Universal Healthcare UK - Baby can't have treatment in US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it doesn't. Pay for your abortion yourself and no one will say a word to you.
In case of this baby, parents are willing to pay cash but government stoped them and stripped their parental rights to decide their baby's fate.

It's very delicate territory. Putting emotions aside, this poor kid is hopeless. But if was his mother I would exhaust every opportunity to nourish him to an executable quality of life.

Wrong and wrong. The state governments are trying to shut down abortion clinics. There are five states with only one clinic.

And the parents may have money, but the whole thing is insane. The child has irreversible brain damage. Can't see, hear, move, or make a sound. The treatment will not cure this, even if somehow it cures his underlying condition. The courts are stopping them because what they are doing is inhumane.

I don't think it's for the courts to decide if a bona fide medical treatment is inhumane. It's the parents' right to decide.

Just like it is only for the the parents to decide if their method of physical discipline is inhumane? Because that always goes so well.

Also, this is not a "bona fide medical treatment." It's an experiment, not established standard of care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

don't be ridiculous, the government takes children from the parents all the time in the US when the parents are unable to properly care for them and the kids may be in danger. even for medical care, if you have a child with a serious illness and the parents refuse treatment, for religious reasons or other reasons, often judges end up making decisions. this happens in the USA. people who talk about the UK case simply do not know the case, the child is already brain dead, can't breath, can't swallow, can't move anything, his muscles are gone, is dying and there is no cure and no treatment. even the so called US treatment is something that would not help even if it worked and is not a real cure. I understand the parents but the reality is that the child is dying.

I also find disgusting that OP talks about this tragedy just to score a political point. if anything, these parents were lucky they are in the UK where a universal health care system threated their terminal child since birth doing anything possible and incurring $$$$$$$$$$ expenses at no cost to the parents. then a private doctor in the US was ready to "treat" the child (with no real hope of even improving his condition) but only for millions of dollars cash........ yes, sure, the US system is so much better. nope!

I don't think in the US parentsl rights could be interfered with because the parents wanted *more* treatment. I don't know much about UK family law but this case would have a different outcome here.

If the parents wanted treatment that was 1) experimental, 2) bringing harm to the child, and 3) no hope of improving quality of life? Same in the US.

[Anonymous]

To the physician who is contributing inform action, thank you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are comfortable allowing government to make decisions for you even if you can afford to go private?

Your re-phrasing the issue and fake outrage make me want to puke.

No, that's the way it is.
Parents loose all the rights to make decisions as soon as baby is admitted to the hospital. Doctors will decide his faith.


Personally, I think if the baby is terminally I'll, but if he was any other color than white, PC would play in his favor and he would get transported to the US.

Uh ... you mean "fate," right?

Are you under the impression that physicians can override a parent's decisions about their child's treatment without going through a legal process, first? Like, that they just get to do it on a whim, without having to justify it in court?

Again, this is dangerous territory but not surprised liberals don't get it

I am a liberal and a lawyer, and this is what I get -- both the US and the UK have legal systems in which a doctor or hospital who disagrees with a parent's medical choices for a child can ask the court to step in and make a judgment as to what is in the best interests of the child. These cases are not uncommon. Doctors have an ethical duty of care to their patients. Parents have a legal and blood yie of responsibility. Both parent's and doctor's decisions can sometimes become skewed by other interests. Parents, understandably, fall victim to last ditch scam treatments. Doctors or hospitals may feel omniscient or have skewed financial interests, either to incur more cost or to stop costs. I prefer, at least, to have a legal system which can dispationately examine these cases, rather than always defering to the parents in cases of disagreement.

I'm thinking of cases where parents have Munchausen by proxy or refuse treatment for child due to religious beliefs, wacky holistic treatment beliefs, etc. The downside is that doctors and the courts can also be wrong.

Honestly, I have a very different ethical take on this, which is that decisions about care for a vegetative patient are often about helping the family come to terms with letting go. It may have been a legally correct move for the hospital to go to the courts, but it wasn't wise. The hospital would have done better to work with the parents and find an exceptional solution to such exceptional circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of this baby's case. This was a child welfare fight. The doctors say they do not know if Charlie can feel pain. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot move, he cannot make a noise. He has progressive muscle weakness and brain damage, and is on life support (ventilator to breath and feeding tube.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/

Why was there a legal fight?

Charlie's parents wanted to take him to see specialists in the USA, who had offered an experimental therapy called nucleoside.

