Poor Charlie Gard - A Victim of Government Controlled Healthcare

[Spare_change]

You’ve probably never heard of Charlie Gard.

He’s a terminally ill 10-month-old baby who has now been sentenced to death by the European Court on Human Rights – an Orwellian organization if ever there has been one – which determined that while his parents wanted to take him to the United States for a long-shot potentially life-saving treatment, they could not. Instead, the Court ruled, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children would withdraw all life support, killing Charlie. What was the Court’s justification? Charlie had to “die with dignity.”

Charlie suffers from a mitochondrial disease that destroys the muscles and the brain. There was no available treatment in the United Kingdom, and so Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised $1.6 million to fly him to the United States for an experimental treatment. But the hospital argued that the treatment wouldn’t help Charlie, and would prolong his suffering, and that they knew better than the parents who had to suffer through his illness and care for him every single day. Thus, the hospital argued that it would be in Charlie’s best interest to die.

UK courts agreed. The Gards appealed to the EU. And now the court has ruled against them, with the ECHR stating, “Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.”

His parents announced:

We begged them to give us the weekend. Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time. But now there isn’t even time for that. Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator but we are being rushed. Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can’t choose how or when our son dies.

There are several levels to the perversity here.

First, for all the talk of the evils of the American system of healthcare, at least we promote freedom of choice – and give as many options to people for their care as they can afford. As the doctor who offered experimental treatment stated in court, if Charlie had become ill at “any institution in the US,” they would immediately begin the treatment. But in the UK, a socialized medicine country where individual needs come secondary to the preservation of the “system,” there is less concern with parental rights. In the United States, we are so interested in the freedom to obtain care that we insist on releasing a legally brain-dead girl to her mother, so long as her mother wishes to keep her hooked up to a ventilator; in the UK, they are insistent on withdrawing the opportunity for life-saving care because it’s better to kill the child than keep it alive. While this case became a court proceeding, every single day the NHS makes decisions about how to ration care. Bernie Sanders tweets about how nobody should be denied care because they can’t afford it – but that’s what happens all the time under socialized medicine – and you don’t even have the capacity to raise the money to fund the care yourself.

Second, a government-run system breeds a shift in control. In the United States, the case of Charlie Gard is a major scandal; in the EU, it’s apparently no big deal. That’s because we in the United States like to think that we control our lives and that as parents, our priorities matter more than those of doctors who do not raise our children. But once you give up control over life and death decisions to an impersonal government, it’s nearly impossible to take back that control. This case could have been easy: the hospital could have released the child. The hospital didn’t do so because it believed that it had the final say. And why shouldn’t it? It always has the final say.

Third, allowing the government to control the value of life means devaluing life. It has been a fundamental hallmark of Western civilization that life ought to be preserved, in spite of pain, in spite of suffering – that death is no solution to suffering. But that notion has been stripped away in favor of the secularist standard of “healthy living” – and so in Europe, euthanasia is now available to people who are not terminal, but merely suffer from depression or anorexia. Better to "die with dignity" than live with pain, in the new math. That's a far cry from the original Hippocratic Oath which overtly stated, "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course," or even the Tufts Medical School version, which stated, "Above all, I must not play at God."

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You are an idiot. The child is in constant pain and the hospital and the courts have taken a difficult decision in his best interests.
Its worth noting that he would not have lived this long in the backward US.

 

[Spare_change]

You are an idiot. The child is in constant pain and the hospital and the courts have taken a difficult decision in his best interests.
Its worth noting that he would not have lived this long in the backward US.

Yep --- kill him. It's good for him.


(Or, is it good for the state so they don't have to pay the medical costs?)

As for the name calling ---- grow the fuck up.

 

[depotoo]

How is Mitochondrial Disease Diagnosed?

• There is no reliable and consistent means of diagnosis.
• Diagnosis can be made by one of the few physicians who specialize in mitochondrial disease.
• Diagnosis can be made by blood DNA testing and/or muscle biopsy but neither of these tests is completely reliable.

