Or, Charlie Gard and sovereignty.
Charlie Gard is the baby with a rare genetic disease that has damaged his brain, probably fatally and soon. The baby’s parents want to be able to try alternative treatments, or in the alternative, be allowed to bring him home to die there with his parents who love him rather than encumbered by the state’s bureaucrats and representatives, his parents also by-the-way present, in an emptily sterile hospital room.
The British government has chosen to not allow any of this: the baby must die in the hospital. The EU’s Court of Human Rights, in a breathtaking repudiation of its mission, has sided with the British government. Understand: that the Brit government and the EU in their ruling have sided with the hospital in which Charlie is being held is neither here nor there. Both the Brit government and the EU Court could have sided with the baby’s parents, and each chose not to.
Which, as The Wall Street Journal put it in their op-ed at the link, raises a question:
Whose baby is Charlie, anyway—his parents’ or the state’s? In this delicate case, Britain’s national care system has elevated technical expertise over parental love.
In this, the WSJ has misunderstood. It’s the Brit government that has decided, not the bureaucrats of the NHS. It is the government of the home of 1984 that has claimed this baby, poor Charlie Gard, as its ward.
With the British government’s ruling, it has made parents irrelevant and claimed all children to be wards of the state. By extension, the British government has made all citizens of Great Britain, raised from early childhood as wards of the state, themselves wards of the state.
The citizens of Great Britain are not sovereign in their own nation. Only Government is sovereign.