Of Charlie Gard, Felines and Cultural Differences
By Perrie Berlin-Halpern
Recently in our press, there has been much discussion about the Charlie Gard case. Often the discussion diverts and ends with lengthy discussions about healthcare systems and parental rights. For me, it's hard to read the pious decrees by Americans about England, especially since most are made by those who have never lived there. What do they know about the British mindset? I lived there and I understand the huge differences in the way Americans and Brits think. And I've used their socialized medicine in a time when most here in the US didn't have health insurance, even from an employer, so I can talk more about some of its benefits. But that is not what this case is truly about.
First to address this case directly. I do believe that the parents should have the final say in their child's care, especially since it is not on England's shilling. But the hospital's original decision had nothing to do with socialized medicine and everything to do with cultural differences. Americans often think, that the world thinks like them and are often shocked when people from another country don't think like them. They then deduct that these differences are wrong, and make statements like England doesn't care about life, which is an ignorant fallacy. The English have their own cultural ideas and they differ in many ways than ours. To demonstrate this, let me go with a less emotionally charged topic, England's love of cats.
The English are cat people. They adore their cats. They can't get enough of them. Morning shows feature the fat cats for the week devoting about ten minutes of TV time to it. Newspapers carry daily articles about cats. They have endless commercials for kitty products to keep your feline happy. They have Apps to keep in touch with kitty. This in itself is a huge cultural difference, since Americans are more of a dog country. But the real cultural difference comes in our attitudes about how we keep our cats.
Most American veterinarians and the ASPCA would say that if you love your cat, you should keep them indoors. American veterinary studies have shown that cats who go outside have a much shorter life span and more visits to the vet, than cats who are kept indoors. I myself have an indoor cat as per my vets recommendations. On the other hand, British vets and the RSPCA say that it is cruel to keep your cat indoors. That cats need to go out, and by keeping them indoors, we are denying them their natural instincts. To the Brits, they feel that by keeping cats indoors, we might be increasing their lifespan, but we are denying them a good quality of life.
Is there a clear right or wrong here? I guess that would depend on your mindset. Which brings me back to Charlie Gard.
When the hospital in England made the decision to take Charlie off of life support, it was not because of socialized medicine. Charlie's parents don't need NHS. They had raised enough money of their own and there was a hospital ready for them in the USA. The decision made was based on reasonable outcome. England has countless numbers of people on life support being paid for by the NHS, but the hospital brought this case to the courts because to them, the issue is one of quality of life and the chance of a reasonable recovery. There have been similar cases in the past in England, but because they were adults and not adorable little babies, and there was no social media, no one paid any attention to them.
I realize that this is very different from how we do things. We base it on personal directives, family wishes, health insurance, etc. The hospital is almost out of the equation with the exception of the homeless, other than determining the level of life there is. And we seem to forget the flaws in our own system, as in the Terri Schiavo case, where husband who had moved on with his life, got to make the life and death call over his wife's family. Or when hospitals make the call for homeless people, with the incentive being organ donation, which also carries a profit margin for skin harvested for the hospital. Who speaks for them?
It's easy to judge and even make false arguments about cases like this, since the case is so emotionally charged. But this case has nothing to do with socialized medicine. It has to do with cultural differences. Charlie's parents are acting like most other parents would, but the US media turned this into something it wasn't supposed to be. The only thing that should have been about, is who gets the final say in life and death issues and not an indictment of a health system.
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
I feel that it would be interesting to discuss this from a different perspective. All nasty comments will be removed.
Dear Friend Perrie Halperin: You raised number of valid and thought provoking points here.
We are indebted.
Often, cross cultural differences obscure communication, and lead to misunderstandings.
Not everything seems to all the way it seems to some.
Thank you for bringing clarity to this highly charged debate.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Thanks Enoch for your positive feedback. I'm glad you got something out of my article.
Sure, a lot of people brought in healthcare, but that wasn't the chilling part of a baby whose parents were denied bringing him home to spend his last days with them. It wasn't all about coming to the U.S. Most importantly, it was his parents' wishes that were denied.
The courts made a decision which was not theirs to make IMO. It was the parents' decision. The hell with cultural differences.....this is a moral issue.
I lived in England as I was married to one of its citizens.
The courts made a decision which was not theirs to make IMO. It was the parents' decision. The hell with cultural differences.....this is a moral issue.
While I agree that it should have been the parent's decision, when we get into ideas of morality, then I have to disagree. Was the Terri Schiavo case moral? How about the homeless who have no advocate? It seems the morality only applies some of the time, and that isn't moral.
Insofar as the homeless go. If, on record, there is no next of kin the authorities have no choice but to end life if there is no hope for any.
Being an advocate for the homeless, I take exception to the fact that some believe they are allowed to die because of being "organ donors".
Conservative media did NOT turn this into something other than the fact that the baby's parents wanted him to go home with them. If they had allowed the parents their rights there would be no controversy.
DNR......having worked in Oncology at our hospital that message is at the top of a patient's chart if this is their wish. DNR! Patient's wishes. Do Not Resusitate! I had one patient say that NEVER would he be on a ventilator, again. DNR was added to his chart. He was a relatively young man and said that it was cruel and torturous!
This baby can't speak for himself and his parents are his voice. No one loves him more or cares more than they do.
Insofar as the homeless go. If, on record, there is no next of kin the authorities have no choice but to end life if there is no hope for any.
Yet, if they had family, they could continue on life support here. Is that fair?
Being an advocate for the homeless, I take exception to the fact that some believe they are allowed to die because of being "organ donors".
If the hospital makes the decision of when to end life, what is to stop it? In many countries "presumed consent" is the benchmark.
Conservative media did NOT turn this into something other than the fact that the baby's parents wanted him to go home with them. If they had allowed the parents their rights there would be no controversy.
I wanted to stay away from politics on this.
This baby can't speak for himself and his parents are his voice. No one loves him more or cares more than they do.
Agreed, and at the end of the day, by our standards, the parents are doing what they feel is right for him. But there are loads of parents who are doing that and it is not in the child's best interest, i.e. the case of the mermaid girl, never mind parents who don't allow medicine intervention because of religious beliefs. This issue is far more complicated than saying that the parents are doing this out of love and caring, since if you ask any Jehovah Witness or Christian Scientist parent how they are making their choices, they would tell you out of love and caring. I am not judging, but this is not a clear cut situation with an ultimate ethical pro or con.
I wanted to stay away from politics on this.
I have not followed this all that closely but I do think "conservative" media is at the forefront of the criticism of Britain regarding this case. Why pretend otherwise?
I am not pretending anything John. What I am attempting to do is remove the politics from this issue and just address the ethical and moral issues.
"Charlie's parents are acting like most other parents would, but the" (conservative and right wing) "US media turned this into something it wasn't supposed to be."
"Charlie's parents are acting like most other parents would, but the" (conservative and right wing) "US media turned this into something it wasn't supposed to be."
Well, that might be, but it really shouldn't have been the case. The only issue here, from an American POV, is parental rights.
I, like a typical American, see this as the parent's right to decide what should happen for their child. Yet, the British hospital has it's points, too. Why keep a baby or an adult alive to be a vegetable.
Those parents are in my prayers.
Their baby was going home with his parents to die. He was not going to continue living as a vegetable. They wanted to bathe him, love him, hold him, talk to him and all the things that parents do for their children. The mother wanted him close to her when he passed on.
That is not so. He was coming to the US for experimental treatment, one that the FDA has not yet even approved. Now as a parent, I can understand why they would want to give their child every chance he can get, and that is their right. I am not sure if it is in the child's best interest though.
Sometimes letting go of them is the best you can do for them, and the hardest thing for you to do...
There is a member of my family who fought to have her new born baby girl saved at all costs, even though the doctors said she was terribly brain damaged from lack of Oxygen and it would be best to let her go. Now 24 years later, her mother once confided in me, that she wished she had let her go. She sits in a chair all day, and says nothing but is aware. She yells in pain from being in a specific position. In plain english, she has no life and the one she has is in pain. I am sure that her mom never foresaw this when she was looking at her adorable baby girl and only wanted the best for her, but sadly that isn't always the case, in the long run.
I think this is one of those ethical or moral cases where there is an argument for both sides. Like Terry Schiavo or something similar. It is an unsolvable and ultimately heartbreaking dilemma.
I think this is one of those ethical or moral cases where there is an argument for both sides.
Exactly! And hence worth the discussion.
"I am not sure if it is in the child's best interest though."
Perhaps not, but it is in the best interests of society to permit such experimentation for the purpose of developing a cure. In such a case where it should be the choice of the parents for it to be an albeit minimal chance to save the life of their baby and at the same time provide a step towards a chance for others to benefit, I would have made that choice. Christopher Reeve BEGGED for stemcell research to be allowed in the chance that it would lead to recovery for persons in his situation, but to what avail?
Buzz,
I do realize that at some point medical experiments have to be done to people to know if they are useful. And indeed, it is true that Christopher Reeves begged to have stem cells. I am not against medical innovation (heck, I have two daughters dedicating their lives to different aspects of neurology), but we should also be mindful that just because we can, doesn't mean we should. What should be kept in mind, is reasonable expectations for a positive outcome.
Yes, it is so. They originally wanted to bring their son home before the experimental treatment was offered in the U.S.
I agree it is both a moral and ethical case. I would try anything to keep my child alive and I don't believe that the hospital had the right to make that decision.
As stated in other comments this is not the first, nor will it be the last time this type of situation comes up. May be it England the U.S. or any other country it will happen again and again.
I agree it is both a moral and ethical case. I would try anything to keep my child alive and I don't believe that the hospital had the right to make that decision.
I used to think that I would, but then we had this family situation that happened and I think I would at least listen to what the doctors had to say. But ultimately, I think this should be left to the parents. I realize that this is my bias, since I pointed out cases that I would probably fight the parents i.e. Jehovah Witnesses/ Christian Scientists.
''I would probably fight the parents i.e. Jehovah Witnesses/ Christian Scientists.''
No disagreement on that Perrie.
In Canada, if Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, or other cults that withhold needed medication or blood transfusions from their children and their children die, they face criminal charges.
In Canada, if Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, or other cults that withhold needed medication or blood transfusions from their children and their children die, they face crimimal charges.
This is why I tried to introduce the idea of cultural differences. In the US, 34 states allow exemptions for religion to not administer medical attention without child abuse charges
Apparently we are also two countries divided by a common language, too. (yeah, I know that is usually said about England)
"Apparently we are also two countries divided by a common language, too."
This article, posted by me years ago, will show some of the differences. I had also posted one about Canadian words and expressions that most Americans have never known, but can't find it right now.
Now that is a fun subject! Thanks Buzz!
As a Chaplain who for decades did, and still does end of life Pastoral Care I need to recuse myself from this discussion.
I am supportive of, and delighted to see all sides in this very complex discussion represented.
It is also good to see that ideas are addressed.
This is very different from people attacked.
Good on you all!
Peace and Abundant Blessings to Everyone.
Enoch,
Hi Enoch,
I can understand your position and the reasons to not participate.
It is good to be able to discuss a topic and try not to attack the messenger. So much can be gained by looking a many subject this way.
Thanks for your input!