Who’s Killing Charlie Gard? And Why Won’t the Vatican Help Him?

Socialism kills. Even when it doesn't need to. Because it wants to.

By John Zmirak Published on June 30, 2017

I complained in 2015 that villains were leaking out of C.S. Lewis’ fiction and getting jobs at the Vatican. The latest escapee is mealy-mouthed John Wither, the death-dealing bureaucrat with a heart of styrofoam from That Hideous Strength. Now a real-life clone of Wither is leading the Vatican’s once-prophetic Pontifical Council for Life.

You might remember Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, that Council’s new president, for his taste in religious art. As Catholic art historian Maureen Mullarkey documented, Paglia is best known for hiring a gay activist artist to decorate his cathedral with homo-erotic nudes.

But Paglia just distinguished himself in moral theology. He’s signing on to the death sentence that British and European courts have issued for little Charlie Gard. As Daniel Payne of The Federalist sums up this tragic case (in a pointed and lucid moral analysis worth reading slowly and carefully):

The baby, Charlie Gard, has been terminally ill since his birth, unable to move his limbs or breathe on his own.

His parents wish to bring him to the United States for a long-shot experimental treatment. The courts object, believing Charlie should be allowed to die “with dignity.” The European Court of Human Rights declined to hear an appeal, effectively sealing the boy’s fate.

Against the backdrop of this barbaric abuse of judicial authority, the Catholic Church—the world’s greatest defender of the right to life, and long a moral bulwark against state intrusion into the rights of the family sphere—has decided that the courts in this case are basically right.

The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life yesterday released a statement that waffles between limp-wristed equivocations and outright willful ignorance of church teaching. If this is where the Vatican now makes its stand, then the most vulnerable members of society — which is to say all of us, at some point — are in trouble.

Indeed. I wrote here just weeks ago about Pope Francis’ decision to sack most of the members of the Vatican’s pro-life powerhouse. Then replace several of them with openly pro-choice thinkers. Now we see the outcome: The institution that ought to be the last line of defense for the sanctity of human life is reduced to nattering inanities.

The state is turning the natural order on its head. It empowers panels of doctors, medical bureaucrats, and international lawyers to rip Charlie from his parents’ loving care. Because they want him to live. But the state wants him to die.

So many issues come together in the case of Charlie Gard. Let’s go through them one by one.

Parental Rights

The Catholic church follows natural law in seeing that parents have the first, second, third, and fourth claim to crucial decisions about their children. Even intolerant Catholic states in past centuries that persecuted “heretics” rarely tried to interfere with non-Catholics teaching their religion to their children. Think about that. The Inquisition wouldn’t tear children away from parents for the sake (it thought) of their eternal salvation. That is how basic the parent/child bond really is. We know that by natural reason. Only parents who deprive their kids of basic human rights like food, education, or medical care, deserve to be pre-empted by the state. And even then with great care.

In Charlie Gard’s case, the state is turning the natural order on its head. It empowers panels of doctors, medical bureaucrats, and international lawyers to rip Charlie from his parents’ loving care. Because they want him to live. But the state wants him to die.

Socialist Medicine and Rationing

As we all know, Britain has a National Health System. It rations care. Since we live in a fallen world of limited resources, some rationing must happen. In freer societies like ours, the government ensures a basic level of care for the truly needy. We expect people with means to make their own arrangements for insurance.

So we shouldn’t be shocked if either the British National Health Service or some private U.S. insurer opted not to pay for a long-shot experimental treatment for a child. Charlie’s parents don’t have an unlimited claim on the resources of their neighbors.

But that’s not at issue here. Thanks to an international grassroots fundraising campaign the Gards have found donors. They’re willing to cover all the costs of flying Charlie to America and offering him this treatment that might save his life. But the British authorities, backed up by the European Union and now the Vatican, have ruled that Charlie’s parents cannot try to save him. Instead he will be left to die slowly of hunger and thirst. His parents won’t even get to take him home to die. Like poor abandoned Terri Schiavo, he must wither away in a sterile hospital bed, surrounded by strangers.

Property Rights and Freedom

Why would a government deny parents who have found the money the chance to try to save their child’s life? What possible motive could be at work?

The only one I can think of is this: They resent the slightest hint of private initiative. Many on the British left resent the fact that wealthy people can “opt-out” of NHS care. (They hire private physicians, or fly to the U.S. for care.) Such “privilege” offends their egalitarian principles — which are nothing more than a prettified version of the deadly sin of Envy. Remember that the man consumed by Envy would rather trash your car than steal it. He’s consumed, finally, by hatred for the Good. Like Satan glaring at innocent Adam and Eve in Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Private choices also flout socialists’ hunger for control. For a society of termites to whom they can play at being Queen. Bureaucrats in China didn’t care whether the peasants could afford to feed more children. The state would cull them anyway, to serve its infamous One-Child Policy. Rich or poor, all must be treated exactly alike. Likewise, Stalin’s thugs who collectivized agriculture in Ukraine didn’t worry about which farmers’ seed corn or milk-cows they were seizing. The socialist impulse despises such distinctions. That’s what people mean when they complain about “inequality.” It is all that they mean.

In the socialists’ hive vision of an ideal society, individual initiative counts for nothing. No, less than nothing. It is an irritant. A pesky reminder of human dignity and freedom — two causes that socialists have written off as lost, or dismissed as ugly vestiges of “bourgeois” Christian morals.

Such antiquated ideas must be expunged. And people like Charlie Gard are eggs we must break for the omelet.

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.
  • faithful

    We need to pray that our God, Father, would place his Hand on this baby and protect him to get here and LIVE. By His stripes we ARE healed and I claim this for baby Charlie. Lord, bring him here, touch him in ways that prove all that needs to be made known’ I thank you now because you are GREAT and MIGHTLY and you said ‘If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer’ Also too, my Lord, you said whenever two or more touch and agree in prayer, they will that which they prayed for according to your will’ Thank you Father for your MERCY in time of need, in the MIGHTY NAME OF JESUS. AMEN

  • Patmos

    “That is how basic the parent/child bond really is. We know that by natural reason.”

    We sort of, don’t really know that anymore, like a lot of things. By even conservative assessments these are the end times referenced by Paul (2 Timothy 3) and others (too numerous to list here), because if you can’t get even the basic things right, you can’t expect it to hold stable much longer.

    If people want to choose darkness over light, they will receive the fruit of that. Speaking of that darkness:

    “Why would a government deny parents who have found the money the chance to try to save their child’s life? What possible motive could be at work?”

    The anti-Christ spirit was at work even in John’s day (1 John 4:3). It’s that same spirit that categorizes everything Jesus taught and did as just another religion, rather than recognizing it for what it is: Truth versus the lie.

    All this madness you see today is just a result of that lie, and is laying the groundwork for that spirit to eventually be manifested in the flesh.

  • Rocky Barber

    ‘The Catholic Church has decided that the courts are basically right.’ No, sir. The ungodly men who have hijacked the Catholic Church have decided this. The True Church still holds life, from conception to natural death, sacred.

  • tz1

    It won’t affect “climate change”?
    At least when Terri Schiavo was being murdered and all the bumbling Bush brothers would do is sign pieces of paper (compare Clinton and Elian Gonzales who was deported so fast if Trump did that…), Saint John Paul II was dealing with a feeding tube and slowly fading out of this life with proper dignity and natural death.

  • Linda

    How does their government even know about or have control over the parents and baby getting on a plane and flying to the US?

    • daisy

      They would be arrested if they tried to leave the hospital with the baby. Under free government healthcare your body belongs to the State.

      • demathis


      • Linda

        I have serious doubts about your first sentence, and your second sentence is plain wrong. It’s what Americans tell themselves to justify not having universal healthcare. Universal healthcare is not “free”. It is tax funded, and well worth it. I am Canadian and I make all my health care decisions. We can sign ourselves out of hospitals against doctors orders. There is more to the above story than meets the eye, and American alarmists are jumping all over it to make themselves feel better.

        • Vincent J.

          Nobody in the U.S. is denied health care. Poor people simply go to hospital emergency rooms where they are guaranteed by law to receive health care. The issue is not absence of health care, but the cost of doing it through emergency rooms rather than through a primary care doctor’s office.

  • BTP

    Remember when First Things dropped Maureen Mullarkey’s blog from their site ’cause she was just too mean to the Holy Father?

  • Jeannine

    The doctors won’t even let the parents bring the baby home to die.

