Charlie Gard Has Passed

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

What's "unfeeling" about it?

I f you don't know, I won't try to explain.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Much attention has been given to the plight of the dead patient and the parents. I think someone ought to be able to comment of the story without first stopping to genuflect.

Who the hell is asking or expecting for you to genuflect?

Quote:

Very telling that you would attempt to use someone's personal tragedy to score political points.

It is very telling as is your ignorant assertion that linkat would ever stoop to scoring political points. You've been here long enough to know this so I can only assume that you've chosen to make a point that makes you feel superior.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Thank you God that I do not live in the UK and I live in the USA where I can decide what is best for my children.

I question the wisdom in this.... is there any evidence where having parents override the will of doctors (who are trained medical experts) leads to better medical outcomes? I am highly skeptical that this would be the case. Medicine should be run by science rather than by emotions.

I do know that in cases like the use of antibiotics, and the demand for medically unnecessary MRIs, the insistence of parents in the US to override the decisions medical experts hurts the quality of care in a measurable way.

The ultimate goal is to get the best medical outcomes for the children involved. Making the parents feel empowered is not a part of this. The UK has better outcomes than the US for most medical conditions, your child would get better care in the UK with less chance of complications.

Who, pray tell, is arguing that medicine should be run by emotions?

The issue is not whether or not the GOSH had valid reasons to arrive at their decision (although I will continue to maintain that as humans they quite possibly were influenced by human foibles), it is whether or not their decision should supercede that of the child's parent...in every single case.

Upon what evidence do you base your presumptive assertion that

Quote:

The UK has better outcomes than the US for most medical conditions

Take a look at cancer statistics.

In any case, this is not a debate between the value of the US healthcare system and that of the UK's...or at least it should not be.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

The conflict here is between medical expertise (which is logical and scientific) and emotion (which hates the idea that children die). Letting the parents override medical decisions made by doctors is choosing emotions over reason.

I just looked at the cancer statistics, it seems that both sides of the political aisle (US conservatives vs liberals) are cherry picking statistics that support their case. The statistic that I think is logical to me is cancer deaths per 100,000 which gets rid of all of the questions about testing. In these the US and UK are pretty close.

But, the big question to me is who makes the medical decisions... particularly in the cases where there are ethical considerations?

Doctors are trained, they have scientific expertise and medical experience. And, doctors can make decisions without emotional attachment (which is a good thing when you are making a rational decision). Grieving parents are not so good at making these decisions.

I am a little torn here, the feelings of the parents are obviously important, they aren't the basis for a sound medical decision, but they are still a very important factor in the decision.

But still, doctors are in the best position to make these decisions objectively when considering the best way forward. Sometimes the most kind, humane and ethical course of action is to let a child die.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You are assuming that the "reason" is infallible. Do you really believe that to be the case?

Notwithstanding the intractable desire of progressives to side with experts and the State, this was not a Case Closed matter.

If this case doesn't meet your definition of a thorny matter are you at least willing to admit that one might arise?

If in all such cases you will side with the experts and the State, that's fine, but you should at least be willing to admit what this says about your thinking.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Second opinions by doctors. Who says, "I'm gong to call my parents and get a second opinion?"

Second opinions by doctors are exactly what the parents were denied.

hightor wrote:

They did have the right to obtain treatment; they don't have the right to prescribe particular procedures.

If they had the right to obtain treatment, their rights were violated when they were denied the ability to obtain treatment.

But no. People outside the United States actually don't have rights. We're the last free nation on earth.

hightor wrote:

They didn't want to take responsibility for allowing an untested procedure which might have killed the patient.

The original doctors wouldn't have taken any such responsibility. The new doctors who were offering the treatment were the ones who would have taken responsibility for the treatment.

And if these doctors prevented patients from seeking a second opinion because they wrongly believed that they would be responsible for the acts of the new doctors, then they are not competent to be doctors.

hightor wrote:

Too late. Patient died.

Do you believe that the death of victims somehow immunizes perpetrators from criticism and condemnation?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Oralloy doesn't give a monkey's about the child or grieving parents.

As usual, everything that izzythepush says is an outright lie.

izzythepush wrote:

He said just pretty disgusting things about the parents of children butchered in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Nothing that wasn't entirely justified. I'd like to take a sledgehammer to their dead kids' gravestones. For that matter, I wouldn't mind giving Kercher's gravestone a good workover too. Sometimes you just have to stand up to evil scumbags.

izzythepush wrote:

Like Finn he's looking for any excuse to attack UHC which is futile,

Universal health care? You're lying when you say I'm trying to attack it. I bet you're lying about Finn too.

izzythepush wrote:

because UHC is by far the best system.

Universal health care isn't a system.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

Read any of the comments in favor of the hospital/doctors whatever in the UK - not one of these individuals commenting have even hinted at any sort of sympathy towards the parents of this child.
Very telling.

