The liberal media continues to side with the concept of single payer, even in the case of Charlie Gard.
The parents of Charlie Gard gave up their legal fight to send their infant child for treatment, since the child’s condition had worsened to the point that the experimental treatment would not reverse its effects. Charlie Gard suffers from a mitochondrial DNA condition, which leaves him blind and unable to function without being hooked up to machines in a hospital.
But, despite this tragedy, the liberal media appeared to take the side of doctors and experts in the nationalized British hospital system (known as the NHS) over the desires of the child’s parents.
The New York Times concluded that the parents “bow[ed] to the consensus of medical experts who said there was no realistic chance of saving him.”
The Washington Post acknowledged the issues of parental rights versus opinions of medical experts and could only quote a British legal expert at the University of Cambridge, Claire Fenton-Glynn, who agreed with the British court’s decision:
“It’s the role of the state and the courts to make an objective assessment of where the child’s best interests lie,” she said. “It’s a devastating case on a human level. On a legal level, it’s not as controversial.”
NBC News made no mention of how parental rights are pitted against the opinions of medical staff and the ‘right to die’ or ‘die with dignity’ argument used by the NHS in the Charlie Gard case.