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

[jeffblue101]

As far as the pain question I thought he was a vegetable?
Is he a vegetable or not?

Yes and No, Charlie has brain damage but the doctors in the US argue that his brain condition is improvable with treatment, while UK doctors believe the damage is extensive and irreversible.

 

[musterion]

Yes and No, Charlie has brain damage but the doctors in the US argue that his brain condition is improvable with treatment, while UK doctors believe the damage is extensive and irreversible.

Alternative treatments cannot be allowed when socialism drives medical care.

Single payer = single decider.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I totally agree with this commenter on Breitbart concerning the issue of Charlie Gard. No one in the British government is brave enough to admit their motives but it's obviously the case.

"Whose child is he? Is he the state’s child? Is he the NHS’s child? Or does this child belong to the parents?”

Those are good questions. Once you accept funds from the government, you also accept the mandates. Once you accept cradle to grave medical care from the government, you accept cradle to grave government ownership of your body from the government. However, the baby never had a say in accepting socialist slavery. Charlie Gard was born into it.

The Great Ormond Street Hospital, acting, not in the best interests of Charlie Gard or his parents, but in the interests of the multicultural state, decided that a white male baby would not enhance the diversity of Britain. The resources of the state only go to meet the desired criteria of the state - and the desired criteria of the state is to replace the white males with brown and black males. "Diversity is our strength," they say. Charlie Gard is actually a threat to that "strength"."

 

[fool]

Yes and No, Charlie has brain damage but the doctors in the US argue that his brain condition is improvable with treatment, while UK doctors believe the damage is extensive and irreversible.

Send in the SEALS.

 

[musterion]

I totally agree with this commenter on Breitbart concerning the issue of Charlie Gard. No one in the British government is brave enough to admit their motives but it's obviously the case.

"Whose child is he? Is he the state’s child? Is he the NHS’s child? Or does this child belong to the parents?”

You already know this but in a socialist country, especially one in slow motion collapse...EVERYONE belongs to the State. They cannot allow anyone not to.

When citizens allow the State to promise to provide cradle to grave for everyone, that forfeits all genuine personal autonomy because the State can't do what's promised if people are still allowed to do their own thing (the ultrarich elite area always corrupt exceptions to this rule but there's nothing new there nor unique to socialism). Perpetual tax rape is just one reason. Continued control by endless regulations is another.

From there on the State calls the shots, reducing the individual is nothing more than a component of the State apparatus. Like Charlie, your ultimate fate may well be determined by cost-benefit ratios, leading to rationing as seen in Canada, or to "too bad, too expensive, here's some aspirin, now crawl away and die." (death panels). That's also why the "euthenasia" movement has picked up steam among socialists...it's cheaper.

The only reason Charlie has now gotten as far as he has is due SOLELY to bad press. There is zero sympathy for his potential welfare in the U.K. gov/med establishment because he simply tabulates out as costing too much. He's cheaper for the State if he dies.

Never ever forget: Single payer = single decider, usually with no appeal.

 

[gcthomas]

I totally agree with this commenter on Breitbart concerning the issue of Charlie Gard. No one in the British government is brave enough to admit their motives but it's obviously the case.

This has nothing at all to do with the government. We have the rule of law here, and this is between the hospital who have a duty towards the child, and the parents who disagree with the hospital. The courts are involved to settle the dispute and to represent the boys' interests. No government involvement at all — Breitbart is <gasp!> making it all up as it goes along.

"Whose child is he? Is he the state’s child? Is he the NHS’s child? Or does this child belong to the parents?”

In neither the UK nor the US is a child the property of the parents. The parents have an attachment and a serious responsibility to the child — the state does have a duty to protect children from any harmful actions of the parents, as you know, and few would have it any other way for other people's children.

Those are good questions. Once you accept funds from the government, you also accept the mandates. Once you accept cradle to grave medical care from the government, you accept cradle to grave government ownership of your body from the government. However, the baby never had a say in accepting socialist slavery. Charlie Gard was born into it.

Sorry — I tried to find something here to comment on but it just meaningless alt-right garbage.

The Great Ormond Street Hospital, acting, not in the best interests of Charlie Gard or his parents, but in the interests of the multicultural state, decided that a white male baby would not enhance the diversity of Britain. The resources of the state only go to meet the desired criteria of the state - and the desired criteria of the state is to replace the white males with brown and black males. "Diversity is our strength," they say. Charlie Gard is actually a threat to that "strength"."

Do you have any evidence for this? This is of course utter tosh, and you should be ashamed of lying about the motives of others when, in reality, you haven't a clue.

 

[gcthomas]

The only reason Charlie has now gotten as far as he has is due SOLELY to bad press. There is zero sympathy for his potential welfare in the U.K. gov/med establishment because he simply tabulates out as costing too much. He's cheaper for the State if he dies.

