The Case of Charlotte Wyatt
Over the weekend I became aware of the case of Charlotte Wyatt, a two-year old brain damaged child whom an English court ruled could have her life support terminated at the discretion of her doctors regardless of her parents’ wishes.
Others will cover the details of the case, the peculiarities of British law, and the socialized medicine angle better than I can. But one aspect that I hope is not overlooked is the slippage (I would argue continued and predictable slippage) down a particular slippery slope of morality related to the sanctity of human life.
Obviously since this is not a domestic story it will not get the attention of a case like Terri Schiavo. Yet among those who do pay attention, I will make a bold prediction: There will be no great outrage over the will of the parents being violated in this case among those who support the right of involuntary euthanasia in general. Don’t get me wrong - I expect discomfort and disagreement aplenty with the court’s decision among such people (though I also expect plenty to defend the decision as well). I just don’t expect excitement or emotional power behind their objections anything close to what was on display in the Schiavo case.
This deserves more attention. Why should the overriding of parental wishes in preserving the life of their child bestir so little passion, whereas issues regarding the right of a patient to die bring about great passion among the very same group? Why isn’t a fundamental issue about parental rights as powerfully defended when those parents don’t choose euthanasia?
I would suggest that the answer lies upon a deeper principle regarding the sanctity of human life. I approach this issue from a traditional Catholic understanding, which many others find an "extreme" position in that it disallows voluntary suicide in cases of extreme suffering just as strongly as it opposes involuntary euthanasia.
Yet from my "extremist" Catholic perspective I watch with dismay as the worst-case scenario predictions of the Church regarding the consequences of violating the sanctity of human life become reality. The Church warned in 1968 in Humane Vitae that:
To slightly restate that in terms more specific to the Charlotte Wyatt case, when a society has already determined that it will not respect the sanctity of human life in general, it is likely to entrust difficult matters of life and death to public authorities rather than the personal decisions of parents. (By public authorities, think not only of the judge who ruled, but the doctors and associated medical experts to whom the judge handed ultimate responsibility to in this case.)
I don’t know that I could have predicted it. But as I look around I observe that for those prepared to deny the sanctity of human life for those like Charlotte Wyatt (by denying the sanctity of human life, I mean those who believe killing her might be a greater good than allowing her to live) are more powerfully disturbed when euthanasia is prevented than around who gets to make that life and death decision. Allowing that many people will be bothered by both things, it is clearly the withholding of euthanasia that arouses the greater passion, rather than overriding of the authority of any particular guardian.
I think the reason comes down to the basic sanctity of life issue regarding euthanasia. If killing Charlotte Wyatt to end her “intolerable” life is the right thing to do, how can it become wrong just because you change the person making the decision? For those who accept euthanasia as an act of good and mercy, parental responsibility must eventually become a secondary consideration.
It’s not a comfortable conclusion. And it may (hopefully) open some eyes among those who have previously not considered such outcomes. But I believe this is where legalized euthanasia must lead, by pitiless moral logic. Once society rejects the fundamental sanctity of human life, situations like this emerge as if from Pandora’s box.
Other links on the topic:
Charlotte Wyatt's parents' blog
The Catholic Church Declaration on Euthanasia
The Night Writer (who has followed this case for some time) offers insightful commentary.
Others will cover the details of the case, the peculiarities of British law, and the socialized medicine angle better than I can. But one aspect that I hope is not overlooked is the slippage (I would argue continued and predictable slippage) down a particular slippery slope of morality related to the sanctity of human life.
Obviously since this is not a domestic story it will not get the attention of a case like Terri Schiavo. Yet among those who do pay attention, I will make a bold prediction: There will be no great outrage over the will of the parents being violated in this case among those who support the right of involuntary euthanasia in general. Don’t get me wrong - I expect discomfort and disagreement aplenty with the court’s decision among such people (though I also expect plenty to defend the decision as well). I just don’t expect excitement or emotional power behind their objections anything close to what was on display in the Schiavo case.
This deserves more attention. Why should the overriding of parental wishes in preserving the life of their child bestir so little passion, whereas issues regarding the right of a patient to die bring about great passion among the very same group? Why isn’t a fundamental issue about parental rights as powerfully defended when those parents don’t choose euthanasia?
I would suggest that the answer lies upon a deeper principle regarding the sanctity of human life. I approach this issue from a traditional Catholic understanding, which many others find an "extreme" position in that it disallows voluntary suicide in cases of extreme suffering just as strongly as it opposes involuntary euthanasia.
Yet from my "extremist" Catholic perspective I watch with dismay as the worst-case scenario predictions of the Church regarding the consequences of violating the sanctity of human life become reality. The Church warned in 1968 in Humane Vitae that:
“It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”
To slightly restate that in terms more specific to the Charlotte Wyatt case, when a society has already determined that it will not respect the sanctity of human life in general, it is likely to entrust difficult matters of life and death to public authorities rather than the personal decisions of parents. (By public authorities, think not only of the judge who ruled, but the doctors and associated medical experts to whom the judge handed ultimate responsibility to in this case.)
I don’t know that I could have predicted it. But as I look around I observe that for those prepared to deny the sanctity of human life for those like Charlotte Wyatt (by denying the sanctity of human life, I mean those who believe killing her might be a greater good than allowing her to live) are more powerfully disturbed when euthanasia is prevented than around who gets to make that life and death decision. Allowing that many people will be bothered by both things, it is clearly the withholding of euthanasia that arouses the greater passion, rather than overriding of the authority of any particular guardian.
I think the reason comes down to the basic sanctity of life issue regarding euthanasia. If killing Charlotte Wyatt to end her “intolerable” life is the right thing to do, how can it become wrong just because you change the person making the decision? For those who accept euthanasia as an act of good and mercy, parental responsibility must eventually become a secondary consideration.
It’s not a comfortable conclusion. And it may (hopefully) open some eyes among those who have previously not considered such outcomes. But I believe this is where legalized euthanasia must lead, by pitiless moral logic. Once society rejects the fundamental sanctity of human life, situations like this emerge as if from Pandora’s box.
Other links on the topic:
Charlotte Wyatt's parents' blog
The Catholic Church Declaration on Euthanasia
The Night Writer (who has followed this case for some time) offers insightful commentary.
Posted by Doug Williams on
Monday February 27, 2006 at 4:02pm
I still harken back to the 1950s Twilight Zone episode, when it comes time for the librarian to die, the government proclaims: YOU ARE OBSOLETE!
While it was probably viewed as fanciful by the Twighlight Zone viewers at that time, they probably had no idea exactly how prescient it was.
I find it ironic that in England where they believe, and have passed laws, to force euthanasia based on your Drs. deciding what your quality of life is, they don't have the death penalty in capital cases. Just this week I read where the moores murder was begging for the death penalty because he found 41 years of prison "torture".
You name a Twilight Zone episode. How about Logan's Run.
A Star Trek Next Gen. epsiode (required to commit suicide at 60). It's not just coming - it's here. To my greater amusement I was resoundly attacked when I stated my opinion on the murder of Terri Schiavo, your blog will be interesting to watch.
Medically speaking Charlotte is not on any true life support- no machines. She is not in terrible pain. She smiles. She laughs. She coos. She reaches out for human touch and contact. She is a human being, not perfect but human. My own opinion about this is simple. I believe it is the socialist healthcare system in BG that is behind this.
The costs, the effort.