Misdiagnosis

• Lack of understanding of the disease and misinterpretation of symptoms can lead to misdiagnosis.
• Further progression of symptoms can occur if the symptoms are missed and opportunities for treatment and support are not recognized.

About Mitochondrial Disease - Mito FAQ | Mitochondrial Disease Action Committee - MitoAction

They won't even allow them to give their child a chance, with something they claim he has, which has a propensity to misdiagnosis. That is ridiculous.

You are an idiot. The child is in constant pain and the hospital and the courts have taken a difficult decision in his best interests.
Its worth noting that he would not have lived this long in the backward US.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are an idiot. The child is in constant pain and the hospital and the courts have taken a difficult decision in his best interests.
Its worth noting that he would not have lived this long in the backward US.

1) Anyone who thinks the courts have his best interests in mind more than the parents has no business calling anyone else an idiot. Let me ask you, when you're not being a smug, condescending bastard making pronouncements about strangers' lives from the comfort of your armchair, who do YOU trust with YOUR life? Do you have a living will stating that you're sure the courts will make the best decision for you, or are your family and loved ones going to make end-of-life decisions for you?

2) It's not "worth noting" anything that spews from your piehole, particularly when I see no proof from you that he would not have lived this long "in the backward US". Put up or shut up. Also, if the US is so "backward", why is it that WE are the ones who have the experimental treatments available for his illness, and the "enlightened" nations of the oxymoronically-named Human Rights Court don't?

So try engaging your brain and addressing these questions, if you can schedule some time in amongst your self-congratulatory "It's leftist, so it MUST be best" attitude problems.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You are an idiot. The child is in constant pain and the hospital and the courts have taken a difficult decision in his best interests.
Its worth noting that he would not have lived this long in the backward US.

1) Anyone who thinks the courts have his best interests in mind more than the parents has no business calling anyone else an idiot. Let me ask you, when you're not being a smug, condescending bastard making pronouncements about strangers' lives from the comfort of your armchair, who do YOU trust with YOUR life? Do you have a living will stating that you're sure the courts will make the best decision for you, or are your family and loved ones going to make end-of-life decisions for you?

2) It's not "worth noting" anything that spews from your piehole, particularly when I see no proof from you that he would not have lived this long "in the backward US". Put up or shut up. Also, if the US is so "backward", why is it that WE are the ones who have the experimental treatments available for his illness, and the "enlightened" nations of the oxymoronically-named Human Rights Court don't?

So try engaging your brain and addressing these questions, if you can schedule some time in amongst your self-congratulatory "It's leftist, so it MUST be best" attitude problems.

If there was a chance of any sort that this treatment would help him then his Doctors would send him there. After all its not going to cost them anything. In fact that would have been the easy option for them because they could have passed the buck.

But they stuck up for him and are enduring a load of senseless abuse because of it. The OP is making a political case out of a tragedy and it makes me nauseous.

Perhaps you could also point me to the insurance companies that cover this type of illness and I will withdraw my remarks about Americas backward health system.

 

[Spare_change]

You are an idiot. The child is in constant pain and the hospital and the courts have taken a difficult decision in his best interests.
Its worth noting that he would not have lived this long in the backward US.

1) Anyone who thinks the courts have his best interests in mind more than the parents has no business calling anyone else an idiot. Let me ask you, when you're not being a smug, condescending bastard making pronouncements about strangers' lives from the comfort of your armchair, who do YOU trust with YOUR life? Do you have a living will stating that you're sure the courts will make the best decision for you, or are your family and loved ones going to make end-of-life decisions for you?

2) It's not "worth noting" anything that spews from your piehole, particularly when I see no proof from you that he would not have lived this long "in the backward US". Put up or shut up. Also, if the US is so "backward", why is it that WE are the ones who have the experimental treatments available for his illness, and the "enlightened" nations of the oxymoronically-named Human Rights Court don't?

So try engaging your brain and addressing these questions, if you can schedule some time in amongst your self-congratulatory "It's leftist, so it MUST be best" attitude problems.