Never ever forget: Single payer = single decider, usually with no appeal.

Didn't you read the earlier posts?

No, of course you didn't, so I'll summarise the key point:

The cost of the treatment is not a factor, since the requested treatment HAD ALREADY BEEN SOURCED and was ABOUT TO BE ADMINISTERED when Gard suffered catastrophic epileptic seizures that severely damaged his brain.

This has never been about cost, as it would have been if this poor family had been a poor, under-insured family in the States. The UK has already offered him the best chance, but he was just too ill to benefit.

 

[gcthomas]

Yes and No, Charlie has brain damage but the doctors in the US argue that his brain condition is improvable with treatment, while UK doctors believe the damage is extensive and irreversible.

… but that doctor made that case to the Court without having seen the boy or even his case notes, and with no actual evidence of treatment efficacy for Gard's particular disease.

 

[jeffblue101]

In neither the UK nor the US is a child the property of the parents. The parents have an attachment and a serious responsibility to the child — the state does have a duty to protect children from any harmful actions of the parents, as you know, and few would have it any other way for other people's children.

If such were the case why has charlie been denied the ability to be moved to hospice or at his own family home in his last moments of life. Why must he die in hospital if his case is so hopeless? It's more like the state doesn't want their property moved off the premises.

 

[jeffblue101]

… but that doctor made that case to the Court without having seen the boy or even his case notes, and with no actual evidence of treatment efficacy for Gard's particular disease.

So Musterion's original posting is spot on accurate, the state becomes the single decider when experts disagree with one another.the state weighs all evidence and it's conclusion is absolute regardless of the wishes of both patient and family.

 

[musterion]

The cost of the treatment is not a factor, since the requested treatment HAD ALREADY BEEN SOURCED and was ABOUT TO BE ADMINISTERED when Gard suffered catastrophic epileptic seizures that severely damaged his brain.

So?

When the parents raised enough support to seek treatment elsewhere - win or lose - your government said no. You're admitting your government did all that it could (or would) do, and when an offer came from elsewhere that would cost your government nothing more than already spent, it said no.

This has never been about cost,

Initially it is for many people in all socialist countries. That's why you have rationing and incredibly long lines to wait in.

The Charlie case is now about power and them not wanting to open the door to alterantives your government can't afford to consider. The "no" on letting him go to the U.S., at no further cost to them, makes no sense otherwise.

The UK has already offered him the best chance, but he was just too ill to benefit.

And now that someone says there's a chance at a longer life, you are a tool of your government and are here insisting he should still die.

Lay it out for us: given whatever happens now need not come from taxpayer funding, why should the parents not have the right to take him elsewhere, to at least TRY something new? Make that case for us.

 

[gcthomas]

If such were the case why has charlie been denied the ability to be moved to hospice or at his own family home in his last moments of life. Why must he die in hospital if his case is so hopeless?

For the simple reason that his disease has so much potential to cause insufferable pain he has to have regular morphine and the medical monitoring that goes with that.

It's more like the state doesn't want their property moved off the premises.

Courts can and do order such moves if they consider it is in the patient's best interest. But no-one will claim that it is in Charlie's best interest to die in agony in a hospice: not even the parents have asked for that AFAIK.

 

[gcthomas]

So?

When the parents raised enough support to seek treatment elsewhere - win or lose - your government said no. You're admitting your government did all that it could (or would) do, and when an offer came from elsewhere that would cost your government nothing more than already spent, it said no.

Please pay attention - the government has nothing to do with this case and could not get involved if it wanted to. Medical decisions are not in the government's remit and they must keep out. They can't even be seen to be trying to influence the court during an active case.

Initially it is for many people in all socialist countries. That's why you have rationing and incredibly long lines to wait in.

A silly distraction, but I'll bite. NO-ONE here is stopped from funding their own medical treatment if they want to avoid the 'rationing'. How does the US do it? Oh yes, the poor don't get proper treatment, and still the GOP want to reduce what they get. Nasty sort of rationing that, I'd say.

And now that someone says there's a chance at a longer life, you are a tool of your government and are here insisting he should still die.

Lay it out for us: given whatever happens now need not come from taxpayer funding, why should the parents not have the right to take him elsewhere, to at least TRY something new? Make that case for us.

As I said, money was never the reason for the objection, so you shouldn't be surprised that having money doesn't change the real and only issue of suffering for the boy.

I know you have a bee in your bonnet about government interference in perceived freedoms, but you are trying to force this sad case into being something it isn't. This is about whether a parent can choose do something dangerous to its own child and whether the courts will act to protect that child. That is all.

No government policy (can't legally get involved), no rationing of treatment (the treatment was initially offered), nothing about the state trying to 'own' the child (no-one can).

