Politics & Policy

Why Charlie Gard’s Life Was Worth Fighting For

Supporters of Charlie Gard’s parents react outside the High Court in London (Reuters: Peter NIcholls)
The search for cures continues, and bureaucrats should not stand in the way.

Five grueling months went by as Chris Gard and Connie Yates battled with the U.K. courts for the right to fight for their son’s life. This week, they withdrew their petition seeking to bring Charlie to the U.S. for experimental treatment.

The fight for little Charlie’s life caught the attention of the world, and now commentators and talking heads are busy casting blame. The case can be made that the delay caused his death. At the very least, the drawn-out court battle deprived Charlie’s parents of the opportunity to see whether experimental treatment might have saved his life.

“A whole lot of time has been wasted,” Ms. Yates said, through tears. “We are sorry we could not save you.”

Regardless of blame, a little boy has lost his only chance at life. The heart-wrenching truth is that thousands of children around the globe die every day, for a myriad of reasons. But that does not lighten the weight of this death. The individual is what defines our humanity. Charlie’s short life is a reminder that every human life — no matter how great or small, young or old — has inherent dignity. Every life is worth fighting for.

And fight Charlie’s parents did: They raised more than $1.6 million to pay for their son to receive experimental treatment in the United States. They advocated fiercely. They refused to give up hope. In response, a renowned U.S. medical center offered to admit Charlie Gard and provide him with an experimental treatment. Representative Trent Franks and I introduced legislation to expedite the process of bringing Charlie and his parents to the U.S. in order for them to pursue their last, best hope for their son’s life.

Other members of Congress brought forward similar pieces of legislation. My friend Jaime Herrera Beutler, a congresswoman representing a district in Washington State, shared her own story of fighting for her unborn baby’s life after the child was diagnosed with Potter Syndrome, a condition that develops in utero when no kidneys form. Her doctor told her that the condition was 100 percent fatal and suggested abortion as the next step. However, Jamie and her husband did not lose faith. They found a doctor who was willing to try an experimental treatment. It was successful, and today Jaime’s daughter Abigail is four years old.

This is personal for me as well. When my little sister, Amy, was diagnosed with leukemia as an adult, the doctors told her that the only real cure would be a bone-marrow transplant. The insurance company refused coverage, though, on the grounds that it was an experimental treatment. Amy fought the company and successfully attained partial coverage, while paying the rest herself. We did the bone-marrow transplant, on her doctor’s advice. Today, 23 years later, Amy is married and the mother of two beautiful children.

Charlie’s short life is a reminder that every human life — no matter how great or small, young or old — has inherent dignity. Every life is worth fighting for.

My sister’s doctor and Abigail’s doctors were fighting for the lives of their patients. In contrast, Great Ormond Street Hospital was advocating for permission not only to withdraw treatment but also to block Charlie’s parents from taking him to get treatment in the U.S. The hospital bureaucrats argued that the experimental treatment was not what Charlie’s doctors deemed to be in his “best interest.”

This is a far cry from past medical cases in which doctors have interceded in order to provide a child with treatment over a parent’s wishes — with the justification of saving the child’s life. In Charlie’s case, it was the opposite. A little boy was being ordered to die because a third party, overriding the wishes of the parents, believed it could determine that immediate death was what was best for him.

The effect of any case like this ripple far beyond a single life. Not only would experimental treatment have provided the only chance to improve Charlie’s condition, it also could have offered the opportunity for Charlie to increase the chance of recovery for others suffering from this condition in the future. A cure begins with one.

Charlie Gard’s brave fight inspired individuals across the globe to join in his battle for life, for hope, and for cures. That will be his enduring legacy. His life should serve as a reminder that these principles must be the basis for any successful health-care system. As we debate health care here in the U.S., let us remember that any reforms we implement should be centered on improving health, preventing illness, valuing life, and striving for breakthroughs in treatments and cures. We should be encouraging — not inhibiting — innovation and experimentation in order to bring new cures and better care to the next generation.

Looking ahead, Charlie’s parents hope to establish a foundation to ensure that Charlie’s voice “continues to be heard.” As we stand with the family, let both our nations be reminded of the risk incurred when our health-care systems are endowed with ultimate authority to determine which lives are unworthy of being lived and who may be denied their own fight for survival.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

The Great Misdirection

The House Democrats are frustrated, very frustrated. They’ve gotten themselves entangled in procedural disputes with the Trump administration that no one particularly cares about and that might be litigated for a very long time. A Washington Post report over the weekend spelled out how stymied Democrats ... Read More
World

Australia’s Voters Reject Leftist Ideas

Hell hath no fury greater than left-wingers who lose an election in a surprise upset. Think Brexit in 2016. Think Trump’s victory the same year. Now add Australia. Conservative prime minister Scott Morrison shocked pollsters and pundits alike with his victory on Saturday, and the reaction has been brutal ... Read More
NR Webathon

We’ve Had Bill Barr’s Back

One of the more dismaying features of the national political debate lately is how casually and cynically Attorney General Bill Barr has been smeared. He is routinely compared to Roy Cohn on a cable-TV program that prides itself on assembling the most thoughtful and plugged-in political analysts and ... Read More
Culture

Cold Brew’s Insidious Hegemony

Soon, many parts of the United States will be unbearably hot. Texans and Arizonans will be able to bake cookies on their car dashboards; the garbage on the streets of New York will be especially pungent; Washington will not only figuratively be a swamp. And all across America, coffee consumers will turn their ... Read More
Film & TV

Game of Thrones: A Father’s Legacy Endures

Warning! If you don't want to read any spoilers from last night's series finale of Game of Thrones, stop reading. Right now. There is a lot to unpack about the Thrones finale, and I fully understand many of the criticisms I read on Twitter and elsewhere. Yes, the show was compressed. Yes, there were moments ... Read More
National Security & Defense

The Warmonger Canard

Whatever the opposite of a rush to war is — a crawl to peace, maybe — America is in the middle of one. Since May 5, when John Bolton announced the accelerated deployment of the Abraham Lincoln carrier group to the Persian Gulf in response to intelligence of a possible Iranian attack, the press has been aflame ... Read More