Bureaucratic euthenasia and Charlie Gard
Bureaucratic euthenasia and Charlie Gard

The judges of the European Court of Human Rights have nullified the passage from the “right to die”, in which parents have the last word on the life of their sick child, to the ancient “duty to die”

It is the sad fate of Charlie Gard, an infant who has been sentenced to death by the European and British judges against the will of his father and mother, who wanted to bring him to the United States to try to cure him of a rare disease with which he was born. The court ruled that he must stay in England where doctors have decided to take him off life support and refuse to allow his parents to take him home to die.

.After Belgium, which in September 2016 legally euthanized the first child, it is now the turn of England. But the British mainstream had long before accepted infanticide. From the academics, such as King's College Professor Jonathan Glover, to the the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists.

In the West we rightly paint North Korea as a nightmare. But something links the reign of the Pyongyang Communist to Strasbourg‘s democracy: in both cities there are bureaucrats who establish when a sick child must die. 

Infanticide has been practiced for a long time, from Tahiti to Greenland to the Spartans, who carried their children to the top of a hill and killed them, and it was theorized by Plato and Aristotle, who recommended that the state kill disabled children.

Then, for two thousand years, it became taboo. Why? Because Western civilization triumphed. Now it seems that infanticide has returned to the mainstream. And it is probably not a coincidence that at the same time, Europe has been repeatedly attacked by the jihadists. 

There is a link between the Manchester terrorist, who took the lives of children like Saffie, to these judges who sententced to death a British child, Charlie Gard. The suicide bombers who strike the cities of Western Europe repeat: “We love death as you love life”.

They’re wrong. 

The character of the hedonist Michel in Michel Houellebecq’s Platform said: “I was aware, however, that such a situation was barely tenable, that people like me were incapable of ensuring the survival of a society. Perhaps, more simply, we were unworthy of life”. 

The terrorists and the judges of London agree. From its demographic rates to the passivity in the face of terrorism, from the proliferation of euthanasia cases to the cultural malaise, the West does not seem to love life. It really looks unworthy of life.