    • Michael

      It is quite possible that they were given the opportunity to take him home and have him die from the natural progression of this horrible disease, and instead chose to have him placed on the breathing machine. Advice given, and choices made, and here we are. Very similar to Baby Joseph from Canada a few year ago, where a younger sibling had Leigh’s disease and died, and when Joseph’s condition deteriorated, he was place on a breathing machine. After being flown to St Louis for a tracheostomy, he went home and died at home.

  • Michael

    ” Because they want him to live. But the state wants him to die.” Do you not understand Charlie has a lethal metabolic disease that progressively destroys his brain and muscles, and there is no cure? It is not that anyone wants Charlie to die, it is that Charlie has a progressive disease that is fatal. That is why in earlier photographs he looks normal and is breathing on his own, as time has passed, his brain and muscles continue with progressive damage. As the Vatican statement acknowledges, and perhaps others will admit, there are limits to medicine. Do you want to place all persons who are dying from disease on mechanical ventilation?

    • coilette

      Why do you presume to comment here, Michael, as if you had any say in such matters, rather than matters of life and death simply being imposed upon you?

      They are certainly being imposed upon these parents. So if you support such imposition on them, what makes you so privileged? The way you treat others is the way you deserve to be treated yourself.

      If you presume to be allowed a say here, then the parents rightly deserve to not have this action forced upon them.

      • Michael


        i comment with an informed opinion. So in a way, I am privileged to know something about this topic. I hope others would treat me the same way if I was uninformed about something and commenting without an adequate understanding or appreciation of the factors. The doctors are not imposing Charlie’s condition on the parents, they are informing the parents of Charlie’s condition and what that means. No one has a right to futile care, and in this case, artificial mechanical ventilation has been deemed by those involved as futile care. They did go to school and spent years practicing medicine, however you seem to know better than them? Do you want to place all persons who are dying from disease on mechanical ventilation? Simple question.

        • john appleseed

          Michael, there would be a glimmer of HOPE for Charlie if the parents would be allowed to pursue it!
          Do you really favor such a governmental stranglehold on everyone, that parents are forbidden to pursue every possible option to try & save their baby?

          • john appleseed

            It seems like every month I read about doctors who made a WRONG diagnosis, & a patient who was pronounced doomed ended up surviving.
            The parents only wanted a chance to spend their own money & make their own choices.
            In how many other realms do you oppose parents’ rights?

          • Michael

            John, concerning the wrong diagnosis, looks like they know very well what they are dealing with and the reasons it will not work. Do you oppose facing reality, as sad and as disappointed as that can be sometimes? Copied from a friend’s post: “From the testimony: Charlie
            suffers from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS. No one in the world has ever
            treated this form of MDDS with nucleoside therapy, although patients
            with a different strain, TK2, have received nucleoside therapy with some
            recorded benefit. In mouse models, the
            benefit to TK2 patients was put at about 4% of life expectancy. There is
            no evidence that nucleoside therapy can cross the blood/brain barrier
            which it must do to treat RRM2B, although the US doctor expressed the
            hope that it might cross that barrier.
            There is
            unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside
            therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. I dare say that medical
            science may benefit objectively from the experiment, but experimentation
            cannot be in Charlie’s best interests unless there is a prospect of
            benefit for him.”

          • Michael

            John, Except for a miracle, this disease has no cure, and the “cocktails” that are tried that might decrease some symptoms for several metabolic diseases are not cures. It is likely that they found one physician in the US who agreed to prescribe the oral supplements, which most likely they have available there. Great Ormand Street Children’s hospital even has subspecialists in mitochondrial disease, and collaborates with several other institutions. So most likely it is not an issue of transporting across the ocean on a ventilator and IV nutrition, it is likely that his disease is so severe there is no reasonable hope. I invite you to go to any major teaching/research hospital in the United States or the world and show me where they offer any hope for mitochondrial depletion syndrome. It is severe and early from of mitochondrial disease affecting all 5 of the mitochondrial oxidative enzyme complexes. This is not about government, this is about a severe genetic defect with no cure that is progressive and damages the brain and muscles. You may assume a wrong diagnosis, however Charlie was likely transferred from another hospital because of their specialists and I have reason to believe they proceeded to make the proper diagnosis. You cannot force someone to provide futile artifical life support, that would be immoral and disrespectful to the dignity of all involved.

          • Maggie Sullivan

            So Michael, you are agreeing with the Vatican official who hired an artist to paint homo-erotic art in a church….and by the way Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia is painted nude in the homo-erotic art…and he thinks it’s FABULOUS.

