British socialist death panel to "allow" baby to die, despite parents' wishes

[musterion]

British socialist death panel to "allow" baby to die, despite parents' wishes

The Washington post headline hit me wrong (or maybe right) yesterday when I saw it, because it is one of the most evil things I have ever read:

"Against his parents' wishes, this terminally ill infant will be allowed to die."

Carefully take that sentence apart word by word and think about what it's actually saying.

What it's about...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4644268/Charlie-Gard-s-parents-lose-final-appeal.html

Do not believe the spin the Left is putting out on this. This has nothing to do with the chance that the treatment may fail to keep the baby alive -- that is irrelevant since the parents have raised money to pay for the treatment themselves.

What the Left fears is the chance that it could succeed in extending this baby's life. The Left just can't allow something that to become common knowledge, and then in demand, then people demanding consideration of other alternative treatments that bureaucrats won't or can't pay for...so the child must die.

Single payer = single denier with no appeal.

 

[kmoney]

I'm missing something. If the parents have raised the necessary funds then why do they need permission to take Charlie to the US for treatment? :idunno:

 

[musterion]

I'm missing something. If the parents have raised the necessary funds then why do they need permission to take Charlie to the US for treatment? :idunno:

Because the government wants the baby to die ASAP and, evidently, the doctors there have the authority to refuse to release the baby from their "care."

Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, wanted to take their 10-month-old son – who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage – to the US to undergo a therapy trial.

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, where Charlie is being cared for, said they wanted him to be able to ‘die with dignity’.

But the couple, from Bedfont, west London, raised almost £1.4million so they could take their son to America but a series of courts ruled in favour of the British doctors.

It comes after specialists at Great Ormond Street said therapy in the US is experimental and will not help and added that life support should stop.

And after losing legal battles in the UK, Charlie’s parents were hoping judges in Strasbourg, France, would come to their aid.

But on Tuesday afternoon, the ECHR rejected a last-ditch plea and their ‘final’ decision means the baby’s life support machine will be switched off.

See? The parents' ability to pay for the alternative treatment is completely irrelevant. The communists cannot have a precedent being set in this case, so they're shooting down all possibility that they parents can escape with their child alive (which is what it would amount to -- an escape from a communist country).

This is about freedom, and this couple has just been told they don't have it.

 

[Tambora]

I'm missing something. If the parents have raised the necessary funds then why do they need permission to take Charlie to the US for treatment? :idunno:

I wondered that myself.

The article says:

Judges today said that the parents of Charlie (pictured) could not take him to the US for treatment

I don't know if that means they prohibited the parents from taking the child to the USA, or if that means they won't make the UK hospital help them move the child to the USA.
It seems that the child would have to be moved either in a helicopter or ambulance that has a life support system on it to keep the child alive until admitted to a USA hospital.
Otherwise, the parents would have to take the child from the UK hospital and transport the child in a vehicle without life support.
How long the child could survive without being on life support was not mentioned in the article.

I hate government health care that is given authority that determines the fate of it's patients totally apart from parents wishes.
I hate government health care, period.

 

[Tambora]

This is about freedom, and this couple has just been told they don't have it.

That's the way I see it too.
Go to the hospital and you automatically give them authority over your care.
Even though you pay for (hire them) for your care, you are not the boss of them.
They have complete control of your destiny and you have no say.
That ain't right.

 

[jeffblue101]

I'm missing something. If the parents have raised the necessary funds then why do they need permission to take Charlie to the US for treatment? :idunno:

communism is rarely ever rational

 

[musterion]

communism is rarely ever rational

Imagine, Winston, a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

 

[jeffblue101]

here is an article that explains the courts decision, essentially according to them a life with brain damage is not worth saving or living.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-court-defies-parents-wishes-rare-disease-die

According to the Honourable Mr. Justice Nicholas Francis of the High Court’s Family Division, who authored the decision subsequently upheld by the higher courts, death is “in Charlie’s best interests.” There was no “scientific basis” for believing that Charlie would respond positively to the experimental American treatment; meanwhile, there is “unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage.” “If,” wrote Justice Francis, “Charlie’s damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now?” It was “with a heavy heart,” the judge said, that he sided with the doctors. Charlie should be permitted “to die with dignity.” In conclusion, Justice Francis praised the parents he had just overruled: “Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie’s parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born.”

So it was that successive courts in the United Kingdom and in Europe simultaneously found that Connie Yates and Chris Gard had devoted themselves unhesitatingly to their son’s welfare for ten months, and also that Yates and Gard could not be trusted to act in their son’s best interests.

