The Charlie Gard Legacy: Forced Euthanasia

By Chris Michalski Published on August 28, 2017

Compare these historic quotes:

“Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are entrusted with the responsibility of extending the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, so that patients who, after a most critical diagnosis, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death.” — Adolf Hitler, 1939

“I find it is in Charlie’s best interests that I accede to these applications and rule that Great Ormond Street may lawfully withdraw all treatment save for palliative care to permit Charlie to die with dignity. I want to thank the team of experts and carers at Great Ormond Street and others who cannot be named, for the extraordinary care that they have provided to this family. … [This decision is reached]  “with the heaviest of hearts, but with complete conviction for Charlie’s best interests.”  — Justice Nicholas Francis, 2017

Pardon me for making such a sharp and pointed parallel. But the Charlie Gard case was very personal to me.

In an interview I did with The Stream, I recounted the close parallels between Charlie Gard’s story and my son Peter’s. Peter was just as sick as Charlie at the same age. Doctors were equally ready to write him off. People pressured and mocked my wife and me, when we used our prerogatives as parents to find another hospital. There Peter got a  “long shot experimental treatment.” Without it Peter would have died painfully well before his first birthday. He’s eleven now.Peter4-min

A chance such as we got is all that the Gards were asking for. They were not delusional about the odds. They didn’t ask for heroic or extraordinary measures. Only that they be allowed to pursue experimental treatment that might help their son.

Did the state’s utilitarian gods require a human sacrifice?

So why did the U.K. courts say no? I think it was not an accident or an error. They were looking at the bottom line and trying to set a precedent.

Here’s another one: Iceland is boasting that it has “cured” Downs Syndrome. How? In the only way possible. By aborting every single child who seemed likely to have that condition. For now, parents had the legal right to opt out of that “treatment.” How long will they have the choice? The Charlie Gard case suggests: Not long. Five years. Maybe ten.

The Roe v. Wade for Forced Euthanasia

Roe v. Wade was a moment that activists seized upon and manipulated to create the momentum that would change abortion laws internationally. The Gard case may prove the Roe v. Wade for state-imposed euthanasia.

Think I’m being paranoid? A British paper revealed that the pro-euthanasia lobby appointed one of its own to represent Charlie’s parents, who wanted to save him.

A source close to the parents told The Daily Telegraph: “The family find it astonishing that the quango that appointed the barrister to act in the interests of Charlie Gard is the chairman of Compassion in Dying, the sister body of Dignity in Dying, formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. The implication is obvious. It looks like a profound conflict of interest.”

Consider the government’s motive: The crushing costs posed by caring for the infirm, the old, or anyone deemed unproductive, have been a real concern for welfare and socialized states for a long time. It is only recently that the conversation about health care rationing has been forced into the open. The ruling on the Charlie Gard case frames the language and arguments that will accelerate the incremental creation of new laws. Soon euthanasia could be a fact of life across once-Christian countries.

The Walls Are Closing in for the Sick, the Weak, the Old

The conditions are falling into place, one by one:

These factors could soon combine to hand over to those who ration health care the power of life and death. People will see it as the only alternative to their governments going bankrupt.

The Reich’s medical program from 1939 to 1941 “mercifully killed” over 70,000 in Germany and Austria, and Poland before expanding and accelerating. Similar programs were in place in Bolshevik Russia. It is important to appreciate the economic considerations that drove these governments to kill the sick. See how similar their reasoning is to current health care rationing debates.

Western welfare states keep expanding. Western populations keep aging. Soon the pressure will be almost irresistable: to implement euthanasia not just on the handicapped but also on the old.

Western welfare states keep expanding. Western populations keep aging. Soon the pressure will be almost irresistable: to implement euthanasia not just on the handicapped but also on the old. When it is our turn, we will be told that these tough decisions are being driven by compassion and mercy. Never mind that those with the right affiliations or pedigree will be exempt from the state’s mercy.

The British press has for the most part shown genuine concern that the Gard case is indeed setting the obvious precedent. That it will smooth the transition from passive euthanasia and the withdrawal of medical treatment, to active euthanasia and the legalization of assisted dying … and perhaps beyond.

Our New Gods Demand Blood

Like an episode out of Black Mirror, is it really that far-fetched to look down the road and see where this could lead? A not so distant future where a tribunal dispenses lethal mercy instead of medicine on behalf of a loved one, or even for yourself? A welfare state drawn out to its logical end: The authorities transfer you from your home to a comfortable transition center for a final meal.

Why? Because there were just a few too many checked boxes against your profile: economic drain, genetic error, crimethink, political opposition. Maybe because you belong to a church that’s considered “extremist.”

Was Charlie Gard an unfortunate victim of outrageous overreach? Did the state’s utilitarian gods require a human sacrifice?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Trilemma

    If I have a terminal illness and I want to surrender, then I should have the right to assisted suicide. If I want to fight, then I should have the right to fight to my dying breath. The Gards were denied their right to fight. They raised $1.75 million. This treatment wasn’t going to cost the government, the insurance companies, or the medical industry anything.

    • Bryan

      If you want to die, why do you need assistance? If you have a terminal illness, it’s usually easier to die than to continue living.

      • Trilemma

        “If you want to die, why do you need assistance?”

        If I’m confined to a bed and too weak to move, I’m going to need some assistance with my helium bottles.

        If you have a terminal illness, it’s usually easier to die than to continue living.

        True. But it should be my choice and not the doctor’s or the government’s or my family’s.

        • Bryan

          I’m not disagreeing that it’s your choice. Just cautioning that assistance in suicide is the start of the slope that leads to the situation the Gard’s faced.
          Assisted suicide is a nice way of saying murder that we have decided isn’t really murder. The idea is to protect the assistant from legal issues after the fact.

          • Trilemma

            I don’t see how assistance in suicide is the start of a slope that leads to the Gard’s situation. In assisted suicide, the doctor is giving a patient something the patient wanted. In the Gard’s case, the doctors refused to give the patient requested treatment.

          • Bryan

            One of the issues with assisted suicide is that it meets the criteria for a murder. Suicide by definition is the taking of one’s own life. If someone else takes your life with the intent to take your life, that’s murder by definition. Even if someone provides the means for your death with knowledge that you want to do harm to yourself, that is also considered murder. Let’s say Patient A asks Doctor D for drugs to die. If the doctor provides the drugs, then Doctor D is complicit in the murder of Patient A because he knew that harm would come from the drugs he provided. If it’s murder, then it’s wrong. Not just legally wrong, but morally wrong as well. You can change the law to make it legal but you still have the moral issue to deal with.
            Another issue is when assisted suicide is legal, you have Patient B who has a bad day. Perhaps they’ve suffered from depression from time to time and it’s especially bad today. Patient B mentions wanting to end their life. If there is no assisted suicide, Counselor C works with Patient B to get through the depression. When assisted suicide is on the table, there’s an easy way to deal with the depression permanently. As this means becomes more common, it can be seen as a “cure” for other ailments and issues.
            Then Doctors and Counselors can make suggestions for particular patients. After suggestions comes recommendations. Following that comes, “We think it’s in the best interests of Charlie, that we not try an experimental treatment that has a limited chance of working. We think it’s best that we let him die, in the hospital, because he can’t survive on his own because of the his un-treatable condition.”
            The only way to prevent this is to define human life as precious and sacred. That the spilling of blood without justifiable cause is always wrong.

  • suzsez

    I am of the firm belief that it was more than just about money here. I am convinced that Charlie’s doctors and state had to make sure he died to hide the very source of his illness. THEMSELVES! Charlie Gard was born healthy, and only began his decline once he began his extremely heavy NHS vaccine “schedule”. Vaccines are known to cause “rare” mitochondrial diseases, and our own NIH publishes on its website that the countries with the lowest numbers of infant vaccines have the lowest infant mortality rates, and the countries with the highest numbers of infant vaccines have the highest infant mortality rates. Well, guess where Great Britain and the U.S. fall on those charts? Very high on both charts. Parents are the ones dealing with the fallout and tiny graves while all the media is hush hush about it. But vaccine-pushback groups are exploding all over social media. These parents have found each other. This is why the vaccine industry is in meltdown. The CDC & NHS schedules have exponentially skyrocketed so high in the last few years, many people have concluded that the killing of so many babies is intentional. It’s not just “euthanasia” going on here. It’s Depopulation Eugenics! Parents are waking up and halting their children’s participation in the absurdly high CDC “schedule”. This is why the industry is now researching ways to force families to “complete” the schedule. They are developing time released “one shot, 2 years worth” injections of 36+ vaccines. Assigned for all newborns to receive, so parents can’t discontinue once they start seeing the seizures, brain damage, head-to-toe “burn-victim-like” rashes, mini-strokes, paralysis, head banging, mitochondrial diseases, permanent diarrhea…

Inspiration
Football Rivalry? Not Among Brothers and Sisters in the Lord
Al Perrotta
More from The Stream
Connect with Us