03
Aug
2017
Thursday, August 3, 2017
IFI Staff
Another Charlie Gard Case Lurking?

After the tragic passing of baby Charlie Gard last week, the world has renewed conversation surrounding the proper place of parental rights and government authority in society.  

The parents of baby Charlie, who had been diagnosed with a terminal disease, were told in no uncertain terms by hospital officials that they would not be allowed to remove their son from the hospital’s care for outside treatment. The hospital even had help from the U.K. Supreme Court, which agreed that the hospital had the right to hold Baby Charlie – even against his parents’ will – and even that it was acceptable for the hospital to determine if and when to take Charlie off life support.

When it became evident that the hospital had run out the clock on opportunities to treat Charlie, and his parents dropped the legal challenge, the Court ruled against his parents again – mandating Charlie to hospice care and blocking his parents from bring Charlie home to pass in peace.

Many aspects of the story, from start to finish, are troubling; however, perhaps most troubling is the government’s seizure of authority that does not naturally belong to it.

And despite the string of flagrant oversteps in the Charlie Gard case, it may be happening again.

MrUYAPAVVmOyVoJ-800x450-noPad.jpgJust this week, the story of another sick child in the U.K. has gained attention.

Baby Alfie Evans has been in a coma at the Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool since December, but unlike Charlie Gard, doctors have been unable to diagnose him with any specific illness. Inexplicably, and despite an inability to even determine which illness Baby Alfie is suffering from, the hospital appears poised to remove him from life support, and has threatened his father with legal action for trying to halt it.

With the normalization and institutionalization of abortion, and with the general push for acceptance of assisted suicide, governments around the world have seized authority that does not belong to them: the authority to decide which innocent citizens live and die.

This isn’t the government’s natural responsibility.

Parental rights are sacred for a number of reasons, but perhaps most importantly because they are the most natural rights we see on this planet. To disallow a parent from protecting the wellbeing of his or her child is an grave abuse of innate and inherent human rights.

Even in Indiana, we cannot just assume that parental rights will always be cherished and upheld. We need to stand together to protect parental rights from any infringement, so that situations like these will never take place on our soil. Will you stand with us?

Let’s work together to preserve the most sacred rights -- and the most vulnerable people -- in our society.

Comments: (0)

0 Comments