The logic of this decision — that a patient’s best interests can be conclusively determined by an objective third party possessed of adequate “scientific” knowledge — will be familiar to anyone who has watched state power over issues of life and death expand throughout the Western world in recent years. In the early 2000s, this logic was at work in the Terry Schiavo case, in which American courts took it upon themselves to ascertain Schiavo’s unexpressed will and enact it; inevitably, they endorsed her death, on the grounds that she would not want to live “with no hope” in her present vegetative state. Likewise, in Europe, medical “expertise” has been not simply a justification for, but an encouragement to, assisted suicide; guidance from medical professionals has more than a little to do with the fact that, in Belgium and the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, assisted suicide is now an acceptable remedy for people suffering not just from terminal illnesses but from depression, autism, and anorexia.

 

[musterion]

They don't want three things:

1. Any true freedom of choice for its citizens, especially when it comes to matters of life and death. The State alone must determine who must die, how and when.
2. Any measure for quality of life that they did not establish; that would make their death panel decisions arbitrary and disputable - they can't have that.
3. Any chance of alternative treatments succeeding, no matter how remote. That would create public outcry and demand for alternatives they can't/don't want to provide.

 

[jeffblue101]

I don't know if that means they prohibited the parents from taking the child to the USA, or if that means they won't make the UK hospital help them move the child to the USA.
It seems that the child would have to be moved either in a helicopter or ambulance that has a life support system on it to keep the child alive until admitted to a USA hospital.
Otherwise, the parents would have to take the child from the UK hospital and transport the child in a vehicle without life support.
How long the child could survive without being on life support was not mentioned in the article.

according to a BBC article the family has received about 1.7 million dollars(I converted from British pounds) for his care, so it's all about government control over an individual's life rather costs.

 

[Tambora]

according to a BBC article the family has received about 1.7 million dollars(I converted from British pounds) for his care, so it's all about government control over an individual's life rather costs.

That's what it look like.
Governments (all of them) are taking authority over things they should have never had control of in the first place.

 

[kmoney]

I wondered that myself.

The article says:

Judges today said that the parents of Charlie (pictured) could not take him to the US for treatment

I don't know if that means they prohibited the parents from taking the child to the USA, or if that means they won't make the UK hospital help them move the child to the USA.
It seems that the child would have to be moved either in a helicopter or ambulance that has a life support system on it to keep the child alive until admitted to a USA hospital.
Otherwise, the parents would have to take the child from the UK hospital and transport the child in a vehicle without life support.
How long the child could survive without being on life support was not mentioned in the article.

I also thought it may be about the hospital assisting in the transport. But if the parents have that much money then I wonder if they could pay for transport as well.

I hate government health care that is given authority that determines the fate of it's patients totally apart from parents wishes.
I hate government health care, period.

I'm not convinced this couldn't happen with private health care/insurance as well. There are always going to be decisions made, whether it's gov't or private.

 

[kmoney]

here is an article that explains the courts decision, essentially according to them a life with brain damage is not worth saving or living.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-court-defies-parents-wishes-rare-disease-die

The likelihood of it working may be slim but I don't like the gov't preventing the parents from trying. :nono: There may be times when the gov't needs to override parents in the care of children but this doesn't sound like one of those times.

 

[Nick M]

I'm missing something.

You can say that again.

 

[Nick M]

communism is rarely ever rational

When is communism rational?

 

[Nick M]

The likelihood of it working may be slim but I don't like the gov't preventing the parents from trying. :nono: There may be times when the gov't needs to override parents in the care of children but this doesn't sound like one of those times.

When would be one of those times?

 

[musterion]

When would be one of those times?

Whenever the government decides that's how it's going to be. That's what he thinks but I doubt he'll come out and say it.

Notice he also couldn't even conceptualize a medical service transaction ever taking place without some form of insurance.

 

[musterion]

Kmoney, try to get the bottom line here.

The parents have raised enough cash to transport the baby themselves, and so cost the NHS not one more cent.

The baby is likely to die anyway; the parents aren't arguing that. So what's to lose beside the money people freely chose to take the chance? The government is out NOTHING ELSE at that point (monetarily).

But the European regime's answer is still NO. From the "human rights" commission, no less.

That tells you something very important about why they're really saying no.

Honestly, now. Why do you think that is?

 

[drbrumley]

The Washington post headline hit me wrong (or maybe right) yesterday when I saw it, because it is one of the most evil things I have ever read:

"Against his parents' wishes, this terminally ill infant will be allowed to die."

Carefully take that sentence apart word by word and think about what it's actually saying.

What it's about...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4644268/Charlie-Gard-s-parents-lose-final-appeal.html

Do not believe the spin the Left is putting out on this. This has nothing to do with the chance that the treatment may fail to keep the baby alive -- that is irrelevant since the parents have raised money to pay for the treatment themselves.

What the Left fears is the chance that it could succeed in extending this baby's life. The Left just can't allow something that to become common knowledge, and then in demand, then people demanding consideration of other alternative treatments that bureaucrats won't or can't pay for...so the child must die.

Single payer = single denier with no appeal.

This is disgusting.

 

[musterion]

This is disgusting.

Bureaucratic death panels usually are.