If there was a chance of any sort that this treatment would help him then his Doctors would send him there. After all its not going to cost them anything. In fact that would have been the easy option for them because they could have passed the buck.

But they stuck up for him and are enduring a load of senseless abuse because of it. The OP is making a political case out of a tragedy and it makes me nauseous.

Perhaps you could also point me to the insurance companies that cover this type of illness and I will withdraw my remarks about Americas backward health system.

See what ignorance can do to you?

Standard care for MELAS is covered by health insurance in the US. However, there is an experimental treatment, consisting of a research-based vitamin cocktail and Arginine that costs $700 a month. In addition, the cost for the feeding tube supplies will be $450 a month. None of these "extraordinary" expenses are covered by US healthcare insurance because there is no proof that this treatment actually works, just like it isn't covered by the government insurance in England..

So, we have a child in a government-controlled health care program who may benefit from an experimental treatment. However, the socialized medicine program will NOT pay for that experimental treatment, just like health insurance in the US.

BUT .... in the US, the parents can choose to pay for the treatment out of pocket. In England, they have no say. The State has usurped their parental privilege to do what they think is right for THEIR child. Even though the parents are obviously willing to bear the costs of those treatments (and, let's tell the truth, $1150/month is not a catastrophic amount for health care), they don't get the choice.

In the US, they make the choice. In England, the State made the choice. In the US, the parents may be assisted by charitable organizations. In England, he's just dead.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - the Donald tryin' to save a dying baby boy...

Trump offers help to Charlie Gard, terminally ill British baby at centre of court battle
Tuesday 4th July, 2017 - Trump and the pope have spoken out in support of the infant after European courts decided that he could be removed from life support against his parents' wishes

President Donald Trump and the Vatican have spoken out in support of Charlie Gard, a terminally ill British infant whose case has captured worldwide attention after European courts decided that he could be removed from life support against his parents’ wishes. Pope Francis said on Twitter that “to defend human life, above all when it is wounded by illness, is a duty of love that God entrusts to all.” The Italian news agency ANSA reported Monday that officials at a Vatican-owned Italian hospital will ask their counterparts at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital whether 10-month-old Charlie can be moved from that facility to Rome. On Monday, Trump tweeted about the case, writing that the United States “would be delighted to” help. “If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.” It’s unclear how the U.S. government would be able to assist.

According to ANSA, Bambino Gesù Hospital President Mariella Enoc said Monday, “We know that it is a desperate case and that there are no effective therapies.” Enoc added: “We are close to the parents in prayer and, if this is their desire, willing to take their child, for the time he has left to live.” Vatican spokesman Greg Burke, who retweeted the pope’s remarks with the hashtag #CharlieGard, said in a statement that Francis has called for Charlie’s parents to be able to care for him until his death. “The Holy Father follows with affection and emotion the case of little Charlie Gard and expresses his own closeness to his parents,” the statement read, according to Vatican Radio. “For them he prays, hoping that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end is not ignored.”

Charlie Gard at Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London​

Charlie, who will be 11 months old on July 4, has a rare genetic condition and resulting brain damage that has robbed him of his ability to move his arms and legs, eat or even breathe on his own. British courts decided that the boy should be allowed to die after a heartbreaking legal battle in which doctors asserted that the child had no chance of survival. His parents argued that there was an experimental treatment in the United States they had not tried. The case was taken all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, which declined to hear the matter last week, upholding previous court rulings that it was in Charlie’s best interest to withdraw life support.

Charlie’s story swept the globe as his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, expressed devastation that they had no say in their son’s life or how and when he would die. They appeared on video late last week, sobbing and saying their son would be removed from life support Friday and would take his last breaths at the hospital. “He’d fight to the very end, but we’re not allowed to fight for him anymore,” Gard said in the video statement. “We can’t even take our own son home to die.” The parents said the hospital would not give them time to let family members say goodbye. When asked about those claims, the hospital said it could not comment on specific details in the case.

