https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case
this is the information about the case
ETH 3580Medical Futility Paper
You are to write an essay (approx. 5 double-spaced pages) in which you discuss different definitions of medical futility and potentially medically inappropriate treatment discussed in Ch. 14, the strict definition and any two
loose definitions that might apply. You must include an account of both
strict and loose definitions of medical futility, along with any difficulties associated with the loose definitions. You must also discuss the meaning of
potentially medically inappropriate treatment and the process of addressing
such treatments. Finally, analyze the case of Charlie Gard (taken from Wikipedia) from the perspective of these definitions and difficulties, including a
recommendation of what to do.
Your essay must include:
I. An introduction (2.5 points)
II. An account of the strict and loose definitions of medical futility, along
with the difficulties associated the latter, esp. difficulties related value
judgments. (10 points)
III. An account of the distinction between physiological futility (futility
in the strict sense) and potentially medically inappropriate treatment. (5
points)
IV. An application of your discussion in sections II and III to the case,
including a recommendation (15 points)
V. Your argument on whether or not it is permissible to withhold treatment on the basis of medical futility (5 points)
VI. Conclusion (2.5 points)
Total (40 points)
The Case of Charlie Gard
The Charlie Gard case was a best interests case in 2017 involving Charles Matthew William
“Charlie” Gard (4 August 2016 – 28 July 2017), an infant boy from London, born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), a rare genetic disorder that causes progressive brain
damage and muscle failure. MDDS has no treatment and usually causes death in infancy. The
case became controversial because the medical team and parents disagreed about whether experimental treatment was in the best interests of the child.[1][2][3][4] The case has been classified by legal academics[5] as a ‘stigmata case’,[6] cases that “are part of the meditation of a culture upon itself.”[7]
In October 2016, Charlie was transferred to London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH),
a National Health Service (NHS) children’s hospital, because he was failing to thrive and
his breathing was shallow. He was placed on mechanical ventilation and MDDS was diagnosed.
A neurologist in New York, Michio Hirano, who was working on an experimental treatment
based on nucleoside supplementation with human MDDS patients was contacted. He and GOSH
agreed to proceed with the treatment, to be conducted at GOSH and paid for by the NHS. Hirano
was invited to come to the hospital to examine Charlie but did not visit at that time. In January,
after Charlie had seizures that caused brain damage, GOSH formed the view that further treatment was futile and might prolong suffering. They began discussions with the parents about ending life support and providing palliative care.
Charlie’s parents still wanted to try the experimental treatment and raised funds for a transfer to a
hospital in New York. In February 2017, GOSH asked the High Court to override the parents’ decision, questioning the potential of nucleoside therapy to treat Charlie’s condition. The British
courts supported GOSH’s position. The parents appealed the case to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The decision of the court at first instance
was upheld at each appeal. In July 2017, after receiving a letter signed by several international
practitioners defending the potential of the treatment and claiming to provide new evidence,
GOSH applied to the High Court for a new hearing.[8]: 9 Hirano visited Charlie at GOSH during
the second hearing of the case at the request of the judge. After examining scans of Charlie’s muscles, Hirano determined it was too late for the treatment to help Charlie and the parents agreed to
the withdrawal of life support. GOSH maintained its position throughout that Charlie’s condition
had deteriorated by January to the extent that the proposed experimental treatment was futile.[9][10][8]: 7 The second hearing at the High Court, which had been arranged to hear and examine
the new evidence then became concerned with the arrangements for the withdrawal of life support. On 27 July, by consent, Charlie was transferred to a hospice, mechanical ventilation was
withdrawn, and he died the next day at the age of 11 months and 24 days.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
