Law, ethics, and emotion: the Charlie Gard case

When looking to the Charlie Gard case, we must appreciate the influence the media had on the situation. Where there might exist a gap between public knowledge and an organisation like the NHS, the media often serves as the bridge. In doing so, there is a duty to report in an impartial manner.

When ethical dilemmas arise, however, they are seldom reported impartially. As a medical student, we cover ethics: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice are all cornerstones in medical ethics can conflict with one another and cause a shift in public opinion. The recent case of Charlie Gard is a perfect example, with news headings such as ‘UK doctors refuse Vatican offer to take Charlie Gard’. Understandably, in an emotional case like this, as highlighted by Clare Dyer, different angles like this inevitably exist. However, when the public send in death threats to health care workers at Great Ormond Street Hospital based on information from the media, we must review the influence that reporting has on the trust between the public and healthcare workers.

The Charlie Gard case is just one instance of what could be many more skewed representations in the media of the healthcare provided by doctors and nurses in the NHS. The British Social Attitudes Survey reported a drop in levels of trust in healthcare professionals from 30 percent in 2002 to 21 percent in 2014, with negative media reporting as a possible influencer in individuals with no recent personal contact with the NHS. In a system, dedicated to the British public, strained now more than ever by budget cuts, a shortage of doctors and lack of adequate resources, public trust is imperative, which can be helped or hindered by media reporting.

1. Nothing personal.
2. I hold the opposite view. Quite right that there is crowd funding in this case though I did not contribute. ( I did contribute my mite to the Junior Doctors' case).
3. I recall the case of the West country toddler who was prevented by LEGAL ACTION from going abroad. Her Majesty went to the lengths of getting the father arrsigney before a court in Spain. As I recall it, ultimately the toddler did receive radiotherapy abroad and did get better. I do not know the final outcome. But the last press reports I read did say that he had got better. As I remember, the experts in our country had NOT expected improvement.
4. You mention the stress on the Gt Ormond Street consultants. Of course they are under strain. And of course they have done their best. And they are experts. But, please let us remember thst there are also OTHER experts.
Our courts will decide , in their wisdom, the best course . Would Dr Hudson not be satisfied with that?

There are estimated to be over 11,000 children on long term ventilation in the UK, many of whom face questions at some point during their treatment about whether it is appropriate to continue life support. Charlie Gard's case has brought a great deal of media attention not only because of the legal case but also because it is such a sad story and must be such an unbearable time for the obviously very loving and devoted parents.

It is so very sad when families and doctors don't agree. Doctors make every effort to come to a unanimous agreement with parents but this is not always possible and disagreements can go on for months. Cases are often not straightforward and the ethical debates are very complex and there isn't always a straightforward correct answer. It is essential that parents get the support they need at such difficult times. The public support has been incredible for this family but being in the public eye will inevitably add to the stress at the same time.

There is only one very small charity called Breathe On which is exclusively dedicated to long term ventilated children and their families and who has the internationally recognised medical expertise to be able to do this. The charity is most importantly independent from the NHS (though has an NHS doctor as the medical director). Our own family has been helped enormously by the Breathe On charity as our son is on long term nocturnal ventilation at home and was in hospital for over 3 years before being able to bring him home. The strain on the family is impossible to describe. There will inevitably become more children on long term ventilation and there is likely to be a more frequent need for the courts to be involved with a variety of ethical issues. This is why it is vital that this small charity expands.