From Wesley J. Smith at First Things:
The refusal to allow Charlie’s parents to remove their baby boy from the hospital is an act of bioethical aggression that will extend futile-care controversies, creating a duty to die at the time and place of doctors’ choosing. And that raises a crucial liberty question: Whose baby is Charlie Gard? His parents’? Or are sick babies—and others facing futile-care impositions—ultimately owned by the hospital and the state? We are not talking about an intervention without a potential physiological benefit to the patient—a medical determination. Rather, FCT constitutes a value judgment. As bioethicist Dr. Stuart Youngner once put it, “futility determinations will inevitably involve value judgments about: 1) whether low probability chances are worth taking; and 2) whether certain lives are of a quality worth living.” More.
Reality check: Whose baby? Ah, a question we can answer: The Euro state’s baby.
It’s not just “biomedical aggression.” It is aggression pure and simple. Had his mom decided to abort him, he would be the Euro state’s medical waste. If he were raised, he would be their welfare ward, stuffed with propaganda the moment he entered compulsory school.
So now they have the right to demand that he die.
And we needed to know what else about welfare states?
This is probably happening a lot. Charlie’s parents, unusual for the EU, decided to fight instead of surfing while toked.
See also: But WHY the surprise that 431 people were involuntarily euthanized in the Netherlands in 2015? The government owns them and the government decided to dispose of them. So?
Americans flirt with cannibalism (the placenta is a joint mother-child affair)