Charlie Gard and the legalization of infant euthanasia

From Charles C. Camosy at First Things:

Those who held power over Charlie decided that his life was not worth living. They reached this judgment on the basis of his expected mental disability. They denied him treatment, and ordered his ventilator removed, not because of the burden of the treatment, but because of the burden of his life. In a cruel act proposed by doctors, approved by courts, cheered by the press, and blessed by certain high clerics, Charlie Gard was euthanized. It was euthanasia by omission, but it was euthanasia all the same.

This fact was not lost on Julian Savulescu, the Oxford ethicist and student of Peter Singer, who asked: If Charlie’s life is not worth living, why shouldn’t we directly kill him? The answer is uncomfortable for those who supported the UK decision. There is no moral difference between aiming at the deaths of infants like Charlie by omission and aiming at their deaths by direct action. No logical barrier prevents those who supported the UK’s decision from endorsing outright infanticide. This is precisely what many supporters of the direct killing of infants argued in an “infanticide symposium” published by the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013.

How we come to view Charlie Gard’s case has direct import for how we will view the direct killing of infants, an ancient and barbaric practice that has been reintroduced in the Netherlands in deceptively civilized guise as the “Groningen protocol.” This protocol allows the killing of infants of less than one year of age; the victims are very often disabled. More.

Reality check: It starts with the people, like Charlie, who are of no obvious use to the progressive elite. Charlie wasn’t a grievance-and-entitlement cause they could monetize or use as a sledgehammer against the rest of us.

Euthanasia in host countries, Netherlands and Canada

and

Netherlands to euthanize healthy people over 75 And soon anyone who might vollect a pension someday of whatever age. There aren’t enough children to pay those pensions.

Share
  • The Deplorable Rosenmops

    “There aren’t enough children to pay those pensions.”

    And the idea of importing people of a vastly different culture to pay those pensions isn’t working out very well.

    • Coupal

      That’s because the vast majority they’re bringing in won’t, don’t want to or cannot work.

  • Coupal

    This idea once instilled, is and will be, a form of brain-washing. Once this idea that doctors can cause death is accepted in principle, death on demand for everyone will become “a right”, and then denying that “right” will constitute a form of discrimination. (The powers-that-be see that the population is aging and living longer and eventually they will not be able to pay for their retirement. Here, so they think, is a way “out.”)

  • ismiselemeas

    The baby was going to die regardless. The disease he had was progressively lethal. He had zero chance of improvement, zero chance of quality of life and without artificial life support zero chance of living. Doctors did not kill him. That’s patently ridiculous. His disease killed him as it does every other child who has it, sooner or later. The cruelty here was due to the quacks peddling false hope to the parents, interventionists who used this very sad circumstance to pursue their own agenda and conspiracy theorists shouting about how the government is out to get us. Baby Gard’s parents were clinging to false hope and being fed terrible advice from completely ignorant people instead of listening to the people who deal with this kind of thing every day. Since Baby Gard died dozens of other children in Britain have died due to incurable disease. No offer from Trump to help for any of them, no shouts from the pulpits about euthanasia of children. Nothing. Let the parents grieve and get on with their lives. This whole thing is disgusting.

  • A Hamilton Guy

    Call it what you may; I call it murder.