The parents of terminally-ill baby boy Charlie Gard lost the final stage of their legal battle​

But Friday, the parents said doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital had decided to postpone Charlie’s removal from life support. “We have been in talks today with Great Ormond Street and they have agreed to give us a little bit more time with Charlie,” Yates told the Daily Mail. “We are really grateful for all the support from the public at this extremely difficult time. We’re making precious memories that we can treasure forever with very heavy hearts. Please respect our privacy while we prepare to say the final goodbye to our son Charlie.”

MORE

See also:

Despite big offers, little has changed for baby Charlie Gard
Jul 4,`17: The president of the United States has offered to help. The pope is willing to have the Vatican hospital take him in. Some 1.3 million pounds ($1.68 million) have been raised to help him leave Britain for treatment.

But little has changed Tuesday for Charlie Gard, a terminally-ill British infant suffering from a rare genetic disease that has left him severely brain damaged.

The child is at the center of a global crusade to have him treated in the United States with a trial therapy. Hospital specialists have said the experimental therapy won't help. Three British courts have ruled it's in Charlie's best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.

Parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates are spending time with their son before his life-support is turned off.

News from The Associated Press

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are an idiot. The child is in constant pain and the hospital and the courts have taken a difficult decision in his best interests.
Its worth noting that he would not have lived this long in the backward US.

1) Anyone who thinks the courts have his best interests in mind more than the parents has no business calling anyone else an idiot. Let me ask you, when you're not being a smug, condescending bastard making pronouncements about strangers' lives from the comfort of your armchair, who do YOU trust with YOUR life? Do you have a living will stating that you're sure the courts will make the best decision for you, or are your family and loved ones going to make end-of-life decisions for you?

2) It's not "worth noting" anything that spews from your piehole, particularly when I see no proof from you that he would not have lived this long "in the backward US". Put up or shut up. Also, if the US is so "backward", why is it that WE are the ones who have the experimental treatments available for his illness, and the "enlightened" nations of the oxymoronically-named Human Rights Court don't?

So try engaging your brain and addressing these questions, if you can schedule some time in amongst your self-congratulatory "It's leftist, so it MUST be best" attitude problems.

If there was a chance of any sort that this treatment would help him then his Doctors would send him there. After all its not going to cost them anything. In fact that would have been the easy option for them because they could have passed the buck.

But they stuck up for him and are enduring a load of senseless abuse because of it. The OP is making a political case out of a tragedy and it makes me nauseous.

Perhaps you could also point me to the insurance companies that cover this type of illness and I will withdraw my remarks about Americas backward health system.

Once again, you blithely inform us that the doctors know everything, their motives are unimpeachable, and the final decision should be theirs. You have yet to explain to us WHY any of that should be assumed.

Try to wrap your brain around this: at its core, the decision ISN'T THEIRS TO MAKE. He's not the doctors' child. He's not the oxymoronic Human Rights Court's child. At the point where you decided that all knowledge and wisdom should be ascribed to government bureaucracies (of which the doctors in the UK are definitely cogs), you were egregiously, heinously wrong, and everything that spewed forth from that evil assumption had no hope of being anything but shockingly wrong.

What's nauseating is that you believe anyone except European leftists and evil they - and you - propound turned a tragedy into a political case. Why are you so simpleminded that you can't understand that it became political way back when the UK decided to adopt a healthcare system that allows the decisions of people other than the patient and their loved ones to supersede all else?

Perhaps you could point me to where the parents asked for insurance companies or anyone else to cover this. I realize that you're such a helpless, mindless child that you can't conceive of a world where you deal with your own fucking problems rather than sitting on your ass, begging someone else to take care of you, but - radical notion incoming! - it is possible for people to do for themselves, as witness the fact that Charlie Gard's parents raised the money to get him the treatment independently, and ask for nothing but the parental rights Americans take for granted - and dimwits like you frantically try to throw away with both hands as though it's repugnant - to take their child where they want and get him treatment as they think best.

