The Case of Charlotte Wyatt
The case of Charlotte Wyatt, decided last Thursday, moved many hearts.
Charlotte was born three months premature and weighed just a pound. Now 11 months old, she is fed through a tube and has never left hospital, requiring a constant supply of oxygen.
Doctors have resuscitated her three times, but most believe they should not, if she stops breathing again, revive her for a fourth - because her quality of life would be too poor (they say she has 'no feelings other than continuing pain'). Her parents, who are committed Christians, argue that she should be given every chance to continue her fight.
Two doctors were willing to contemplate an 'elective tracheotomy' - which places a tube in her windpipe through which she can breathe - with an initial attempt at ventilation (if she were to stop breathing) in order to accommodate her parents' views.
The judge, however, did not consider this to be in her best interests, even if it meant she would die earlier than otherwise. So, if she stops breathing again, she will not be revived. It was an extremely difficult case to decide, and there is no doubt that Mr Justice Hedley genuinely sought the most compassionate outcome for the baby.
The difficulty with basing a decision on Charlotte's apparent pain is that it focuses on 'quality of life' and makes assumptions about longevity for a baby that had already outlived doctors' predictions.
Proverbs 3.27 says, "Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act." A ruling such as this enables doctors to refuse to provide simple, life-saving treatment on the assumption that when pain and life-expectancy are weighed in the balance, it favours allowing a baby, fighting for breath, to die. We have to ask, if we loved our neighbour as ourselves, would we still come to this conclusion?
Cases such as Charlotte's demonstrate how hard it is for a judge to rule on one situation, however unusual, without setting a precedent for the future. The same test of 'best interests' is to be used in the Mental Capacity Bill, which received its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday.
We can all justifiably feel concerned that if the 'best interests' test is used to refuse life-saving treatment on the basis of quality of life, then we are in real danger of discriminating against those whose lives are not deemed 'useful' either for themselves or others. More seriously still, we are placing doctors and judges in the position that God alone should occupy.
Mark Mullins
Comments
There are currently no comments for this article.
