Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Feature

Law, ethics, and emotion: the Charlie Gard case

BMJ 2017; 358 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3152 (Published 04 July 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;358:j3152

Rapid Response:

Re: Law, ethics, and emotion: the Charlie Gard case

At the risk of personal vilification, is it not right to ask what the cost to the taxpayer and the NHS is of this increasingly vitriolic argument as to whether this desperately unfortunate child should receive treatment or not. Whilst the parents have received a significant amount of financial support through crowd funding, we know who is funding the ongoing care of Charlie and the legal representatives of Great Ormond Street. Even the media constantly refer to him as a terminally ill child. There is a simple definition to terminal.

Those of us who work as doctors are frequently faced with a relative’s attitude of ‘where there is life there is hope.’ Sadly, we all know that this is not the case here.

Whilst I have genuine sympathy with the understandable anguish of his parents, we have to ask that the courts make a final definitive decision and end this circus. If the decision is that they can take him for treatment, then do so without further delay and prevarication.

It would be interesting if we ever did get an honest answer as to how much this has cost the rest of us financially. There is also the inevitable damaging impact on the great staff of Great Ormond Street which cannot be calculated.

Competing interests: No competing interests

14 July 2017
Ian Hudson
Cardiologist
Glenfield Hospital, Leicester