Europe’s most dangerous anti-human-rights institution, otherwise known as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), has released yet another incredible decision through which it totally undermines both the human rights that it should be protecting, and by consequence its own position as a guardian of those rights.
The Decision in the case of Charles Gard and Others v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 39793/17), issued by an (unidentified) “majority” of the seven judges of the Court’s First Chamber (so that the public will never know who is responsible…) has declared inadmissible the complaint of two parents who wanted to protect their child from being euthanized in a UK hospital. The Court found that it was “in the best interest” of the child, which had been diagnosed with a very rare and severe mitochondrial disease, to be left to die, and that the persons who were entitled to make that decision were the doctors, not the parents. As a result of this decision, all life-sustaining treatment (supply of water and nutrition) has been stopped, and the parents have been left to watch their child being starved to death.
The decision once more reveals the incredible hypocrisy behind the euthanasia ideology.
Initially, the public has been made believe that eutanasia should be legalized because it means “self-determination”. Whoever does not want it, does not get it, it was promised. But in the Charlie Gard case it obviously, was not the child itself, which was less than a year old, who said it wanted to die. Nor did the parents, whom one normally would expect to be recognized as their child’s best guardians, ask for their child to be killed. No, it was the doctors, and ultimately a law court, who decided that it should die.
Was the experimental treatment in the US, on which the parents had placed their last hopes, likely to lead to a success? Perhaps not. Did the doctors have better medical expertise than the parents? Probably. But it remains that this case is not about the withholding of a costly and very possibly futile treatment, but about euthanasia: the deliberate killing of a human person, in this case by denying that person basic life-sustaining healthcare. In other words, parents who entrust their child to a hospital must expect that the hospital may decide to kill it – and they have no right to prevent this from happening. Instead, they have the ECtHR telling them that when they do all they can to save their child’s life, they are bad parents, because they don’t know, or don’t respect, their child’s best interest.
The case is similar to the case of Lambert v. France, in which the Court already issued a very controversial decision for death and against life. But while in the Lambert case there were at least some (however unproven) claims that Vincent Lambert himself had some time before his fatal accident stated in a conversation that in the (then hypothetical) case of an accident he would prefer to be euthanized rather than live in a state of total dependence, in the Gard case there is not the faintest such claim. You don’t get euthanasia because you ask for it – you get it because others think it is good for you.
This is truly gruesome. How far can this absurd Human Rights Court still degrade? And when will it at last be dissolved??
Postscript (3 July): on LifeSiteNews one reads the additional information that the parents of young Charlie Gard were by no means asking the public to fund the (perhaps futile) attempt to have their son treated in the US. Rather, they had launched a fundraising campaign online and collected 83,000 donations totaling £1.3 million, which was more than what they need to take Charlie to America and pay specialists for his treatment. All they wanted from the London Hospital was to not break off the life-sustaining basic care.
But according to the ECtHR, Charlie was not worth the effort.
Shame on this grotesque anti-human-rights court!!!