And I still await the answers to the questions you utterly ignored, one assumes because you're too much of a hypocritical poltroon to face them: Do YOU have a living will designating the all-wise and all-compassionate government to make decisions regarding YOUR life, or will your family and loved ones be doing it? Have you put YOUR life and well-being where your fat, evil-spewing mouth is?

The longer you avoid answering this, the more I must assume that you've adopted "Good for thee, but not me" attitude to this question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are an idiot. The child is in constant pain and the hospital and the courts have taken a difficult decision in his best interests.
Its worth noting that he would not have lived this long in the backward US.

1) Anyone who thinks the courts have his best interests in mind more than the parents has no business calling anyone else an idiot. Let me ask you, when you're not being a smug, condescending bastard making pronouncements about strangers' lives from the comfort of your armchair, who do YOU trust with YOUR life? Do you have a living will stating that you're sure the courts will make the best decision for you, or are your family and loved ones going to make end-of-life decisions for you?

2) It's not "worth noting" anything that spews from your piehole, particularly when I see no proof from you that he would not have lived this long "in the backward US". Put up or shut up. Also, if the US is so "backward", why is it that WE are the ones who have the experimental treatments available for his illness, and the "enlightened" nations of the oxymoronically-named Human Rights Court don't?

So try engaging your brain and addressing these questions, if you can schedule some time in amongst your self-congratulatory "It's leftist, so it MUST be best" attitude problems.

If there was a chance of any sort that this treatment would help him then his Doctors would send him there. After all its not going to cost them anything. In fact that would have been the easy option for them because they could have passed the buck.

But they stuck up for him and are enduring a load of senseless abuse because of it. The OP is making a political case out of a tragedy and it makes me nauseous.

Perhaps you could also point me to the insurance companies that cover this type of illness and I will withdraw my remarks about Americas backward health system.

See what ignorance can do to you?

Standard care for MELAS is covered by health insurance in the US. However, there is an experimental treatment, consisting of a research-based vitamin cocktail and Arginine that costs $700 a month. In addition, the cost for the feeding tube supplies will be $450 a month. None of these "extraordinary" expenses are covered by US healthcare insurance because there is no proof that this treatment actually works, just like it isn't covered by the government insurance in England..

So, we have a child in a government-controlled health care program who may benefit from an experimental treatment. However, the socialized medicine program will NOT pay for that experimental treatment, just like health insurance in the US.

BUT .... in the US, the parents can choose to pay for the treatment out of pocket. In England, they have no say. The State has usurped their parental privilege to do what they think is right for THEIR child. Even though the parents are obviously willing to bear the costs of those treatments (and, let's tell the truth, $1150/month is not a catastrophic amount for health care), they don't get the choice.

In the US, they make the choice. In England, the State made the choice. In the US, the parents may be assisted by charitable organizations. In England, he's just dead.

Freedom is scary to those who know in their heart of hearts that they're too ignorant and immature to fend for themselves.

 

[waltky]

Charlie Gard case to be given another hearing...

Parents still fighting for Charlie Gard's treatment
Monday 10th July, 2017 — The British parents of a terminally ill baby, facing another court hearing on his condition and care, said Sunday they are hopeful he will receive the experimental treatment that previous rulings have prevented.

"If he's still fighting, we're still fighting," said Connie Yates, the mother of 11-month-old Charlie Gard. Yates and Charlie's father, Chris Gard, spoke outside London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where the baby is in intensive care and on life support. The baby's parents have received support from Pope Francis and U.S. President Donald Trump, but Charlie's future remains in the hands of British courts charged with determining what is best for him. "He's our son, he's our flesh and blood. We feel that it should be our right as parents to decide to give him a chance at life," Yates, carrying a petition signed by some 350,000 people supporting the couple's quest, said. "There is nothing to lose, he deserves a chance."