            I side with the parents……….

          • Michael

            Maggie, You side with the parents? Often that is good. What if the parents had chosen abortion, would you side with the parents? What if the parents want to take him hope and leave him outside on a sunny day for sun therapy with the hope and prayers that the sun light and ultraviolet light will effect an improvement or a sign of a miracle, and ignore the severe and painful sunburn that would result? I agree with the official Vatican statement, and it is what I would have expected no matter who was in the office, since it is consistent with prior Catholic teaching and documents regarding respecting life and futile experiments. Some Archbishop’s personal errors do not change the already documented Catholic teaching in this regard. Please show me where a respected Catholic moral theologian has advocated for this precious child to be flown across the ocean on a breathing machine because one individual is willing to give something a try even though the available medical research does not support this person’s hope?

          • Maggie Sullivan

            Hi Michael, I side with the parents who love their child……..you side with the government and the homo-erotic Archbishop.

            By the way, you are getting your way. Just read in the Daily Mail the parents have accepted that the government won’t let them attempt to save Charlie so the parents asked to let them take Charlie home to die with family and in peace……..of course the Hospital (backed by the homo-erotic Archbishop) said NO!…..Charily will die in the hospital.

            You are getting what you want….no only will Charlie not receive a chance at treatment but the government run health care system owns Charlie.

          • Michael

            I would suggest, Maggie, that the loving act would have been to accept the painful truth and have taking Charlie home months ago instead of this becoming a media sensation. This is not about what I want, or physicians want, or parents want, this is about a fatal, severe, progressive disease that has no cure. If you or others want to blame someone for that, go ahead, it still doesn’t change the reality. If there was hopeful option, a place like Great Ormand Street Children’s hospital would be a likely place to offer that option, not some unnamed individual in the U.S. At this point, the hospital lawyers and the parent’s lawyers are both doing what they think is best and are doing so under the jurisdiction of the current relevant law in England, so no, the hospital does not own Charlie nor does it pretend to own Charlie. At this point, the risk of transporting him home on a ventilator may very well be an unreasonable or unnecessary risk. There are risks with transport even when there is an obvious medical benefit seen, sometimes with tragic loss of all involved in the transport.

          • Liz Litts

            Hey dummy–did you not read carefully ??? The hospital will NOT let the parents take the baby home–they were threatened with arrest if they tried to take him home.

          • Michael

            Actually, the doctors will not continue the ventilator management outside of the hospital. The whole point is that continuing the ventilator is deemed futile and the doctors want to discontinue the ventilator. It is not the parent’s ventilator and they are not licensed to manage the ventilator, that is the practice of medicine. And you called me dummy? 🙂

    • Maggie Sullivan

      Michael, so you are saying no person ever should try an experimental treatment?

      • Michael

        Maggie, I have never said no person should ever try an experimental treatment. I am saying wishful thinking should not be the sole or primary argument for an experiment. In this situation there are no researchers/experts in mitochondrial disorders who are publically advocating that this has a meaningful possibility of being beneficial. One may argue whether 0.0001% or 1% or 10% is meaningful. There is one individual offering to provide the oral substance. Have you noticed no one at any academic research hospitals specializing in this area have publically given any credence to doing this? They don’t want to look like emotional fools? If there was a small but reasonable hope, they could provide it there without shipping Charlie across the ocean. I am all for praying and hoping for a miracle. Every life is precious.

        • Maggie Sullivan

          Michael, what do you think of the fact that the hospital has taken ownership of Charlie? His parents want to take him for an experimental treatment – if they try to take their baby at best they will be prevented by the police and hospital – at worse they would be arrested if they attempted to take Charlie?

          What do you think of the “new” pontifical academy for life headed by a man famous for commissioning homo-erotic art for a church with his own naked picture in the sodomy promoting mural? The statement put out by this Archbishop sides with the the government ownership of the Child over the rights of the parents………is this what Francis has done to us….a perverted Archbishop telling us on behalf of the Pope that the Government completely owns our Children and the Government decided who is allowed what treatment.

          I hope you will address these questing for me but in the end this experimental treatment may be a very long shot….but the parents should decide not the government or a homo-erotic Archbishop.

