Money, health and law

As anybody else I have suffered watching Charlie Gard's hospital pictures.
 Who can say what kind of world there is behind those closed eyes?
And why does he tight so strongly his little hands?
Nevertheless I wondered, as a man and as a lawyer, why his life was going to be stopped against his parent's will.
The High Court's sentence has given me the right answer.

 The GOSH (Great Ormond Street Hospital) made an application  to the High Court in order to know if it were lawful for the hospital to withdraw the expensive  artificial machines which keep Charlie alive. 

The doctors  say in their application that any  decision would be taken, as in the past,  in the best interest of the little boy. 

But still the same question rose on my head: why against the Charlie's parents? 

Why don't they have a say in their boy's life? 

Well, though the good Mr Justice Francis has tried to overlook the issue, I must say that the real origin of the whole affair is the money. 

As a matter of fact if Mr Gard and his wife Connie had had the money to pay the Charlie's expensive treatments, then the hospital would have never applied the High Court. 

They can now mix the cards otherwise but since the beginning it was a matter of money.

And when Charlie's parents rose a fund to transfer their son in USA it was too late:  the voice of law had already spoken.

Nobody would have allowed to make such an application to High Court if little Charlie was not kept alive with the National Health Security's money!

And the bitter truth can't be hidden anymore: You can live only if you the money for! If you can't afford it, you may surely die! In the name of justice!

I'm not saying the High Court's sentence was unfair or, in some way, wrong. That's not the point! It has even appointed a Guardian in the interest of Charlie,  though it was clearly  against the parent's will! And the reasons of the sentence were well balanced; and even drenched of human compassion.

We may talk a long while about euthanasy or about the fair ethic of keeping a live attached to an artificial machine's treatment, but I underlined once again that this is not the focus in Charlie's affair. 

The justice has been promoted in the name of the public interest: with that money we can save more other lives, likely to be saved more than little poor Charlie's.

But how many kind of lives do exist? Are we making a range in the right of living? And wher do we put the equality principle in this heartbreaking affair?

It's difficult to answer only one of these questions. But we cannot hide the truth behind a finger: the law, in this case, has taken the supremacy against life because the lack of money; the poor has been crushed under the obscure formulas of law.

I hope the law finds the courage to step back. 

If they don't want  God saying the  last word, I hope they leave Charlie's parents decide about their own flesh.