The complex case appeared to have reached its end last month, when the European Court of Human Rights refused to overturn British court rulings barring Charlie from traveling to the United States for treatment. The hospital intended to turn off life support systems in favor of "palliative" care designed to ease any pain the baby might be experiencing. But the case took a surprise turn when researchers at the Vatican's children's hospital, which has offered to treat Charlie, said new information suggested that the experimental treatment sought by the parents might be effective.

That prompted the hospital to seek another High Court ruling. A hearing where the new medical information is likely to be examined is expected to take place Monday. Clinicians from the Vatican's Bambino Gesu pediatric hospital's neurosciences department said tests in mice and patients with a similar, but not identical, genetic condition as Charlie had shown significant improvement is possible. At present, the boy isn't able to breathe unaided. He has a rare inherited mitochondrial disease that has affected many of his vital organs and left him with brain damage.

An online campaign to send Charlie to the U.S. for treatment has raised more than 1.3 million pounds ($1.7 million). A U.S. hospital has offered to ship the drug needed for the therapy to Britain for Charlie. Unless the next hearing produces a change, previous court decisions bar the hospital from allowing Charlie to be taken elsewhere for treatment. Britain's government won't play a role in deciding the future course of Charlie's treatment, an official said Sunday. Justice Secretary David Lidington said the decision will be made by judges acting "independently and dispassionately" based on the facts of the case.

Parents still fighting for Charlie Gard's treatment

 

[Cecilie1200]

Charlie Gard case to be given another hearing...

Parents still fighting for Charlie Gard's treatment
Monday 10th July, 2017 — The British parents of a terminally ill baby, facing another court hearing on his condition and care, said Sunday they are hopeful he will receive the experimental treatment that previous rulings have prevented.

"If he's still fighting, we're still fighting," said Connie Yates, the mother of 11-month-old Charlie Gard. Yates and Charlie's father, Chris Gard, spoke outside London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where the baby is in intensive care and on life support. The baby's parents have received support from Pope Francis and U.S. President Donald Trump, but Charlie's future remains in the hands of British courts charged with determining what is best for him. "He's our son, he's our flesh and blood. We feel that it should be our right as parents to decide to give him a chance at life," Yates, carrying a petition signed by some 350,000 people supporting the couple's quest, said. "There is nothing to lose, he deserves a chance."

The complex case appeared to have reached its end last month, when the European Court of Human Rights refused to overturn British court rulings barring Charlie from traveling to the United States for treatment. The hospital intended to turn off life support systems in favor of "palliative" care designed to ease any pain the baby might be experiencing. But the case took a surprise turn when researchers at the Vatican's children's hospital, which has offered to treat Charlie, said new information suggested that the experimental treatment sought by the parents might be effective.

That prompted the hospital to seek another High Court ruling. A hearing where the new medical information is likely to be examined is expected to take place Monday. Clinicians from the Vatican's Bambino Gesu pediatric hospital's neurosciences department said tests in mice and patients with a similar, but not identical, genetic condition as Charlie had shown significant improvement is possible. At present, the boy isn't able to breathe unaided. He has a rare inherited mitochondrial disease that has affected many of his vital organs and left him with brain damage.

An online campaign to send Charlie to the U.S. for treatment has raised more than 1.3 million pounds ($1.7 million). A U.S. hospital has offered to ship the drug needed for the therapy to Britain for Charlie. Unless the next hearing produces a change, previous court decisions bar the hospital from allowing Charlie to be taken elsewhere for treatment. Britain's government won't play a role in deciding the future course of Charlie's treatment, an official said Sunday. Justice Secretary David Lidington said the decision will be made by judges acting "independently and dispassionately" based on the facts of the case.

Parents still fighting for Charlie Gard's treatment

Personally, I'm still flabbergasted that anyone thinks there NEEDS to be any sort of hearing about whether or not parents can or should make decisions about what's best for their children. Thank God I live in a country that at least pays lip service to the fact that my children are MY children, not the government's.

 

[Spare_change]

Charlie Gard case to be given another hearing...