 

[musterion]

Please pay attention - the government has nothing to do with this case and could not get involved if it wanted to. Medical decisions are not in the government's remit and they must keep out. They can't even be seen to be trying to influence the court during an active case.

Stop.

Who was it that first said the child CANNOT go to the U.S.?

I know you have a bee in your bonnet about government interference in perceived freedoms,

"Perceived" freedoms? You are a slave. Mine are real. The parents' freedom to do as they like for their son should be real. You don't want that for them. Sad little man you are.

This is about whether a parent can choose do something dangerous to its own child and whether the courts will act to protect that child.

You are truly an evil fool.

If the U.K. doctors are correct that the child is terminal and there's nothing left but to take him off all medical support, then what's dangerous about trying an alternative? He's dead anyway. It's not their money nor their reputation that's on the line.

And to say they're protecting the child by insisting he die ASAP is truly evil of you.

 

[gcthomas]

Stop.

Who was it that first said the child CANNOT go to the U.S.?

The High Court. Not the government, as I have said several times now. Get with it.

"Perceived" freedoms? You are a slave. Mine are real. The parents' freedom to do as they like for their son should be real. You don't want that for them. Sad little man you are.

You want parents to have the right to injure their own children without the interference of the courts. Call yourself a Christian? How can you care so little about the safety of children?

If the U.K. doctors are correct that the child is terminal and there's nothing left but to take him off all medical support, then what's dangerous about trying an alternative? He's dead anyway.

Pain, Musty. A painful death as opposed to a more dignified one. Why do you want to submit a poor dying child to such pain, just to support your political desires for parents to be free to do as they wish with a child, even if it could cause incalculable suffering?

Think, Musty. Think about something other than your naïve political posturing for a moment.

 

[jeffblue101]

For the simple reason that his disease has so much potential to cause insufferable pain he has to have regular morphine and the medical monitoring that goes with that.

So wrong, what about terminally I'll cancer patients, don't they feel extreme pain but yet they are free to go to hospice or live their last moments in a family home. Why can't charlie and his family have that same freedom?

Courts can and do order such moves if they consider it is in the patient's best interest. But no-one will claim that it is in Charlie's best interest to die in agony in a hospice: not even the parents have asked for that AFAIK.

Wrong on both claims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nts-refused-permission-spend-last-night-home/

.In a video on MailOnline, Mr Gard said: "Our parental rights have been stripped away.

"We can't even take our own son home to die, we have been denied that, do you not think we have been put through enough?

"Our final wish if it all went against us, and we have had this conversation many times, if we lose can we take our little boy home, to where he belongs, to die? And we are not allowed.

"We know what day our son is going to die and we don't even get a say in what happens to him
He's got to die in that place."

Charlie's parents said the hospital also said no to the baby dying in a hospice, and refused their offer to arrange private transport to their home.

 

[gcthomas]

So wrong, what about terminally I'll cancer patients, don't they feel extreme pain but yet they are free to go to hospice or live their last moments in a family home. Why can't charlie and his family have that same freedom?

Cancer patients are agents of their own fate, and can self medicate with morphine if necessary. How will Charlie Gard give this permission to die in pain or self medicate? The court is there to act for Charlie in the face of parents who want to choose a course of action that will cause him great harm.

One of the chief roles of a court if to prevent one person from causing suffering to another. Would you have that power stripped from courts? Here is the question again that you have been avoiding:

Why do you want to submit a poor dying child to such pain, just to support your political desires for parents to be free to do as they wish with a child, even if it could cause incalculable suffering?

 

[ClimateSanity]

The High Court. Not the government, as I have said several times now. Get with it.




You want parents to have the right to injure their own children without the interference of the courts. Call yourself a Christian? How can you care so little about the safety of children?



Pain, Musty. A painful death as opposed to a more dignified one. Why do you want to submit a poor dying child to such pain, just to support your political desires for parents to be free to do as they wish with a child, even if it could cause incalculable suffering?

Think, Musty. Think about something other than your naïve political posturing for a moment.

The high Court is the government fool.

 

[jeffblue101]

Cancer patients are agents of their own fate, and can self medicate with morphine if necessary. How will Charlie Gard give this permission to die in pain or self medicate? The court is there to act for Charlie in the face of parents who want to choose a course of action that will cause him great harm.

One of the chief roles of a court if to prevent one person from causing suffering to another. Would you have that power stripped from courts? Here is the question again that you have been avoiding:

Why do you want to submit a poor dying child to such pain, just to support your political desires for parents to be free to do as they wish with a child, even if it could cause incalculable suffering?

Do you even know what hospice care is? Or are you just possessed to defend any level of government control over our lives.

 

[gcthomas]

The high Court is the government fool.

Hahaha.

You win. I can't challenge so much stupid.