtime Shorts everyone to think about. 25 Festival Attractions and Entertainment ESSENTIAL INFORMATION 28 Battlefields: Barbican maps 30 Saturday Timetable 31 Sunday Timetable SUNDAY 32 Sunday Keynote Controversies 34 Eye on the World 36 Debating the Past 38 Law and Order 40 Tech Futures 42 Crisis of Political Language 44 Battle for Education 46 Contemporary Controversies 48 State of the Nation 50 Science and Ethics SATELLITES 52 UK Satellite Events 56 Battle of Ideas Europe 60 Thanks BATTLEOFIDEAS.ORG.UK 1 BOI Brochure 2017 1.7.indd 1 12/10/2017 18:56 BATTLE OF IDEAS TICKETING INFORMATION The Battle of Ideas takes place at the Barbican, London, on Saturday 28 and Sunday 29 October.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of Social Research
    03-HesseBiber-4725.qxd 5/25/2005 7:53 PM Page 83 CHAPTER 3 THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS STUDY The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was conducted by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) beginning in 1932. The study examined untreated cases of latent syphilis in human subjects to determine the “natural course” of the disease. Three hundred and ninety nine black males from Tuskegee, Alabama, who already had late-stage syphilis, were recruited for this study along with a matched sample of 201 noninfected males. The subjects were not asked to provide their informed consent in order to participate in this project. Those infected with syphilis in the early 1930s were given the stan- dard treatment at that time, which consisted of administering heavy metals. However, those men participating in the study were, not treated. In fact, the doctor in charge of the study noted “everyone is agreed that the proper pro- cedure is the continuance of the observation of the negro men used in the study with the idea of eventually bringing them to autopsy” (Jones, 1993, p. 132). However, when antibiotics became available in the 1940s and it was evident that this treatment would improve a patient’s chances for recovery, antibiotic treatment was withheld from the infected subjects, even though the researchers knew that if left untreated the disease would definitely progress to increased disability and eventually early death. According to some reports, “on several occasions, the USPHS actually sought to pre- vent treatment” (Heintzelman, 1996, p. 49). The experiment lasted over four decades, and it was not until 1972, in large part prompted by exposure from 83 03-HesseBiber-4725.qxd 5/25/2005 7:53 PM Page 84 84–●–THE QUALITATIVE PARADIGM the national media, that government officials finally ended the experiment.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Printable Issue (PDF)
    S T A N F O R D MEDICINEMED Spring 2011 special report BIOETHICS NO EASY ANSWERS At midlife Ethicists roll up their sleeves Who will buy? Phony stem cell treatments for sale Gender X Born ambiguous Dead or alive? The tipping point between patient and organ donor Jesse’s legacy A conversation with Paul Gelsinger 11 years after his son’s death S T A N F O R D MEDICINE Spring 2011 high-res head shot A NEW WAy to see the brain’s connections It’s mind-boggling. A typical human brain contains about 200 billion neurons linked to one another via hundreds of trillions of tiny connections called synapses. These connections form the circuits behind thinking, feeling and moving — yet they’re so abundant and closely packed that getting a precise handle on what’s where has defied scientists’ best attempts. • But here comes a solution. Stephen Smith, PhD, professor of molecular and cellular physiology, and Kristina Micheva, PhD, a senior staff scientist in Smith’s lab, have invented a technique that quickly locates and counts the synapses in unprecedented detail, and reveals their variations. They described the imaging system, called “array tomography,” in the Nov. 18, 2010, issue of Neuron. • Attempting to map the cerebral cortex’s complex circuitry has been a fool’s errand up to now, Smith says. “We’ve been guessing at it.” Synapses in the brain are crowded so close together that they cannot be reliably resolved by even the best of traditional light microscopes, he says. • In particular, the cerebral cortex — a thin layer of tissue on the brain’s surface — is a thicket of prolifically branching neurons.
