Charlie Gard

[Beskar]

You/they probably mean unable, right?

Mistake in the quoted article, not mine. Edited it though.

I don't think the baby would qualify for euthanisia here which would be the most humane thing to do

It is not actually euthanisia, as there would be no need for any intervention to bring about an early death. It is only ceasing the artifical means of support to allow it to die naturally. Such things happen in the Netherlands and every country in the world (including the USA). What makes this particular case different is media sensationalism by the parents playing the "Underdog" card.

It kind of seems to me that the people wanting Charlie put down are doing so for their own convenience.

Going to myth-bust this. There is no parallels between Charlie's case and putting down a puppy.

1) Charlie is completely unable to support his basic functions. He requires life-support 24/7.
2) He is pretty much brain-dead and in a complete vegatable state which no treatment or invention can reverse or 'cure'.
3) What little there is, Charlie is reported to be in constant pain and nothing else. (see Monty's post).
4) The use of the machines are prolonging his natural death.

All this is completely different to euthanasia and 'putting down' and those parallels should not be used. There are clear distinct differences. In Euthanasia and 'Putting down', it is assisted suicide or accelerating a death. In this case, the death is being artificially prolonged and being prevented.

It is not "convenient" for anyone involved.

The parents should act as the decision-makers for their child, as children are not legally allowed to make most decisions for themselves. They want to allow further treatment, have respected doctors willing to do it, and have the financial means to provide for it. Why is this even a discussion?

Half of me simply says they should greenlight it, so the problem transfers to the United States so we can move on and put an end to the matter. However, there is an actual ethnical side involved because said American doctors don't actually care for Charlie Gard, just the publicity and the money involved. They can use it to help fund pet research projects or experiment with treatments which apparently "only work in theory" exploiting the parents with even more "false hope".

Overall, this is a very unfortunate case of a child being prevented from their natural death by use of technology and zealous parents doing their most, detrimental to Charlie himself, in refusing to let him go.