Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Charlie Gard


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/21/2017 at 9:45 AM, eugeneonegin said:

"Death panel"- no, panel of expert legal and medical opinion (including opinion from the doctors who are proposed to be treating).

TODAY, but there IS such a thing as precedent, no?  As we in the U.S. creep toward acceptance of "single payer" it needs saying that there will indeed be panels of BUREAUCRATS that will make life and death decisions for families and it will be based solely on availability and prioritization of limited resources.  Not everyone will get the care they need and it will be someone they will never see or be able to plead to that will make that decision.  There will be NO ONE to hold accountable as you watch your mom or dad or spouse or child, DIE from a condition that, a few years earlier, COULD have been successfully treated.  It is one thing to truly be unable to help the suffering but  it's entirely another thing to let bean counters decide who will live or die and what quality of life they will be allowed to have.  Hopefully, some sanity will return to the process that is underway today in the U.S. on healthcare.  All one need do to see the future of U.S. healthcare is to look at the V.A. Medical system.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, and then said:

TODAY, but there IS such a thing as precedent, no?  As we in the U.S. creep toward acceptance of "single payer" it needs saying that there will indeed be panels of BUREAUCRATS that will make life and death decisions for families and it will be based solely on availability and prioritization of limited resources.  Not everyone will get the care they need and it will be someone they will never see or be able to plead to that will make that decision.  There will be NO ONE to hold accountable as you watch your mom or dad or spouse or child, DIE from a condition that, a few years earlier, COULD have been successfully treated.  It is one thing to truly be unable to help the suffering but  it's entirely another thing to let bean counters decide who will live or die and what quality of life they will be allowed to have.  Hopefully, some sanity will return to the process that is underway today in the U.S. on healthcare.  All one need do to see the future of U.S. healthcare is to look at the V.A. Medical system.

I understand your concerns, but that sounds more like the type of issue that would occur where hospitals are run by the government, such as in the UK. Canada's single-payer system, for example, is quite different whereby the government is not as directly involved. Given my understanding of it, if this child was in a Canadian hospital, the parents' wishes would be respected. Furthermore, if there was possible life saving treatment that was not available in Canada, their health plan would cover all or part of the costs of that out of country care. So single payer systems, if structured properly, do not have to be such a bureaucratic nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Claire. said:

I understand your concerns, but that sounds more like the type of issue that would occur where hospitals are run by the government, such as in the UK. Canada's single-payer system, for example, is quite different whereby the government is not as directly involved. Given my understanding of it, if this child was in a Canadian hospital, the parents' wishes would be respected. Furthermore, if there was possible life saving treatment that was not available in Canada, their health plan would cover all or part of the costs of that out of country care. So single payer systems, if structured properly, do not have to be such a bureaucratic nightmare.

I hope you are correct.  The bottom line is that $ is tight and will only get tighter because of our debt load.  That equates to shrinking resources and prioritizing.  When the government pays, the government decides.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they have already considered every angle on this ,and since paying for the alternative treatment isn't an issue and they are 100% certain of their rulings... then why will that baby be left to suffer while they continue to dither and procrastinate and do nothing to actually help that baby?

Stubbornness, arrogance and colossal egos , mayhap?

Go ahead and pull the plug NOW, if that is really the high moral choice then they should have no problems doing it while everyone is watching.
Either that, or let the parents do something. 

Tick tock.... tick tock...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
Quote

An American hospital has offered to bring an experimental drug to the UK to treat terminally-ill Charlie Gard.

The hospital in New York has also said it is prepared to admit 11-month-old Charlie if "legal hurdles" can be cleared.

http://news.sky.com/story/charlie-gard-offered-experimental-drug-by-us-hospital-10940088

 

Quote

The mother of terminally-ill Charlie Gard has said he is not in "pain and suffering".

It comes after a US hospital offered to ship an experimental drug to the UK to help treat him.

NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Centre has also offered to admit the 11-month-old if "legal hurdles" can be cleared.

Great Ormond Street hospital has said further treatment will not help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40528840

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've read about this, the baby has a special condition which the doctors in New York actually have a treatment that has kept another kid alive for 5 years so far, and he is breathing on his own and able to move his arms. And the parents have now raised over 1.5 million dollars to perform the treatments. 

Also the Vatican has volunteered to take the child to allow for the treatment.

