Charlie Gard only has days left to live. Many groups are working tirelessly to overcome the legal and political hurdles to save the child’s life, but as things stand his life will be terminated before the end of July. People around the world are quick to judge the court that ruled in favor of his death, but most fail to understand the greater implications of the situation. Charlie Gard’s tragic situation is not an anomaly born of a single poor decision. It is the inescapable outcome of the systematic treatment of healthcare in the UK.

The Background

If you aren’t yet fully acquainted with the Charlie Gard story, here are the quick facts. Charlie suffers from mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. It’s a very rare disorder and is often fatal. In Charlie’s case, it is severe enough that he cannot currently survive without life support.

The condition has also caused significant brain damage in the young child. Because the disease is so rare, very few medical facilities are equipped with the advanced procedures necessary for treatment. That is why the hospital caring for Charlie filed a lawsuit to be allowed to take Charlie off of life support even without the parents’ consent. Because the state is paying for care, the doctors were able to argue that the cost of life support for an untreatable child was not worthwhile.

In response, the parents were able to get a stay on the court order and Charlie will be kept alive until a new ruling. The parents managed to crowd fund roughly $1.5 million which is more than enough to seek private, specialized care in another country. Hospitals in the U.S. and the Vatican have expressed willingness to take Charlie into their care.

This negates the financial argument that the doctors used to get their kill order, but the courts so far are still favoring the British hospital. As things stand, the parents are legally forbidden to take their child to another hospital even though they’re paying out of pocket. A specialist from Columbia Medical is scheduled to appeal the case to the High Court in a few days.

Why it Matters

The awfulness of this story is obvious. No government should ever have final say on which children are allowed to live and which must die. It’s an insane premise, and most of the world is in agreement that the British government is in the wrong. Despite that, the situation is an inevitable consequence of socialized healthcare. Single-payer systems give more power to the government because they eliminate any economic power held by the citizens. Without private options, citizens are legally barred from pursuing their own best interests and are subject to the whims of the government. Even if it isn’t typically problematic, Charlie Gard cases will inevitably arise as a result. In short, socialized medicine restricts the rights of the citizens by destroying their freedom of choice in health care. It brings up an impossible question: would you rather your care be free or catered to your best interests?

More than Just Health Care

This is really just a single example in a bigger picture. The left’s socialist agenda extends the Charlie Gard problem into every facet of life. Social programs always reduce freedom with the promise of economic advantage. It feels like you get something for free, but whether you are standardizing worker pay or giving the government ownership of utilities, the only real effect is a loss of individual bargaining power. In every case in the history of the world, the consolidation of economic and political power has led to corruption and death. Despite this, the left still pushes a social agenda to secure uneducated votes. The irony is how violently they oppose the same policies when introduced from the right.

Every social program pushes an economy closer to communism. Even if free markets are imperfect and lead to flaws, they are the only economic structure that actually puts power in the hands of the people. Enough millions of people have starved in the last century to prove this point. A better way to judge the validity of a political party is to ask a simple question: would I want the other party to have control over this? If the answer is no, then you should oppose the idea. If liberals were able to complete this exercise, they would have shot down Obamacare specifically because they wouldn’t want Trump running their health care.

~ American Liberty Report