Charlie Gard

Much of the commentary in the wake of the Charlie Gard litigation was aimed at apparent shortcomings of the law. These include concerns about the perceived inability of the law to consider resourcing issues, the vagueness of the best interests test and the delays and costs of having disputes about potentially life-sustaining medical treatment resolved by the courts. These concerns are perennial ones that arise in response to difficult cases. Despite their persistence, we argue that many of these criticisms are unfounded...

This article critically examines the legal arguments presented on behalf of Charlie Gard's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, based on a threshold test of significant harm for intervention into the decisions made jointly by holders of parental responsibility. It argues that the legal basis of the argument, from the case of Ashya King, was tenuous. It sought to introduce different categories of cases concerning children's medical treatment when, despite the inevitable factual distinctions between individual cases, the duty of the judge in all cases to determine the best interests of the child is firmly established by the case law...

This paper argues that Charlie Gard's parents should have been the decision-makers about their son's best interests and that determination of Charlie's best interests depended on a moral decision about which horn of a profound moral dilemma to choose. Charlie's parents chose one horn of that moral dilemma and the courts, like Charlie Gard's doctors, chose the other horn. Contrary to the first UK court's assertion, supported by all the higher courts that considered it, that its judgement was 'objective', this paper argues that the judgement was not and could not be 'objective' in the sense of objectively correct but was instead a value judgement based on the judge's choice of one horn of the moral dilemma...

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

The case of Charlie Gard, an infant who was hospitalized in England due to a mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome that led to an epileptic encephalomyopathy, was highly publicized. Though Charlie's parents lobbied for him to receive experimental nucleoside replacement therapy as a desperate effort to save him, this request was denied, and after a lengthy legal battle, he died in late July 2017. We discuss the ethical considerations and consequences of this case.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

This article explores the intersection of pediatric bioethics and child rights by examining the best interest standard as it operates within the pediatric bioethics framework in the United States and the child rights framework based on the UN 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). While the "best interest of the child" standard is central to both pediatric bioethics and the child rights community, it operates only as a guidance principle, and not as an intervention principle, in decision-making within U...

This discussion follows a series of high profile cases involving a terminally ill child, Charlie Gard. These cases are significant as they trace the complexities that arise when parents and medical teams do not agree as well as addressing the question of whether there is a right to access experimental treatment.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

The parents of Charlie Gard, who was born August 4, 2016, with an exceedingly rare and incurable disease called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, fought a prolonged and heated legal battle to allow him access to experimental treatment that they hoped would prolong his life and to prevent his doctors from withdrawing life-sustaining care. Charlie's clinicians at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London believed that the brain damage Charlie had suffered as a result of frequent epileptic seizures, along with many other severe disabilities, would render any innovative therapy futile, and they disagreed with his parents' wishes to use an experimental therapy...

The story of Charlie Gard, an 11-month-old boy suffering from a rare inherited mitochondrial disease called 'infantile encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome' and kept alive thanks to life supports, rises some issues regarding the provision of healthcare. Is there a right of an individual person to buy any healthcare benefits only because he has enough money to do so? If the answer is 'yes', in light of the distributive justice principle how do governments balance this right with the obligation to regulate health care systems ensuring that all treatments are useful and affordable for everybody? Many considerations of the best interest of patients can be found in this debate, but we cannot ignore neither the value of the scientific method as the cornerstone of the medical profession nor a commitment to support the moral integrity of clinical practice by refusing to provide treatments that do not meet a reasonable threshold of scientific justification evidence-based...

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.

No abstract text is available yet for this article.