What we're seeing here is the first sign of the death panels that the Democrats will impose on the nation if they are ever allowed to inflict their single-payer delusions on us.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

I am in this situation now - not life threatening but threatening enough if my child is not cared for correctly she may never be able to play sports. For her this would be very difficult. Insurance keeps saying things are not medically necessary that the head of sports medicine for Boston Children's is stating is medically necessary. Fortunately I live in the US so I can decide to pay out of pocket and continue to fight the insurance company for coverage. It certainly is a small comparison for parents fighting for the life of their child.

Does her insurance come from the Obamacare exchanges?

If yes I have a suggestion. My suggestion won't work unless her insurance comes from the Obamacare exchanges though.

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

They got that chance. The first opinion came from a team of doctors at possibly the world's leading children's hospital. The second doctor was actually awarded an honorary contract by GOSH so he could examine the child, offer his opinion, and potentially offer treatment. He flew over, saw the child, examined scans, and said that it was "very unlikely" that "he would benefit from this treatment."

Having the original team of doctors hire a doctor to agree with them hardly counts as a second opinion.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You are assuming that the "reason" is infallible. Do you really believe that to be the case?

I am assuming no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth Finn. If you are going to rebut my arguments, at least get my arguments right.

The argument I am making is that objective doctors, who are medically trained and not emotionally involved, are better suited to make medical decisions than grieving parents. I am not saying "perfect" or "infallible". I am saying that the decisions will be more logical, and better decisions medically.

I have also never said that this isn't a complex issue. Quite the contrary, these decisions are always horrible and ethically difficult.

Nor have I said that I will side with the experts in "all such cases". Obviously there are many cases where doctors will defer to the wishes of parents. And there is also a system of checks on the doctors in cases where there is a particularly difficult decision to be made. This case went automatically to the courts for review, and was reviewed by a team of experts.

There is no perfect way to do this. It seems to me that having a multi-layered process to make and review these difficult medical decisions is appropriate. And, the parents should be given a voice in what happens.

There is no perfect system. As a society we do the best we can. We all agree that the State must step in in certain cases. We all agree that the parents wishes must be respected in other cases. We are simply arguing over where the line should be drawn in the difficult cases in between.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

And it is pretty clear that given the thorny matter you will side with the experts and the State.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
Like Finn he's looking for any excuse to attack UHC which is futile,

Universal health care? You're lying when you say I'm trying to attack it. I bet you're lying about Finn too.

Of course he is.

Izzy is a colossal dipshit.

Case Closed.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

And it is pretty clear that given the thorny matter you will side with the experts and the State.

I am not exactly sure what your point is.

Sometimes I will side with the State, and sometimes I will side with the parents. You said the same; sometimes you will side with the State and sometimes you will side with the parents.

We are arguing over the details, and it is not at all easy to draw this line with complex moral issues. But, your position is basically the same as mine.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Read any of the comments in favor of the hospital/doctors whatever in the UK - not one of these individuals commenting have even hinted at any sort of sympathy towards the parents of this child.

Much attention has been given to the plight of the dead patient and the parents. I think someone ought to be able to comment of the story without first stopping to genuflect.

Quote:
Very telling.

Very telling that you would attempt to use someone's personal tragedy to score political points.

Huh I never mentioned anything about politics. It has nothing to do with politics and all to do with a parents rights.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Quote:

...there are standards set for what is considered abuse

The standards are not set in stone.

Quick example from a true story: my niece at age 2 was bouncing around and playing, hit a cast iron radiator and broke her arm. There was no investigation or questioning, the parents - my sister and her husband said it was a playing accident, the E.R. didn't question it.

A few years later my nephew fell and had a deep cut on his nose, the parents were questioned for hours as was my nephew.

The above incidents happened in the same city and went to the same hospital.

Quote:

...just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Anyone with basic common sense knows that there are parameters set on what consists abuse

I guess you must not have been available to inform the medical staff when my sister and brother-in-law had their run in with the legal system .

And no, I am not just "arguing for the sake oif arguing". I am presenting a real life situation which you can use to understand that when abuse is cited, it is the legal community and the medical community which are in charge and making the final call.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It does not. It us via work and I have also contacted my HR department.

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Of course there are gray areas but there are always some much more obvious.

Common sense you know there will always be gray areas. Most things in life is such, but that doesn't mean you don't put in place standards that are obvious and why things are researched.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

centrox wrote:
They got that chance. The first opinion came from a team of doctors at possibly the world's leading children's hospital. The second doctor was actually awarded an honorary contract by GOSH so he could examine the child, offer his opinion, and potentially offer treatment. He flew over, saw the child, examined scans, and said that it was "very unlikely" that "he would benefit from this treatment."

Having the original team of doctors hire a doctor to agree with them hardly counts as a second opinion.

They didn't hire him. The parents asked for him. He was their second opinion. That is the point you have comprehensively and typically missed.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

It has everything to do with politics. Not least right wing American politicians trying to tell us what to do. All they achieved was to extend this poor kid's suffering just to promote their disgusting ideology.

0 Replies

Charlie Gard Has Passed

Quick Links

My Account

able2know