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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How about Governor George W. Bush?

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/in-texas-a-hospital-ethics-panel-not-the-patient-or-family-decides-whether-to-end-care-8141585

[Anonymous]

Poor little boy.
My view: there is a difference between turning off life support (I'm uncomfortable with that for a baby) vs trying an experimental, unproven so-called "treatment" that hasn't even been used on mice models (oppose).
Notice how the "doctor's" name has never been made public- that's because she/he is not proposing to enter the baby in a clinical trial, or provide an FDA approved treatment.
Science matters. We don't just randomly experiment on babies in the US like is supposedly proposed for Charlie.
Anyway. Poor little baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor little boy.
My view: there is a difference between turning off life support (I'm uncomfortable with that for a baby) vs trying an experimental, unproven so-called "treatment" that hasn't even been used on mice models (oppose).
Notice how the "doctor's" name has never been made public- that's because she/he is not proposing to enter the baby in a clinical trial, or provide an FDA approved treatment.
Science matters. We don't just randomly experiment on babies in the US like is supposedly proposed for Charlie.
Anyway. Poor little baby.

This. No doctor or hospital has been named. I think it is irresponsible to treat this baby like a guinea pig just to prolong his suffering. There is no cure for irreversible brain damage. The parents just want him to live. Maybe a doctor in the US could do that but then the UK or the US gets stuck with the cost of prolonging a child's suffering- one who can't see, hear, or move. Just because we can keep someone alive hooked to a machine, doesn't mean we should

[Anonymous]

For a great book about parents, other cultures, and parental rights to make your own medical decisions for your child, read "The Spirit Catches You, and You Fall Down."

[Anonymous]

Any of you naysayers seen the movie Lorenzo's Oil? Sometimes it's not only about saving that particular sick child....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor little boy.
My view: there is a difference between turning off life support (I'm uncomfortable with that for a baby) vs trying an experimental, unproven so-called "treatment" that hasn't even been used on mice models (oppose).
Notice how the "doctor's" name has never been made public- that's because she/he is not proposing to enter the baby in a clinical trial, or provide an FDA approved treatment.
Science matters. We don't just randomly experiment on babies in the US like is supposedly proposed for Charlie.
Anyway. Poor little baby.

People like you would not have believed Lorenzo's parents either. They could not reverse the damage done to their son but they saved so many other children from the same fate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor little boy.
My view: there is a difference between turning off life support (I'm uncomfortable with that for a baby) vs trying an experimental, unproven so-called "treatment" that hasn't even been used on mice models (oppose).
Notice how the "doctor's" name has never been made public- that's because she/he is not proposing to enter the baby in a clinical trial, or provide an FDA approved treatment.
Science matters. We don't just randomly experiment on babies in the US like is supposedly proposed for Charlie.
Anyway. Poor little baby.

People like you would not have believed Lorenzo's parents either. They could not reverse the damage done to their son but they saved so many other children from the same fate.

What treatment is proposed for Charlie? Because Lorenzo changed his diet and had special oil. I bet Charlie's treatment is nowhere near as non-invasive. Or simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Any particular reason why the life of this baby is worth less than the life of a Syrian refuge?

Why are you talking about Syrian refugees? Has Donald Trump tweeted about being delighted to help a Syrian refugee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I read those links and they actually say the opposite. Those US families were allowed to take their children home, to other countries, or to other facilities to seek more care. In the UK they are forbidding the parents from seeking more care. In both countries, doctors have refused to provide what they consider "futile" care. But that is very different from the government forbidding the parents from seeking more care.

[Anonymous]

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

You think,insurance would cover this? Think,again.

[Anonymous]

Op, are you not aware of how many children in the third world have conditions that could actually be cured if they were able to receive medical treatment in the U.S.? In their case, the issue is only money. Perhaps direct your outrage there.

[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.

Every hospital in the country has an ethics committee to decide whether experimental or otherwise unusual treatment should be rendered. The parents would not have an unfettered right to seek futile treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Every hospital in the country has an ethics committee to decide whether experimental or otherwise unusual treatment should be rendered. The parents would not have an unfettered right to seek futile treatment.

In the US I believe that the parents would have a right to SEEK treatment (and surely to take their terminally ill child home to die). I agree that they don't have the right to force a doctor or hospital to provide treatment (or continue life support). But those are apparently not the facts in Charlie's case: they believe there is a doctor willing to give treatment, or they want to take the baby home to die, but the UK courts forbid it. In the US such parents have been allowed to seek treatment or bring the child home.

[Anonymous]

Yes, they have been allowed to take him home. For a time, the doctors were against it, but they have now allowed it. It was always their final plan, and they could take him home today. Instead, they want to prolong his life, "fight".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You think,insurance would cover this? Think,again.

Exactly! My cousin died of colon cancer b/c his "private" insurance refused to continue care.