This matters

Sometimes it seems we cannot see the wood for the trees, and sometimes the media that would inform us, divide us and, perhaps, preach to us, gets in the way of our own ability to think for ourselves. Consequently, we can be guided towards ways of thinking that are emotional, knee-jerk responses, maybe even irrational responses, and not even realise it. The 'debate' - if that's the right word - surrounding baby Charlie Gard is a case in point.

The Freedom Association (TFA) published the following this week:
 

Where there is life, there is hope.  

 

This week, parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates went to the High Court to appeal against earlier decisions concerning the possible treatment of their child, Charlie Gard. The appeal is the latest in a long line of court battles that the parents have faced in order to allow their son to receive medical treatment in the United States of America.

Whether you agree with the rulings of the British and European courts so far or not, this heartbreaking situation marks a fundamental question: is it the parents or the state that takes responsibility for children?

This debate is not a new one. The case of Ashya King, a child suffering from a brain tumour who saw his parents being arrested - via a European Arrest Warrant - for taking him to Spain to seek treatment, is another example. The SNP's 'Named Person' scheme in Scotland, which would give every newborn child in Scotland a 'state official', illustrates that it is not just a concern for the Westminster parliament. 

The Charlie Gard case is slightly more complicated - though no less important - than the examples mentioned above. The case is ongoing and the judgement must be made on the basis of the law and any new evidence and arguments presented in court.  

There is now though a long list of examples that question the role of the state in our lives, and the lives of our children. I feel the general trend in our society is towards more power for the state over the individual and that this is something that needs to be corrected. The Freedom Association will continue to campaign on behalf of individual freedoms and the principles of a free society in an effort to reverse this trend. In so many ways, this is needed now more than ever. 

Rory Broomfield

Director

The Freedom Association

 

The questions that I'm thinking about, include:-

1. (a) Why was it made necessary for Chris Gard and Connie Yates to go to court. 

    (b) Who prevented them from doing, as parents, what they believed to be their parental      responsibility towards their son? 

     (c) Why?

Answer (a) You tell me.

Answer: (b) Representatives of the Great Ormond Street Hospital. 

Answer (c) Something more than budgetary controls, I suspect. An exercise in power, perhaps?

2. And, as raised in the opening paragraph: is it the parents or the state that takes responsibility for children?

 

Answer: That question is the essence of the debate.

 

3. Was there a jury decision or did Judge Nicholas Francis simply preside in a court loaded with legal beagles who are paid to debate statutes?

Answer: as far as I'm able to determine there was no jury even though, under Common Law, there should have been a lawful jury capable of providing a ruling AND capable of annulling whichever statute(s) have been applied in this case.

Think about it. Happiness is home-made, not court-made.

* * * * *