BUT.... So far the London Hospital has sad NO and they want the child to die. Because they feel he will have no good standard of living.

My argument then is that these same London doctors would very probably put Stephen Hawking to death, since he has so little control of his body, and suffers such a standard of living, being not able to move.

Putting this baby to death, and forming Death Panels to withhold/ration healthcare, are not so very far apart. IMHO...

If the child is going to die anyway, why not let him go to get alternative treatments by experts overseas? It seems criminal to prevent it and insist he dies under their care.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

From what I've read about this, the baby has a special condition which the doctors in New York actually have a treatment that has kept another kid alive for 5 years so far, and he is breathing on his own and able to move his arms. And the parents have now raised over 1.5 million dollars to perform the treatments. 

Also the Vatican has volunteered to take the child to allow for the treatment.

BUT.... So far the London Hospital has sad NO and they want the child to die. Because they feel he will have no good standard of living.

My argument then is that these same London doctors would very probably put Stephen Hawking to death, since he has so little control of his body, and suffers such a standard of living, being not able to move.

Putting this baby to death, and forming Death Panels to withhold/ration healthcare, are not so very far apart. IMHO...

If the child is going to die anyway, why not let him go to get alternative treatments by experts overseas? It seems criminal to prevent it and insist he dies under their care.

I'm glad you said "IMHO", because it is a very poor opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

I'm glad you said "IMHO", because it is a very poor opinion.

That's what the people who let the Eugenics people come to power in the 1940s said. That it couldn't happen "here". 

What is your opinion then? When a hospital can push relatives aside and decide to let you die, is that "Good", or "Bad"?

On 6/21/2017 at 7:45 AM, eugeneonegin said:

"Death panel"- no, panel of expert legal and medical opinion (including opinion from the doctors who are proposed to be treating).

"must die"- no, must be allowed peaceful death as patient has no (as in NO) quality or even awareness of life.

Regardless of if they are experts, or not, if they decide who lives and who dies, why can't they be called a "death panel"? 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

That's what the people who let the Eugenics people come to power in the 1940s said. That it couldn't happen "here". 

What is your opinion then? When a hospital can push relatives aside and decide to let you die, is that "Good", or "Bad"?

Oh, don't talk nonsense.

You are ridiculous. Ridiculous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

Oh, don't talk nonsense.

You are ridiculous. Ridiculous!

So you do, or do not, fully support the State's (the London Hospital in this case) right to allow someone to die, when other treatment is available, and can be paid for by private means??

So, if I have a poor opinion, educate me. Show me how it is NOT possible for something like the government allowing a child to die, could then evolve into regulated panels of doctors who ration healthcare.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So you do, or do not, fully support the State's (the London Hospital in this case) right to allow someone to die, when other treatment is available, and can be paid for by private means??

You are an idiot! You are arguing from emotion, not facts!

Of course I do not support a hospital killing someone who has a chance of viable life.

You are an idiot! Goodbye.

Edited by eugeneonegin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

You are an idiot! You are arguing from emotion, not facts!

Of course I do not support a hospital killing someone who has a chance of viable life.

You are an idiot!

I don't see any emotion in my post. Just a question.

6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So you do, or do not, fully support the State's (the London Hospital in this case) right to allow someone to die, when other treatment is available, and can be paid for by private means??

So, you would advise the UK government to release the child to the parents? That's good. I suppose your next argument will be what is "Viable life"?

History though has shown that when a government takes absolute power over the lives of their people, that it can turn into a brutal evil thing.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Another turn of events -

Quote

Great Ormond Street Hospital has applied for a fresh hearing in the case of Charlie Gard following claims of "new evidence relating to potential treatment for his condition".

It comes after seven medical experts suggested unpublished data showed therapy could improve the 11-month-old's brain condition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40535043

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like this saga can have a happy ending after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Looks like this saga can have a happy ending after all.

I don't think that is on offer. At best it MAY offer prolongation of life, but cannot reverse the already extreme brain damage that has occurred. If the parents want the baby to be the subject of an entirely experimental procedure that will have had no clinical testing even on mice then they really need to consider very carefully what potential quality of life may be afforded to extending his life and whether there is potential for causing greater harm and pain.

