Aug 2, 2017
The recent passing of Charlie Gard has left many people around the world wondering what might have come from an experimental treatment that for various reasons was continually denied by courts in the United Kingdom. Parents' Right advocates were rightfully upset by the courts' on-going refusal to allow Charlie's parents to make decisions for him. While this sentiment was widespread, it was not universal.
Shortly before Charlie's passing late last week, The Guardian published an op-ed from emeritus professor Ian Kennedy defending the process of the courts in the United Kingdom. Kennedy argued that, as a society, we need to decide how we will handle cases such as Charlie Gard's. He noted the value of having a set of principles and rules that guide us as we work toward making the best decisions in these cases. In the process of defending the actions of the court, he explains the steps by which a society ought to establish principles and decide difficult cases:
"These are the steps. The first is to recognise that children do not belong to their parents. Second, when a claim is made that parents have rights over their children, it is important to step back and examine the language used. We need to remind ourselves that parents do not have rights regarding their children, they only have duties, the principal duty being to act in their children's best interests."
From there, he proceeds to make his case that in difficult circumstances when there arises a conflict between the parents and various authorities, a court should be the ultimate arbiter. He explains, "The court's sole concern must be, can only be, for the child and the child's interests."