A crowdfunding page was set up in January to help finance the therapy.

But doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What were the stages of the legal battle?

March 3: Great Ormond Street bosses asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that life support treatment should stop.

The judge was told that Charlie could only breathe through a ventilator and was fed through a tube.

April 11: Mr Justice Francis said doctors could stop providing life-support treatment after analysing the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

He concluded that life-support treatment should end and said a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

May 3: Charlie's parents then asked Court of Appeal judges to consider the case.

May 23: After analysing the case, three Court of Appeal judges dismissed the couple's appeal two days later.

June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.

June 20: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights started to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions.

A European Court of Human Rights spokeswoman said the case would get "priority". "In light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the court has already accorded it priority and will treat the application with the utmost urgency," she added.

June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".

In other words, the government took the child from the parents. Is this something you want? Think hard about it.

don't be ridiculous, the government takes children from the parents all the time in the US when the parents are unable to properly care for them and the kids may be in danger. even for medical care, if you have a child with a serious illness and the parents refuse treatment, for religious reasons or other reasons, often judges end up making decisions. this happens in the USA. people who talk about the UK case simply do not know the case, the child is already brain dead, can't breath, can't swallow, can't move anything, his muscles are gone, is dying and there is no cure and no treatment. even the so called US treatment is something that would not help even if it worked and is not a real cure. I understand the parents but the reality is that the child is dying.

I also find disgusting that OP talks about this tragedy just to score a political point. if anything, these parents were lucky they are in the UK where a universal health care system threated their terminal child since birth doing anything possible and incurring $$$$$$$$$$ expenses at no cost to the parents. then a private doctor in the US was ready to "treat" the child (with no real hope of even improving his condition) but only for millions of dollars cash........ yes, sure, the US system is so much better. nope!

I don't think in the US parentsl rights could be interfered with because the parents wanted *more* treatment. I don't know much about UK family law but this case would have a different outcome here.

Well, you think wrong. I posted links earlier in the thread that you can read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the physician who is contributing inform action, thank you

A pleasure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love the death of children. It's incredibly sick.

Conservatives love forcing a child to be born to a mother who can't take care of it, then scoff at the mother for having that child out of wedlock and not being able to take care of it.

Why get pregnant if you can't support a child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love the death of children. It's incredibly sick.

Conservatives love forcing a child to be born to a mother who can't take care of it, then scoff at the mother for having that child out of wedlock and not being able to take care of it.

Why get pregnant if you can't support a child?

Exactly. And it's awesome that the fewer barriers there are to the most reliable forms of contraception, the fewer babies people have.

Like magic or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love the death of children. It's incredibly sick.

Conservatives love forcing a child to be born to a mother who can't take care of it, then scoff at the mother for having that child out of wedlock and not being able to take care of it.

Why get pregnant if you can't support a child?

Um, unplanned pregnancies? Which would almost entirely go away if we made IUDs free for all women who want them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love the death of children. It's incredibly sick.

Conservatives love forcing a child to be born to a mother who can't take care of it, then scoff at the mother for having that child out of wedlock and not being able to take care of it.

Why get pregnant if you can't support a child?

Um, unplanned pregnancies? Which would almost entirely go away if we made IUDs free for all women who want them.

Unplanned pregnancy in most cases is an euphemism for not being responsible enough to use birth control

I am very pro abortion, but wish it were used for its intended purpose and not birth control

[Anonymous]

"Pay for your own abortion and no one will say a word to you"? lol lol. What planet is that on?

And pp who says you are very "pro abortion"? Liar.

[Anonymous]

Trump has stepped in and tweeted that he'd be delighted to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump has stepped in and tweeted that he'd be delighted to help.

So, he has time to save one non American baby (who is on life support) in the UK, but doesn't have the will or time to save thousands of children here in the US in the form of getting a more comprehensive health care bill past? Good to know where his priorities are.

[Anonymous]

It is true that the UK and Europe are better than the US at preventing prolonging of life when someone is terminal. Or worse, if you are against that. That is what you're protesting, I believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is true that the UK and Europe are better than the US at preventing prolonging of life when someone is terminal. Or worse, if you are against that. That is what you're protesting, I believe.

Apparently you are in favor of the state removing custody from loving and capable parents in order to prevent a kid from receiving privately-paid medical care (which, like many treatments these days, may well not work)

That makes you what, a Soviet bureaucrat? A Nazi lover?