The Last Furlong

Comments on the race of life.

Oh for Gard’s sake


It’s a frightfully tragic thing that, say, in the case of Madeleine McCann, there has been publicity, promotion – and even government intervention and assistance. But, in the UK alone, there are THOUSANDS of missing children.

No one is particularly “interested” in them. The press never mention them. They get no power, money or influence. They are forgotten, unknown, except by their grieving parents and relatives.

I am now totally fed up with the Charlie Gard baby situation. The Pope has intervened. Trump is “helping”. There are protests, publicity, money and new efforts to torture Charlie with modern experimental treatment abroad.

I find it positively repulsive.

What the hell are we doing? What feelings have been inflamed – are constantly being inflamed – that Charlie has a “right” to life and his parents have a “right” to keep him alive?

Is this even virtuous?

What about the hundreds, if not thousands of Charlie Gards, being kept alive by machines in hospitals in the UK?  What about the quiet, distraught parents courageously struggling on, eventually facing the same situation – the removal of life support from their own child?

The anguish and pain of THAT situation is taken with fortitude – understated.

No one is particularly “interested” in all the other Charlie Gards. The press never mention them. They get no power, money or influence. Their stories are never pushed out into social media. They are forgotten, unknown, except by their courageous parents and relatives.

Do I think it’s wrong that one Charlie Gard or one Madeleine McCann gets more attention than all the others? On some level I must, otherwise I wouldn’t feel so strongly to be writing this post.

But the GREAT wrong to me, is that our modern culture cannot accept that death is the healing of an unacceptable state of life.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates


Author: thelastfurlong

I'm someone also pounding the Path, just like you.. I'm retired, going into Old Age and loving my life. I'm hoping to remain happy and well for as long as possible. Old Age is not SO bad - yet!

8 thoughts on “Oh for Gard’s sake

  1. In these days of constant headlines of ‘Boyfriend shook toddler to death’ and other obscenities it is refreshing to see 2 parents doing everything within their power to ‘protect’ their child. I for one would never criticise parents for it- but , perhaps unusually these days -at least in the Western World- I have had to make decisions about whether or not to kill inorder to keep my child safe so maybe my view is somewhat skewed.
    However there must come a time when ‘depart in peace’ has to be the right option. Then that is also a parental DUTY. As parents , should the situation all parents fear arise, we have a duty to our child, humanity and ourselves (and before God too if one is a believer) to ensure our child dies the best possible death under the circumstances .

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes – exactly. These parents put themselves out there. They are not in charge of their own brains anymore. They are being pushed from pillar to post. I feel very sorry for them. If they hold onto their own sanity and marraige it will be a miracle1


  2. I think it is arrogance beyond belief that the Doctors and The Courts have totally deprived these parents of any say in the matter. The child could have had this treatment five months ago if the parents had been allowed some say in the matter. Charlie Gard is in the news because his parents made it happen. As is Madeleine McCann. I personally am not giving up on either of them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, that’s a thought I didn’t think. You have a point. Missing children are a different thing. But even five months ago, Charlie is brain damaged and without active mitochondria humans cannot make ATP. He cannot build muscle, he cannot breathe, he has no eye movement, is blind – and goodness knows what else. The five months are because the parents cannot accept this event in their lives. Is this not child abuse? Interested to know your thoughts. I’m conflicted.


  3. The Hospital, i.e. Doctors, put Charlie on life support. Why did they do that if they thought it was hopeless and that he was , is suffering?
    Apparently they then decided to end his life at a later date. He is still alive because his parents kicked up a stink and didn’t want his life ended arbitrarily. That is why it went to Court. This stinks, in my opinion.
    No one actually knows what state the child is in or if he can be given some semblance of a life, but to kill him out of hand because they say they should have this right, above what his parents want, is an abomination.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, you have another point. But removing life support is the test of whether he is capable of life. I do feel really strongly about this because Nelson Mandela was criminally kept alive on life support. And my brother-in-law was kept alive only by machine – in the end, he had ten machines actively keeping him “alive” – but of course he wasn’t alive – he was dead. And so was Nelson Mandela.

      I agree that life support should not be a “routine” procedure, unless it is temporary and worthwhile. The doctors will have seen many Charlie Gards – so they should know more than anyone else, and with a sick baby, they could hardly dare not to use life support – even if it was so that the parents could get their head round the situation.

      Nelson Mandela was kept alive so the family could finish their squabble about his will.

      My brother-in-law was on holiday near a fashionable hospital in Johannesburg. They made sure they were able to siphon off his £2 000000 insurance cover from his devastated widow. When the money was finished, they turned off the machines.

      Which simply shows there ARE doctors devoid of morals – but not in Charlie’s case I don’t think!

      Anyway let’s see what happens next. Thanks for your different thoughts on the topic.


  4. Since they changed the Hippocratic Oath seems docs can do what they like.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Isn’t the aim of all the oaths to “do no harm/to do good?” I think politicians should take an oath! But anyway – nowadays – is there anything respected as an “oath” anymore?


Please do comment! That's part of the fun...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s