Dissecting the Charlie Gard Case

The judicial decision to allow mechanical life support to be removed from the British infant, Charlie Gard, has been roundly condemned by some sources.  The infant’s distraught mother lamented that the parents had been allowed “no control” over their child’s life and death.  Demonstrators, calling themselves “Charlie’s army,” assembled near the courthouse crying “shame” at the court’s failure to sustain a preservable human life.  Conservative commentators condemned the “unwarranted” governmental interference with parents’ child-rearing prerogatives.  They wondered why the parents weren’t permitted to transport the infant, at their own expense, from London to New York to try an experimental medication being offered by a Columbia physician.  Another conservative source accused the National Health Service of taking Charlie prisoner, contending that the British health service feared being shown up by American free enterprise medicine if Charlie were treated in New York.

The Setting

Charlie Gard was born on August 4, 2016, suffering from a rare genetic disease called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS).  MDDS seriously affected Charlie’s brain and muscles, leaving him without ability to hear, see, cry, move his arms or legs, or breathe without a mechanical ventilator.  On October 11, 2016, Charlie was admitted to Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) where he was continuously treated until just before his death in a hospice in July 2017.

In early January 2017, the GOSH clinicians had been willing to import and administer an experimental drug (nucleoside powder) touted by a N.Y. physician, Dr. Michio Hirano.  Nucleoside treatment had been used by Dr. Hirano for a different mitochondrial mutation (TK2), not MDDS.  However, before nucleoside treatment could be initiated, Charlie experienced brain seizures causing even more brain damage – leaving no signs of upper brain activity necessary for responsiveness and interaction with an environment.  GOSH’s staff then concluded that there was no meaningful chance that nucleoside treatment could help Charlie.  In February 2017, GOSH applied for a judicial order declaring that withdrawal of the ventilator would be in Charlie’s best interests (to shorten the pain and suffering that Charlie was probably experiencing) and therefore would be lawful.
Continue reading

The State of Care in Mental Health Services in England 2014-2017

By John Tingle

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. They have recently published a report of inspections on specialist mental health services. The  report is very thorough and detailed and reveals both good and bad practices. When reading the report however the poor practices identified eclipse the good ones.

Patient safety concerns

Concerns about patient safety are a constant and overarching theme in the report. The CQC biggest concern in this care area is patient safety:

“For both NHS and independent mental health services overall, and for eight of the 11 core services, safe was the key question that we most often rated as requires improvement or inadequate. At 31 May 2017, 36% of NHS core services and 34% of independent core services were rated as requires improvement for safe; a further 4% of NHS core services and 5% of independent core services were rated as inadequate for safe “(29).

Continue reading