    [Show full text]
  • Care of Dying Children and Adults. Ethics, Principles and Issues for Law Reform
    Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 68(3) August 2018 www.cmq.org.uk Care of dying children and adults. Ethics, principles and issues for law reform Dr Adrian Treloar, FRCP, MRCPych, MRCGP Background The cases of Alfie Evans, Charlie Gard, Charlotte Wyatt, David Glass and Ayesha King have all hit headlines and reverberated around the world. Many have been shocked to see doctors applying to the courts in order to curtail treatment against the clearly expressed wishes of the child's parents. Fierce public debates have raged about the appropriateness of withdrawing treatment but even more strongly about also the denial of parents’ wishes when plans they have made for their child do not appear unreasonable. Whilst public debate on the appropriateness of withdrawing treatment from the child has been fierce that debate has been yet more fierce on the denial of the parents' wishes to have the treatment continued even though their wishes do not appear unreasonable My conclusion is that while limitation of treatment and withdrawal of some treatments is appropriate, the de facto removal of parental authority as a result of referral to the High Court is wrong, and deeply unjust. As well as that, I argue that, in the case of Alfie Evans, the decision by the High Court to deny transfer to other care facilities is deeply concerning and should not have happened. Key issues in the care of dying children and adults Underlying those conclusions and within all the complexity of the debates there are several key issues each of which I explore further in this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • On Charlie Gard: Ethics, Culture, and Religion
    RESEARCH ETHICS/COMPARATIVE CULTURE AND RELIGION J. Heal Ethics Admin Volume 4 | Number 2 (Fall/Winter 2018) www.jheaonline.org ISSN 2474-2309 | doi:10.22461/jhea.1.71618 https://doi.org/10.22461/jhea.1.71618 Published Dec. 20, 2018 On Charlie Gard: Ethics, Culture, and Religion PETER A. CLARK, SJ, PH.D.1 MARVIN J. H. LEE, PH.D.2 AND OLIVIA NGUYEN3 [email protected],1 [email protected],2 [email protected] 1. 2. 3. The Institute of Clinical Bioethics, Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Keywords: Charlie Gard, comparative culture, Richard McCormick, medical futility. Abstract: The 2017 story of Charlie Gard is revisited. Upon the British High Court’s ruling in favor of the physicians that the infant should be allowed to die without the experimental treatment, the view of the public as well as the opinions of bioethicists and Catholic bishops are divided, interestingly along with a cultural line. American bioethicists and Catholic bishops tend to believe that the parents should have the final say while British/European bioethicists and Catholic bishops in general side with the court’s decision. The paper explores the place of culture in bioethical reasoning between the UK/Europe and the US while claiming that cultural differences are more important than geopolitical or religious differences to understand the bioethical positions of a group. In addition, the authors introduce a decision-making program for handicapped neonates which is developed by the American Jesuit Bioethicist, Richard McCormick, and modified further by the contemporary American Jesuit Bioethicist, Peter A.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics Across and Between Cultures
    Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics across and between Cultures Editors: Takao Takahashi, Nader Ghotbi & Darryl R. J. Macer Eubios Ethics Institute 2019 ii Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics Across and Between Cultures Eubios Ethics Institute Christchurch Tsukuba Science City Bangkok Cataloging-in-Publication data Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics across and between Cultures / Takahashi, Takao / Ghotbi, Nader / Macer, Darryl R.J. Christchurch, N.Z.: Eubios Ethics Institute ©2019. Copyright © 2019 Eubios Ethics Institute All rights reserved. The copyright for the complete publication is held by the Eubios Ethics Institute. The material may be used in education provided the copies are provided free of charge. No part of this publication may be reproduced for commercial use, without the prior written permission of the Eubios Ethics Institute. http://www.eubios.info/ 1 v. 22 Chapters. ISBN 978-0-908897-33-9 1. Bioethics. 2. Medical ethics. 3. Ethics. 4. Peace. 5. Philosophy. 6. Justice. 7. Disaster. 8. Information technology ethics. 9. Japan. 10. Asian Studies. 2. I. Takahashi, Takao, 1948. II. Ghotbi, Nader, 1967. III. Macer, Darryl Raymund Johnson, 1962. IV. Eubios Ethics Institute. V. Title (Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics across and between Cultures). The Eubios Ethics Institute is a nonprofit group that aims to stimulate the discussion of ethical issues, and how we may use new technology in ways consistent with "good life". An important part of this dialogue is to function as an information source for those with similar concerns. Publications are available through the website www.eubios.info, and refer to the ordering guidelines in this book. The views expressed in this book do not necessarily represent the views of the Eubios Ethics Institute, nor the editors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charlie Gard Case: British and American Approaches to Court Resolution of Disputes Over Medical Decisions
