Charlie Gard passed away Friday. In just 11 months of life, he shone an bright spotlight seen around the world on one of the most important issues of our day: the value of every human life. 

Charlie was born with a genetic disorder that compromised his motor skills. He could not move. He could not breathe without a ventilator. Doctors debated about whether or not he could see or feel pain.

It was his London doctors’ belief that he could feel pain that led them to fight in court against his parents. They wanted to take him to the U.S. for experimental treatment offered by a New York doctor. Hospital authorities said it would be cruel to prolong his (presumed) suffering, especially since they didn’t think the treatment would work. It was in his “best interest” to die. Both a UK court and a EU court agreed with that logic.

Using Pain to Justify Late-Term Abortion

A year ago — around the time Charlie was being admitted to the London hospital — then-presidential candidate Donald Trump riled many American women in the third and final presidential debate with his visceral critique of late-term abortion.

They balked at his description of how abortionists can “rip the baby out of the womb” at nine months. These mothers claimed that late-term abortion was the “right choice” for them. Their unborn babies would likely need a heart transplant after birth, or were diagnosed with a life-threatening genetic mutation, or were “severely developmentally compromised.”

As one woman wrote of her decision to abort her already named daughter, “I chose to carry a lifetime of pain to spare Evelyn one moment of it.”

Life Devalued

Was their choice to end the life of their unborn, unhealthy baby merciful? Be careful how you answer. Under the guise of mercy, popular culture is devaluing life itself — life that is deemed imperfect or burdensome. The logic of such “mercy” will not be limited to the unborn.

Last November, Washington, D.C. joined six states in passing a bill to allow doctor-assisted suicide. To some, it may seem merciful to allow senior citizens who are sick, in pain, or unable to care for themselves to end their life. But as Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation wrote, legal assisted suicide leads to horrific outcomes. What is first called a choice can quickly become an obligation. When assisted suicide is the norm, it’s not long before the elderly see their very existence as a burden on loved ones.

If the Charlie Gard case has taught us anything, it’s that this debate about the quality of life isn’t limited to abortion or assisted suicide for the elderly. Charlie’s condition was rare, yes. But why can’t the same logic that prevented him from receiving experimental treatment be used to prevent someone with a common ailment from receiving treatment or care? 

Don’t believe me? Recently Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago advocated killing babies born with “a severe genetic defect.” Dr. Michael Brown reported on Coyne’s justification of “infanticide” here at The Stream.

Stories of Hope

When the Internet exploded with testimonies of late-term abortions in response to Trump’s debate comments last fall, a few others responded with an alternative.

Frances Klimas’ first child, a baby boy, was diagnosed with Congenital Heart Defect before he was born. Klimas was told that her son may not survive birth, and that if he did, he would have a “tragic life.” Determined to give her child the chance, Klimas did give birth. Now, she has an “energetic, curious, and thriving” toddler named Walter.

Another mother, Sarah Reiki, wrote about the choice she made to give birth to her daughter Evie. Evie had “several genetic abnormalities” that were discovered during pregnancy. Even though Evie passed away just hours after her birth, Reiki recounts the blessing of giving her life for that short time.

“Evie was so much more than her diagnosis. She was a gift,” Reiki wrote.

Every Life is Worth It

How many children diagnosed with grave health problems would grow up to be thriving like Walter, if not aborted by mothers in the name of “mercy”? How many would end up dying after all, like Evie?

Would Charlie have gone on to live a normal life if allowed to receive nucleoside bypass therapy in the U.S.? Or would he have died anyway?

We will never know. Just as we don’t know if tomorrow we will be diagnosed with cancer or hit by a car. We want to know, and sometimes pretend that we do know, but the truth is that we don’t.

But the moment we assert the authority to end innocent life simply to avoid pain — whether in the womb or out of it — we abandon hope and set mercy against justice. We forget the value of life for its own sake. We declare that someone’s life, be it compromised, disabled, unexpected, or too old, isn’t worth it.