Darren and Debbie Wyatt sat in a wooden pew at the Royal Courts of Justice, gripping each other's hands, barely able to look at the judge as he ruled that, despite their most fervent wishes, their 11-month-old daughter should be allowed to die.
Making the ruling, Mr Justice Hedley said: "As a society we fight shy of pondering on death, yet inherent in each of us is a deep desire, both for oneself and for those we love, for a 'good' death. It would be absurd to try to describe that concept more fully beyond saying that everyone in this case knows what it means not under anaesthetic, not in the course of painful and futile treatment, but peacefully in the arms of those who love her most."
While the specifics of this baby's case are difficult and are worthy of vigorous debate, I am alarmed at one of the stories behind the story. In a nationalized healthcare system, the government bean-counters who control the healthcare funding will tend to frown upon "wasteful" expenditures -- making it easy to take the short logical step of coming up with reasons to withhold treatment (such as the "quality of life" argument made by the judge later in the article). Thus we have the situation where doctors -- with the full backing of the courts -- can elect to take the life of your child against your wishes. Because you are not paying for the treatment, you have little say in the decision to give or withhold treatment.
This is the kind of world the Clintons tried to bring us ten years ago, and this is no doubt what Hillary would like to bring us as president if -- God forbid -- the American people should elect her in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment