Originally posted by no1marauder
Duchess: Personally, I would prefer that the funds raised for his experimental treatment be spent upon some of the many poor patients with very realistic hopes of recovery but not enough money to afford even basic treatment.
Your personal preferences aside, there appear to be only 16 cases in the world of the condition that Charlie has. The experiment ...[text shortened]... is condition. Thus, the State's meddling in this case might be condemning them to death as well.
Given that Charlie Gard's condition is so extremely rare, there could be at most only
extremely few persons who could benefit from any improved treatment.
My point (which No1Marauder fails to comprehend) is simply that upon a 'bang for buck' basis,
a population would derive greater health benefits if the money was allocated elsewhere.
The utilitarian moral principle is one of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'.
I can understand that a privileged affluent white American man like No1Marauder might
prefer that money be spent lavishly upon a photogenic (in Western eyes) patient with an
extremely rare incurable terminal condition than upon many poor non-Western patients
whose lives could be readily saved if they could afford standard treatments.
If Charlie Gard were a dark-skinned baby of, say, Pakistani Muslim heritage, then would
there be an equally strong outpouring of Western hearts and donations to help?