The news for the past few days is a bit boring, maybe is a good thing because the news that i am usually interested in are those which involve disaster, massive death or major political dispute.
The most interesting one maybe is the case of Charlie Gard which i am having problem to understand the dispute. It is something similiar to the case of Airedale which in learn in criminal law last year. But the different is, in Airedale there is no option to sent the patient for a treatment at oversea and the only options is death after the life support was withdraw. In the current case, the parents decided to sent the child for a experiment treatment in the US but the court refuse to let them to do so and need evidence that the treatment will improve the condition.
Without going through detail research on the case, the decision in my opinion is like imposing a death sentence on an innocent child and violating the santity of life. And the question since when a court can interfere the autonomy of a patient to accept treatment which they can afford and manage to find a place to do so arose in my head? But i believe the court had go through detail reasoning and consideration before reaching that decision, since the case had gone through the UK supreme court and the ECtHR (information that i receive, not sure if it is true)
Comments