The story of Charlie Gard is producing a lot of stories that go something along the line of, ‘this is what socialized medicine looks like,’ or ‘this is what government control looks like.’ But the story of Charlie Gard, a story where the state has deemed that a child should be left to die even if that child’s parents can pay for experimental treatment to attempt to save that child’s life, goes well beyond those two valid points.
The story of Charlie Gard is about a control of our lives that goes FAR beyond the living. It touches on the very issue of euthanasia. Whatever you think of euthanasia, make no mistake about one thing, a government pushing for euthanisia is not about your freedom, but about government gaining an ability to ‘encourage’ the disposable to off themselves, and, when they are not so inclined, to appoint someone who will ‘advocate’ that will on ‘their behalf.’
SPONSORIf you like this content, be sure you click here and support iState's ability to deliver to you news for the iStater, the state of one.
The push by the state of Britain to order the killing of a child against his parents’ will is a case study for the state to enforce euthanasia on others, the liabilities, the disposables, the cogs that are not useful to serve the machine
Look at who the state of Britain has “awarded’ custody of the child to, Victoria Butler-Cole, a euthanasia advocate who is the chairperson of Compassion in Dying. This orgnization was formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Socierty. Do you think that was an accident? They appointed an ‘expert’ in euthanaisa issues, someone they KNEW would enthusiastically advocate for the termination of a child because, in so doing, this case could help strengthen pro-euthanasia laws.
To be sure, the idea tha you can criminalize suicide seems, on its face, unenforcable. Assisting others in committing suicide, even if you support individuals having that ‘freedom,’ is not really the issue that concerns the state, though they are willing to extend that “liberty” in exchange for the power they gain.
What concerns the state is not the lifting of restrictions on people who might assist others in committing suicide, but rather they seek to push for the involuntary termination of life deemed to be non-useful to the state. Charlie Gard is a liability for the state, not an asset, and the state will use whatever power it can to assure that Charlie doesn’t cost them anymore than he already has.
Even though the parents are willing to pay, Charlie Gard has become the test case for the state, a test that might well expand the state’s authority to involuntarily terminate liabilities, be they children suffering from rare diseases or the elderly, unable to fully articulate their desire to live. The state knows that family members will be much less likely to advocate for the involuntary termination of these liabilities so they mean to set a precedent that will allow the state to intervene and appoint an ‘advocate,’ one who will enthusiastically support the terminatioon of that life.
So, if you are pro-euthanasia, if you are pro-assisted-suicide, be careful the power you grant to the state for one day it might be you lying, inarticulate, just another liability, whose family might be deprived the right to advocate for the preservation of your life, just like the parents of Charlie Gard havee been deprived their right to defend their son’s life from the murderous assault of the state.
Remember, when the state comes offering a longer leash, it is often concealing the shock collar you have to put on in exchange for that longer leash.