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, keithisco said:

I don't think that is on offer. At best it MAY offer prolongation of life, but cannot reverse the already extreme brain damage that has occurred. If the parents want the baby to be the subject of an entirely experimental procedure that will have had no clinical testing even on mice then they really need to consider very carefully what potential quality of life may be afforded to extending his life and whether there is potential for causing greater harm and pain.

.

Well, I will always bow to the knowledge and expertise of the clinicians leading medicine.

Prior to  today, there seemed no better option than let the baby have a dignified end to the illness.

If the clinicians feel they can give the baby a quality of life, then let them try. I would love to think that in 10 years time we will see a child kicking a football around, but I doubt we will.

I do not like to think what you have expressed, but I do agree with you, and hope they are not offering false hope.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

...

History though has shown that when a government takes absolute power over the lives of their people, that it can turn into a brutal evil thing.

As a matter of fact, it always has. Just look at the hysterical outbursts that have greeted your posts.

Why should the State even have direct control over the lives of all children born inside it's borders?
Is it competent to even do so?
The absolutely lackadaisical attitude towards child sex-slavery rings and FGM indicates NOT, and I am thinking that the well-being of children really isn't the main concern here.

 

On one side, people and life itself is regarded not only as a miracle, but as a good thing. The people around us are to be cherished and seen as enriching our lives.
It is also worth remembering a maxim from Ancient Greece; "All things in Moderation."

According to the other side, people are seen as a problem, and obstacle, these are your competitors for resources, first and foremost. It is a purely materialistic attitude from people who claim to be against materialism.
And in their world-view, everything must be taken to its most absolute extreme, not matter how insane, and the Rules must be made accordingly.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

According to the other side, people are seen as a problem, and obstacle, these are your competitors for resources, first and foremost. It is a purely materialistic attitude from people who claim to be against materialism.
And in their world-view, everything must be taken to its most absolute extreme, not matter how insane, and the Rules must be made accordingly.

That is what always gets me, when people who claim to be non-materialistic use materialistic arguments to support there non-materialism. I'm always like.. WHAAA?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DieChecker said:

That is what always gets me, when people who claim to be non-materialistic use materialistic arguments to support there non-materialism. I'm always like.. WHAAA?

Marxism was always pretty screwy like that, eh?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Good grief -

Quote

Great Ormond Street staff receive death threats over Charlie Gard case

Great Ormond Street says it has contacted the Metropolitan Police after a "tide" of abuse inside the hospital and on the street.

http://news.sky.com/story/great-ormond-street-staff-receive-death-threats-over-charlie-gard-case-10957933

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
Quote

The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard have ended their legal challenge to take him to the US for experimental treatment.

A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court that "time had run out" for the baby.

Grant Armstrong said Charlie's parents had made the decision because an American doctor said it was too late to give him nucleoside therapy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40708343

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for letting us know, I have been wondering about this one.

 

I think it's time to hit the bottle, I have nothing I want to say here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the parents were so full of hope and denial they could not rationalize that they were keeping their child alive only for him to be suffering.  Through their will for hom to live they did not look at thungs from his point of view.  Who would want to live with  brain damage and possibly be able to breath on their own?  I love my daughter with all my heart and would try to do anything to save her if she got sick, but forcing her body to function with her brain dead would not be an option.  Same as if I became vegetative.  Not only would I not want to live that way, but I wouldn't want her to suffer watching a shell being kept alive by machines.

I saw this posted on another forum:http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

I expect parents to put their wants and needs second to that of their children.  If that means letting them go, then they need to let them go.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's these people's human rights were violated in such a horrific way that it makes me sick. This is government run healthcare at it worst. They sentenced this kid to death in order to save face. If that kid had been cured it would look bad on socialism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I think that's these people's human rights were violated in such a horrific way that it makes me sick. This is government run healthcare at it worst. They sentenced this kid to death in order to save face. If that kid had been cured it would look bad on socialism. 

It's an interesting look at parental rights, isn't it. Here in the US our courts have intervened in situations where parents want to deny their child, for whatever reason, life saving treatment (such as blood transfusions or chemotherapy). But when it comes to stopping parents from doing everything they can to save the life of their child, we find the idea extremely repugnant.

Ultimately, everyone wants what's in the best interests of the child. The rationale behind the court's intervention in this instance, was not one of financial considerations, but out of concern that the parents had lost their objectivity in their desperate attempts to save their child's life and were making decisions that were not in his best interests.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Charlie Gard

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.