Case Study Of Charlie Gard

Good Essays

Whose Autonomy is More Important?
In the case of Charlie Gard, an infant diagnosed with infantile-onset encephalomyopathy mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), there are several moral problems that come into play when talking about what should or should not have been done to treat him. In this paper, I am going to discuss the moral problem of the case and argue why the court systems made the morally correct decision to stop Charlie's treatment after treatment became futile.
The underlying issue, in this case, is what Charlie’s parents wanted and what was in the best interests of Charlie. We have an issue of autonomy, or “a person’s rational capacity for self-governance” (Vaughn, 2017, p. 81), for both the parents and child. Charlie’s parents wanted to try every possible treatment even though, at a certain point, continuing to treat Charlie would no longer do anything for him. This involves several moral values, including the responsibility of the parents to make decisions about their child’s treatment and the responsibility of the doctors to do what is best for Charlie. Charlie’s MDDS is incurable, and at the time of his diagnosis, there were no approved treatments for the disorder. He was getting progressively worse and was being kept alive by the use of a ventilator after suffering from a seizure that caused brain damage. At this point, the hospital deemed Charlie’s treatment to be futile and they decided to stop his treatment. Their decision to stop treatment was

Get Access