    OPEN Journal of Perinatology (2017) 37, 1268–1271 www.nature.com/jp COMMENTARY The Charlie Gard case: British and American approaches to court resolution of disputes over medical decisions JJ Paris1,2, J Ahluwalia3, BM Cummings4, MP Moreland5 and DJ Wilkinson6,7 Journal of Perinatology (2017) 37, 1268–1271; doi:10.1038/jp.2017.138; United States identified by the court as ‘Dr I.’ To finance the published online 19 October 2017 treatment the parents raised £1.3 million. The disagreement between the parents and the physicians in this case was not about cost, it was whether or not the experimental therapy ought to be tried on Charlie. The parents wanted it done. The physicians were For those whose bodies are riddled with disease, [Aclepius] opposed. They believed that continued intensive care and the did not attempt to prescribe a regimen in order to make proposed nucleoside treatment were ‘futile.’ their life a prolonged misery. Medicine isn’t intended for A British Court was petitioned to approve an order ‘that it is ’ fi such people ... even if they are richer than Midas. lawful, and in Charlie s best interests, for arti cial ventilation to be Plato, The Republic, Bk III. withdrawn ... and for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only.’ The request was a direct challenge to the parent’s hopes. The case was assigned to Mr Justice Francis of the Family Division INTRODUCTION of the High Court. The judge made clear from the outset that ‘This ’ ‘ On 8 June 2017, the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom case is not about money.
    [Show full text]
  • Disagreements in the Care of Critically Ill Children: Emerging Issues in a Changing Landscape
    LITERATURE REVIEW Disagreements in the care of critically ill children: emerging issues in a changing landscape Dr Neera Bhatia 1 Senior Lecturer in Law, Deakin University, School of Law, Melbourne, Australia September 2018 Note The author was commissioned by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics to write this review to inform its work on the disagreements that can arise in the care of critically ill children. Any views expressed in the paper are the author’s own and not those of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 1 Correspondence to: [email protected] . Dr Neera Bhatia undertook the review and provided the first draft; Dr Giles Birchley (University of Bristol, Centre for Ethics in Medicine) provided advice and comments on the first draft; Professor Richard Huxtable and Dr Jonathan Ives (University of Bristol, Centre for Ethics in Medicine) provided further edits to subsequent drafts. 1 Contents Summary .............................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 6 Findings ................................................................................................................................ 7 A: The role and impact of the internet, social media, and crowdfunding............................
    [Show full text]
  • The Charlie Gard Case
    CHAPTER 1 The Charlie Gard case ‘Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end; then stop.’ Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll Shortly after three o’clock on the 28th of July 2017, in a private room of a specialised hospice in suburban London, staff disconnected the breathing machine that was keeping alive 11-month-old infant Charlie Gard. Lying on either side of him, his parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard held his hands, leaned close and talked to him. They spoke to him of how proud they were of him. They saw him open his eyes briefly, and close them. Minutes later Charlie’s heart stopped, and he was gone.1 This was the conclusion – quiet, private and fleeting – to a dispute about medical treatment that had been none of those things. In the preceding 4 months, a protracted series of court hearings around disputed treatment for Charlie Gard had yielded global media attention and an outpouring of sympathy from onlookers around the world. It had attracted statements of support from many public figures, including US President Trump and the Pope. Charlie’s parents had been seeking experimental treatment that might improve his rare genetic condition. They had raised funds for him to travel to the US, where a medical specialist had offered to provide treatment. Many observers could not understand why the doctors at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital opposed the requested treatment. Many found it hard to see why the UK and European courtsa had decided against Charlie’s parents and authorised withdrawal of life support.
    [Show full text]