          • Michael

            The hospital has not taken ownership. That is just more sensationalism instead of looking at everything in context. Two sides disagree on what is in Charlie’s best interest, so the legal system is now involved to protect Charlie while this gets resolved. Similar to when a parent refuses a blood transfusion for a child who needs one to survive or when a parent neglects a child. Parents are not always right. You want to make Catholic moral teachings about someone being homo-erotic? Fine, exclude all his comments and we are still left with Catholic teaching on the morality questions in this regard, and the statement is consistent with prior establish Catholic teaching.

          • Maggie Sullivan

            Of course the hospital has taken ownership of Charlie…..the latest in the news is the parents just want to take Charlie home…….and the hospital refuses. So where exactly does the Church teach that a hospital has the right to prevent parents from taking a child home?

            The homo-erotic Archbishop (head of the pontifical council for life)is the new face of Catholic moral teaching on life issues…….and a lot of people will suffer.

            By the way…..when the Church supports the hospital in stealing Charlie from his parents the Church had better be silent when governments decide the Catholic faith is dangerous to children and removes them for their homes…….after all the government is god now.

          • Michael

            Incorrect, the hospital has not taken ownership of Charlie. It is sad that Charlie may likely not pass peacefully at home with his family, an opportunity that was likely offered before he was placed on artificial mechanical ventilation. Choices have consequences, some of which are difficult to later rectify. A transport to home by ambulance or helicopter is not without it’s own risks to both Charlie, and the transport team members. It would involve at a minimum the driver or pilots, respiratory therapist, a nurse or nurses, and a physician. If anything goes wrong during the transport, there is the risk the family will blame and sue the hospital. If an individual or crowd hinders the transport team, that might endanger Charlie and/or the team members. And the team members might not want to be exposed to such a potential environment, is not their treatment by others due just consideration? So the lawyers from both sides will consider the applicable law and risks under the jurisdiction of the law and judges. The Catholic Church teaching has never said, regardless of who you might complain about being in whatever position, that everything needs to be done regardless of whether it is reasonable or not. Sad situation.

          • Liz Litts

            Maggie–this guy is a classic case of ‘pearls before swine”

    • Aerlis Ambrosius

      Your opinion is irrelevant. You offer it in the smamy, self-assured way that liberals always do…you are an expert. We stupid masses must capitulate to your superior knowledge and wisdom. Even if there were no way to possibly save the child, the parents have the right to try, or do you believe that all human progress has come to an abrupt halt today, July 2nd, 2017? Do you believe that there will never again be any more advances in science and medicine and no doctor will ever be dumbfounded at a patients recovery again? FYI it happens every day, probably tens of thousands of times per day. Forget new medical discoveries and cures…isn’t the whole point of religion to believe in miracles? The Catholic church must have given up on the belief that God heals the sick. Sometimes miraculously. They must have forgotten that they believe in the sanctity of human life.

      • Michael

        Please don’t feel compelled to capitulate to someone explaining something, everyone is free to take or leave what they hear. Fortunately miracles still occur and medical progress continues to this day. Faith and reason never contradict. Those doing research in this area have expressed no reason to believe, except one who declines to be named publically ( and the reason for that is….?) who says they hope it will cross the blood-brain-barrier, despite scientific reason that does not support that hope. Keep up the prayers, try to avoid hazardous experimentation by one individual. If there was a possibility, they could have given this substance to Charlie there without flying him across the ocean…seems more like grandstanding than thinking first of Charlie.

        • Aerlis Ambrosius

          More of your meaningless blather. You still miss the point. The state does not have the right to disallow the parents wishes for treatment. If the parents can raise the money to try, the state has no right to prevent it. Honestly, if the UK doctors had all decided the case was terminal, it makes no difference if the parents wanted to fly the baby to Haiti for a Voodoo witch magic ceremony. Your defense of the state involvement in this is actually more than just an opinion, it is perpetuating a wrongness and evil itself. Men & Women of any conscience must oppose you and call you out on it because the fate of the entire world hangs in the balance. It is exemplified by this one case of the overwhelming and immoral and inhuman, monolithic power of the Orwellian and fascist state on your team… and FREEDOM on the other side. How could we not oppose you? You are the voice of socialism, you are the champion of evil. I won’t stay silent.

