The Charlie Gard case is a sad reminder that the law is the preserve of the powerful | Anne Perkins
The law says the best interests of the child always come first. But deciding what those are can be a matter of anguished contention. Connie Yates and Chris Gard, the parents of Charlie Gard, the little boy born with an extremely rare form of mitochondrial mutation, were told by a judge yesterday that it was not in their son’s best interests for him to be taken to the US for experimental treatment, and they think the judge was wrong.
The judge, Mr Justice Francis, who told doctors at Great Ormond Street that they could withdraw all but palliative care, was to all intents and purposes delivering a death sentence. He knew that. They knew that.
What was extraordinary is that the state – our representative in court – says that although it rightly felt it had a duty to protect Charlie, it had no role in making sure that his parents’ view of what was in his interest was properly represented. Yates and Gard were not entitled to legal aid. The judge told the court that he found this “remarkable”. This is not the sort of thing judges normally say.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder