Politics, Moderate



The heartbreaking case of Charlie Gard is not a parable -- just one family's tragedy.

Esther J. Cepeda on

CHICAGO -- Before 11-month-old Charlie Gard died in Britain last week from complications of a rare disease, his short life triggered debate about when it's appropriate to stop treating patients and allow them to die.

His parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, mounted an epic struggle, trying every conceivable effort to save their son. In the end, however, their baby slipped away before they were ready to say goodbye -- they never got to bring their son home for their last hours as a family.

Predictably, there has been outrage and backlash about this family's sad tale.

People read short headlines and feel compelled to pass instant judgment about what Yates and Gard "should have" done. Some think the parents should have accepted the reality of their son's disease, called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, and let him pass "humanely" and quickly. Others believe they should have gone public earlier when there was a better shot at experimental treatments.

There is no right answer.

Seventeen years ago, my daughter was diagnosed, in utero, with a rare disease that would virtually guarantee her death soon after birth. Best case scenarios involved severely debilitating medical conditions and disabilities that would have made a normal childhood impossible.

But when the doctors gave my husband and me the bad news -- and offered us the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy right then -- the specter of a profoundly sick and disabled child that would live for any amount of time was, to us at that point, a gamble worth taking.

It was a less than logical choice. She was my second, high-risk pregnancy. I had a toddler at home and was putting my health in peril by not terminating. The hospital costs were soaring and there was no guarantee our baby would even live long enough for any surgical or medical interventions to try to prolong life.

Really, looking back on it, the easier, less complicated and medically cheaper thing to do would have been to end the pregnancy. I would have saved myself and our family a fair amount of physical, mental and emotional suffering.

But there was no convincing my husband and me that we shouldn't do everything humanly possible to ensure a live birth and pray for the miracle of even a very sick baby.


swipe to next page


blog comments powered by Disqus

Social Connections


Nick Anderson Mike Lester Steve Benson Mike Luckovich Gary Varvel Bob Gorrell