          • Michael

            No, you miss the point. The law does not allow parents card blanc, there are reasonable limits. Just like if a baby needs a blood transfusion to save their life and the parents decline, the court gets involved and determines if the parents choice should be respected or whether the best interest of the child is to provide the blood transfusion. If the parents want their child to get antibiotics and there is no reasonable medical reason, that would be malpractice. In case you need this highlighted: early onset severe encephalomyopathy with no known cure. Continued artificial mechanical ventilation is futile. Charlie might live for days or months off the ventilator, though it sounds like respiratory failure would be more eminent. The TK2 form is different and affects muscles, not the brain.

          • Aerlis Ambrosius

            Right, that is why they were going to shut off the ventilator on Friday…but suddenly they didn’t. I wonder why? Could it be the international scrutiny? If you and they have the courage of your convictions they should have shut off the ventilator on Friday as scheduled. Instead they did not. Like cockroaches that go scurrying when you turn on the light the (so called) doctors and bureaucrats are running for cover. And no, they do NOT have “cart blanche” to do what they will. The parents have the right to decide if they want to try to save their baby. Even Trump has offered to help the child. Why are you so set on death? Perhaps the child will die even with the experimental treatment. But you don’t know that. What we do know is that you are murdering the child when you take him off the respirator.

          • Michael

            This is getting to be fun 🙂 Did you consider that these physicians and healthcare team have experienced similar circumstances in their career and are used to working with parents and are not about rushing the parents, that they want to give the parents some time and not just turn off the ventilator as soon as the court ruled? They actually have compassion 🙂 So, do tell, what is the cure to save their child from this disease that has no known cure? Not one person has claimed to know of a cure. Oh no…facts and reality. I’m not set on anything, I just know what it means when someone has a severe progressive mitochondrial disease affected their muscles and brain. Did you ever consider that Charlie feels pain and cannot move to show a sign of pain, and thus continuing to artificially keep him a live is prolonging his suffering? How compassionate and loving is that?

          • Aerlis Ambrosius

            You continue with your willful ignorance in pursuit of your totalitarian control. Yes. I did consider all of those things. No. It doesn’t matter. Listen closely and I will spell it out for you. You have only two options:
            A. There is a chance he might improve…however small that chance he might live.
            B. There is zero chance he might live.

            With option A. clearly if there is a chance he might live and respond to experimental treatment, then clearly the parents should be allowed to pursue it. Considering they raised the money for the treatment privately, the state should not object to it. The state is not paying for it, so they can go pound sand.

            With option B. – if there is zero chance that he might live, which seems to be your argument, the state and the doctors and the bureaucrats (and you) call all go to hell. Well, actually all of you probably will anyway, but my point is that you have no right to deny the parents their choices in health care. If the child is terminal and has no chance at all, then the parents still have the right to make his health care choices. Yes, even and especially if he is terminally ill they can go to Haiti and find a witch doctor for all I care. None of your damn beeswax!

            Either way, you are a troll and I am done with you. Begone! I banish you! Scurry back under whatever rock or rug you crawled out from under. Good luck in this life. I hope some day you learn the meaning of freedom, human rights, compassion and love.

          • Michael

            Did you miss the important question? So, do tell, what is the cure to save their child from this disease that has no known cure?

            Some corrections for you.
            A. If there is a miracle, he might improve. Pray for a miracle.
            B. There is no mitochondrial expert who thinks it likely he will improve, even the lone ranger in the US
            C. He has a fatal severe muscle and brain disease with no known cure.

            Charlie should be allowed to die peacefully with his parents loving him, without the media frenzy and people making ridiculous assertions while being inadequately informed. No one has a right to torture this child who is dying from this disease whose cure is not know at present. There is no love or compassion in actively prolonging his dying artificially.

  • john appleseed

    So the pope, who a few weeks ago appointed a pro-abortion theologian to Rome’s “Academy For Life,” supports the UK government’s decision to deem their control more important than a baby’s life.
    American Catholics, are you sure you want to follow this man’s leadership?
    The UK will not allow the parents to spend their own money to try to save their son.
    American leftists, are you sure you want European-style health care?

  • Madeline Brooks

    I like John’s point that as a possible motive, personal initiative should count for nothing. To that I will add that the state also wants to define what a life with “dignity” and when it is no longer worth living. Where is personal initiative more essential than in determining how one should live and die, God willing? I also agree with those who say that a miracle could happen. Really! I’ve seen them happen. But the socialist state needs to deny God. Remember the militant atheism of the USSR.

God Transforms You to Participate in the Work of His Kingdom
Paul David Tripp
More from The Stream
Connect with Us