Tough decision on very ill baby was right one
The heartbreaking UK court ruling to turn off 11-month-old Charlie Gard’s life support redirected futile care in the infant with no hope of recovery towards one with serious but reversible illness or injury.
This improves equity and access to expensive treatments for a second child. There is no doubt that the ethical, moral and legal quandaries of whether to withdraw ventilator support from a child dependent on machine-assisted breathing are stressful for families and critical care staff.
Ongoing physiological support, as decisions on treatment withdrawal are being deliberated in courts of law, necessarily delays the availability of scarce intensive care beds to others. Other seriously sick children cannot afford to wait for all-round resolution between families, clinicians and courts.
Surely the high cost of intensive care and the diversion of scarce funds from other health- care programmes bears serious thought even in times of immense crisis.
The health system cannot afford the thousands of pounds spent each day in prolonging the months-long suffering of a child with a severe metabolic illness.
In the remote event that Charlie had been weaned off the ventilator with the novel treatment his parents had demanded, he would likely have been condemned to full nursing care for the rest of his natural life.