Is all of this still about Charlie Gard, actually?

Or is this an expression of a consumerist view of children?

Been wondering about that for a while now…

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/10/health/charlie-gard-new-hearing/index.html

The parents seem to claim that Charlie is “fighting”. But if he was, he wouldn’t require life support. He is being kept alive artificially.

Charlie “fighting” would be to take him off life support and finding him able to live on his own, surprising them all.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/10/charlie-gard-key-questions-answered

It’s true, though, that if this child had been in the US, the experimental treatment would already have started and doctors would have a better idea of how it would affect the child.

With the case having been dragged through the courts for so long, and the postponements in terminating life support and allowing the child a peaceful passing, it’s now becoming more logical to allow the kid the treatment, if only because he’s been forced to stay alive so much longer now and would already have passed away if it hadn’t been for the legal battle.

If this news article is correct, though, then the parents’ battle is not about what is best for Charlie, by the sound of it:

http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/baby-charlie-gards-parents-storm-out-of-court-hearing

“Yates interrupted Francis as he said that the parents had said they would not want to prolong Charlie’s life in its present state, only if there was hope of improvement. “I never said that!” she exclaimed from her seat behind her barrister.”

Let’s see if I can find this back in Joshua Rozenberg’s tweets. Yes. Though he does not specify what the disagreement was about.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates storm out of court after disagreement with judge about what they had said during the hearing three months ago.

— Joshua Rozenberg (@JoshuaRozenberg) July 13, 2017

Nature itself considers Charlie Gard absolutely not viable. That is a very strong clue. Nature does its best to limit lives not worth living as much as possible.

Forcing Charlie Gard to stay alive is like insisting on having a purple parrot if its natural color is green and the other color goes with, say, severe liver disease. That’s not about what’s best for the parrot.

(I apologize to those who feel hurt by putting it this way. Maybe I should add that I had a green parrot for 21 years and loved her very dearly.)