A Medical Case Study on Charlotte Wyatt by the BBC

1599 Words4 Pages

According to the BBC, Charlotte Wyatt was an infant born three months premature in October 2003. This premature birth has caused complications including severe brain damage. The medical professionals caring for Charlotte acknowledged this, predicting that she would live no more than a few months, regardless of medical care. Charlotte remained living under hospital care as she received medical treatment, including things like constant oxygen supply, and at this point, she did not respond to stimulation but appeared to be suffering significant pain. She continued to outlive doctor’s predictions as these conditions continued for months.
Charlotte’s existence continued, but medical prognosis was bleak and doctors decided it was most humane not to prolong her pain. According to the Journal of Medical Ethics, they felt that there was no way to improve her quality of life, which would always be intensely painful. The decision was made to continue current treatment, but not to resuscitate if she stopped breathing. Her parents, however, dissented. They drew upon their strong Christian beliefs, hoping for a miracle and saying that Charlotte deserved every chance to live. They relied on evidence of her development, saying that she was now able to see and respond to stimuli. Her doctors, however, felt that her quality of life would not improve; she would always be in pain and could not live beyond infancy.
This case was taken into the British court system where, after a long trial, a judge upheld the doctor’s decision not to resuscitate. The reasoning was that the judge felt he could not order the doctors to perform actions that would cause increased suffering for the child. After considering the doctrines of the sanctity of life and the...

... middle of paper ...

...s parents. Since they are reliant upon a miracle for Charlotte’s recovery passive euthanasia allows for this to happen, as explained above. Additionally, as Christians, active euthanasia is seen to presume that we can decide the right time for someone to die, rather than relying on God’s timing. Because of this, passive euthanasia is not only different, but morally preferable to the active form.
In conclusion, we support the Court’s conclusion to uphold the doctor’s decision not to resuscitate Charlotte Wyatt on the grounds that she was no longer truly living and her prolonged existence and suffering did not outweigh the sum of the costs to both herself and everyone involved. Although ownership, or responsibility for a minor usually falls upon the parents or guardians, under these conditions they were unable to make an unbiased decision due to emotional investment.

Open Document