In another article by Savulescu, titled “The Moral of the Case of Charlie Gard: Give Dying Patients Experimental Treatment … Early”, concluded:
Moral of the Story
This case might be a very good example of the detrimental consequences of the act-omission distinction. Because doctors and others are more reluctant to withdraw medical treatment than withholding treatment, often a trial of treatment is not commenced (because of a fear it will have to continue indefinitely). This has disastrous consequences in denying people a chance and also failing to gather more accurate information about prognosis. The best course of action, in this case, would have been to commence experimental treatment while Charlie was anyway being ventilated during various court processes.
There is an important lesson to be drawn. Where there is contention about an experimental treatment that is requested by a dying or severely ill patient (or their representative), it should be provided with a plan for active withdrawal.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.