Charlie Gard Has Passed

@emmett grogan,

Good Grief there is nothing here about

Quote:

the US government has every right and protection to deny any non US citizen's wishes.

Please go away

0 Replies

@centrox,

We know that. You are busy lambasting a person who does care.

0 Replies

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

In any case, it wasn't the "government" that decided this, it was the hospital, and the independent judiciary, in accordance with the law.

Unless the UK is a whole lot different than the US, the independent judiciary is part of the government.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I was answering some rude question by you, thus explaining that I was busy and so would others be.

I hope the bird of paradise flies up your nose, but that makes me laugh.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Most all of Europe has the much lauded universal healthcare. That puts the government squarely in charge of and in the business of EVERYBODY'S health care. If you don't want the government poking its nose into folks health care then keep the government out of health care.

0 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

And what rude question might that have been?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Don't even try.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Don't even try.

Seriously? What's he trying? This?

Quote:

I'm very surprised that there hasn't been a topic devoted to the tragic case of the infant Charlie Gard. I've searched for one but with no success. I've no desire to start a new one if a thread has already been started, so if one has I would appreciate being directed to it.

Centrox barged in and started calling everyone a fucktard. Maybe you have mistaken the 2 posters?

2 Replies

@centrox,

Quote:

...political football...

Sadly true.

Quote:

...been a vegetable since...

Deeply offensive to refer to anybody, especially a child in this way. Further, it was evident the child still had physical feelings and reactions, therefore not a lost cause.

0 Replies

@centrox,

You are aware, hopefully, that the parents were interested in help from any and all sources. And,whether you like it or not the U.S. and even the Vatican became involved. Now, if you want to live on an isolated little island and never have any interactions with other nations, by all means search for such a space. In this day in and age with medical information and technology being what and where it is, seeking aid is not the high crime you'd like to turn it into.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

You misinterpreted my remark.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Unless the UK is a whole lot different than the US, the independent judiciary is part of the government.

In the UK, the executive comprises the Crown and the UK Government. The judiciary exercises scrutiny over the executive by ensuring that the executive acts within its powers - the judiciary is indeed independent though the courts judges are required to interpret legislation in line with the intention of Parliament.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Finn was attempting to sort out the reason for a stupid, unwarranted attack and I was trying to help him avoid the irritation.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

In most cases (and countries), doctors decide when to remove life support from an incurably ill child, in consultation with parents, and these cases rarely go to court.
But in the UK, the courts are the final arbiter when irreconcilable disputes arise. (And this has nothing to do with the NHS, or "socialized medicine".)

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But in the UK, the courts are the final arbiter when irreconcilable disputes arise. (And this has nothing to do with the NHS, or "socialized medicine".)

Exactly. Thank you.

0 Replies

This poor lad was doomed from the start, the doctors at Great Ormond Street are world class and took a humanitarian decision for the right reason. The parents were taken in by snakeoil evangelicals who care nothing about a dignified life, and money grubbing pharmaceutical companies desperate for publicity. This ended as it would have always have ended, with an infant dying from a terminal disease, only his suffering went on for much longer than it should have.

What's really ironic is that while Trump was puffing and blowing about extending the suffering of a terminally ill English kid he was trying to take health cover away from thousands on non terminally ill American children.

American Republicans truly are a disgusting bunch.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

In most cases (and countries), doctors decide when to remove life support from an incurably ill child, in consultation with parents, and these cases rarely go to court.
But in the UK, the courts are the final arbiter when irreconcilable disputes arise. (And this has nothing to do with the NHS, or "socialized medicine".)

It is amazing how a thread can go sideways so fast when people with axes to grind join in.

The original post has nothing to do with NHS and "socialized medicine. The only time I made any reference to either was in explaining that the cost of treatment for Charlie in the US would have been covered by private donations and would not have involved NHS or even private health insurance.

I did not write that the decision to terminate life support and refuse the removal of the child to the US was made by the NHS. Clearly it was made by doctors (as I've acknowledged) who thought they knew better than the parents as to how Charlie should be treated. This has nothing to do with the NHS or socialized medicine. It has to do with the State usurping life and death decisions about a child from his parents

You can slice the baloney as thin as you like but Courts are a State institution.

Clearly the courts in the UK are the final arbiter Captain Obvious. The question wasn't "How could this happen?" It was "Should this happen?"

If you're fine with it, that's wonderful, but do me a favor and don't assist anyone in turning this into a defense of NHS when NHS was never under attack.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

The doctors are employed and paid by the NHS, and Charlie Gard was in a NHS-hospital as well as as in a NHS-hospice.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Quote:

Of course it is up to the parents. Unless a parent is abusing their child, there is no reason for the government to be involved. As far as the child being in pain and distress - one - there is pain killers; two - how often do human beings go through pain even when there is no hope of recovery and we keep them alive? In the case where a person (whether it child or adult) cannot decide for themselves - a proxy is put in place in this case the parent.

How do you feel about Seventh Day Adventist parents who don't want their kids to have blood transfusions? Or parents who don't want their kids to be immunized? Are you really saying there is "no reason for the government to be involved" in medical decisions?

If you are consistent on this, than you are taking a respectable stance. But I don't think that saying that the government has no role in being involved in medical decisions is as simple a stance as you are pretending. Western governments regulate quite a bit based on medical ethics; there are laws on abortion, and human cloning, and organ donation... all of these things are regulated even if a parent wants them to give hope to their child.

I agree with Finn, the issue is whether the State has the right to make life or death medical decisions against the will of the parents. However, I believe that in cases like vaccinations, and blood transfusions, and ethically questionable procedures, that the State does have that right.

2 Replies

There have been similar cases in other countries. In Ireland practically the same scenario played out in 2014, when the case of a child with mitochondrial syndrome came before the Irish High Court. The family's lawyer said this week: "The parents never believed there could be a miracle, but wanted to know they had done everything they could to help their child. At the hearing, everybody accepted that the condition was terminal. Everybody accepted that the child in question was going to die.” He also said that he advised the parents at the centre of the Irish case against going public. He was concerned that “ultra religious” people would try to become involved, that "situations like this" could lead to the family in question becoming ”part of someone else’s agenda, to the point it’s no longer about your child’s needs”. He commented: "As is the case in Charlie Gard’s case, it’s now about the everybody but Charlie Gard. The parents are tied up in a circus."

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said on July 13, “Health care should be between patients and doctors. Government has no place in the life or death business.” Sound familiar? Ryan didn’t frame the debate quite right in his Facebook post. Health care should be between physicians and patients, he said — but it was Charlie’s own doctors who were pushing for a palliative care-only approach. Ultimately, it wasn’t Ryan’s government bureaucrats, but rather Charlie’s health-care providers who decided that his condition was beyond treatment. (British courts agreed with them.)

3 Replies

Charlie Gard Has Passed

Quick Links

My Account

able2know