Connie Yates and Chris Gard believe they should speak for their son in court after learning that the lawyer, Victoria Butler-Cole, appointed to represent Charlie's state guardian also chairs Compassion in Dying. This organization is the sister body of Dignity in Dying, which advocates for legalized physician-assisted suicide in the United Kingdom.
Dignity in Dying used to be called the Voluntary Euthanasia Society—clearly revealing their ideological bias. Butler-Cole was appointed to the represent Charlie’s parents in their battle to get their child experimental threatened by the publicly-funded state body Cafcass.
Cafcass is supposed to acts in the best interests of children in court cases, but Connie and Chris don’t believe Butler-Cole can have Charlie’s best interests in mind when she also actively supports Euthanasia.
“The family find it astonishing that the quango that appointed the barrister to act in the interests of Charlie Gard is the chairman of Compassion in Dying, the sister body of Dignity in Dying, formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society,” a source close to the family told The Telegraph. “The implication is obvious. It looks like a profound conflict of interest.”
This especially seems to be a conflict of interest because the state's argument is that Charlie's quality of life means he is better off dead; his parents disagree. However, euthanasia advocates use the same reasoning to explain why people should legally be able to die via with medical help.
The charity disagrees that Butler-Cole’s battle for legalized euthanasia poses a conflict of interest in the Charlie Gard case. They told The Telegraph, “There are clear differences between this case, the work of Dignity in Dying and the work of Compassion in Dying. The Charlie Gard case is about making decisions in the best interests of a seriously ill child.”
What do you think? Is this a conflict of interest?