As you know, I’m not one averse to the idea of courting controversy. I suspect I’ll raise a few hackles here, but as it’s Sunday nobodymuchreadsme anyway.

The sad case of Charlie Gard recently came to an end in a blaze of publicity. I could have used the term ‘exceptionally sad,’ but alas it wasn’t. Children die tragically every day. His case was tragic, but not exceptional.

On Saturday the Guardian carried an anonymous article from a medic about the shameless political grandstanding the story had attracted. I’ll summarise how I saw this.

TFF stuck his oar in, while his GOPtard supporters were attempting to remove healthcare cover from 23 million citizens, and bombing thousands of civilian children in the Middle East. In the Vatican, Il Papa stuck his oar in while ignoring the fact that his ‘contraception is a sin’ stance dooms countless millions of children to lives in abject poverty. In London, BoJo took his mad hair and bluster and stuck his oar in, seemingly being better able to judge the medical case than the people who work in what is judged to be the best paediatric hospital in the world. A couple of evangelical Bible-punchers from the US even turned up in London up to make similar clinical pronouncements*. Goodness only knows what they were up to apart from scoring points.

Here’s where I get controversial. The parents were to blame for all the showbiz. They were the ones who put this whole affair into the public domain. They were the ones who claimed ‘Nobody let us make our point.’ Except to the thousands of social media vultures who formed Charlie’s Army and who threatened the lives of GOSH staff.

Most tellingly, they claimed, ‘Our wishes were ignored.’ It all came to be about them, not the hapless shred of humanity who got dealt a very bad hand in the game of life. Them. Not Charlie Gard. Even now the press are carrying articles about how they spent the last few minutes of Charlie Gard’s life.

I seem to remember that the Hippocratic Oath has a bit about not ‘striving officiously’ to maintain a life. I think that’s salient.

*Not to mention the US quack who claimed to be able to reverse DNA changes with a dietary supplement. Guess what? He has a big financial interest in the ‘cure’ he was touting.

Advertisements