Parents still fighting for Charlie Gard's treatment
Monday 10th July, 2017 — The British parents of a terminally ill baby, facing another court hearing on his condition and care, said Sunday they are hopeful he will receive the experimental treatment that previous rulings have prevented.

"If he's still fighting, we're still fighting," said Connie Yates, the mother of 11-month-old Charlie Gard. Yates and Charlie's father, Chris Gard, spoke outside London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where the baby is in intensive care and on life support. The baby's parents have received support from Pope Francis and U.S. President Donald Trump, but Charlie's future remains in the hands of British courts charged with determining what is best for him. "He's our son, he's our flesh and blood. We feel that it should be our right as parents to decide to give him a chance at life," Yates, carrying a petition signed by some 350,000 people supporting the couple's quest, said. "There is nothing to lose, he deserves a chance."

The complex case appeared to have reached its end last month, when the European Court of Human Rights refused to overturn British court rulings barring Charlie from traveling to the United States for treatment. The hospital intended to turn off life support systems in favor of "palliative" care designed to ease any pain the baby might be experiencing. But the case took a surprise turn when researchers at the Vatican's children's hospital, which has offered to treat Charlie, said new information suggested that the experimental treatment sought by the parents might be effective.

That prompted the hospital to seek another High Court ruling. A hearing where the new medical information is likely to be examined is expected to take place Monday. Clinicians from the Vatican's Bambino Gesu pediatric hospital's neurosciences department said tests in mice and patients with a similar, but not identical, genetic condition as Charlie had shown significant improvement is possible. At present, the boy isn't able to breathe unaided. He has a rare inherited mitochondrial disease that has affected many of his vital organs and left him with brain damage.

An online campaign to send Charlie to the U.S. for treatment has raised more than 1.3 million pounds ($1.7 million). A U.S. hospital has offered to ship the drug needed for the therapy to Britain for Charlie. Unless the next hearing produces a change, previous court decisions bar the hospital from allowing Charlie to be taken elsewhere for treatment. Britain's government won't play a role in deciding the future course of Charlie's treatment, an official said Sunday. Justice Secretary David Lidington said the decision will be made by judges acting "independently and dispassionately" based on the facts of the case.

Parents still fighting for Charlie Gard's treatment

Personally, I'm still flabbergasted that anyone thinks there NEEDS to be any sort of hearing about whether or not parents can or should make decisions about what's best for their children. Thank God I live in a country that at least pays lip service to the fact that my children are MY children, not the government's.

... unless, of course, you have abdicated your responsibility for your child's medical decisions to the State.

 

[Penelope]

You’ve probably never heard of Charlie Gard.

He’s a terminally ill 10-month-old baby who has now been sentenced to death by the European Court on Human Rights – an Orwellian organization if ever there has been one – which determined that while his parents wanted to take him to the United States for a long-shot potentially life-saving treatment, they could not. Instead, the Court ruled, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children would withdraw all life support, killing Charlie. What was the Court’s justification? Charlie had to “die with dignity.”

Charlie suffers from a mitochondrial disease that destroys the muscles and the brain. There was no available treatment in the United Kingdom, and so Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised $1.6 million to fly him to the United States for an experimental treatment. But the hospital argued that the treatment wouldn’t help Charlie, and would prolong his suffering, and that they knew better than the parents who had to suffer through his illness and care for him every single day. Thus, the hospital argued that it would be in Charlie’s best interest to die.

UK courts agreed. The Gards appealed to the EU. And now the court has ruled against them, with the ECHR stating, “Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.”

His parents announced:

We begged them to give us the weekend. Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time. But now there isn’t even time for that. Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator but we are being rushed. Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can’t choose how or when our son dies.

There are several levels to the perversity here.

First, for all the talk of the evils of the American system of healthcare, at least we promote freedom of choice – and give as many options to people for their care as they can afford. As the doctor who offered experimental treatment stated in court, if Charlie had become ill at “any institution in the US,” they would immediately begin the treatment. But in the UK, a socialized medicine country where individual needs come secondary to the preservation of the “system,” there is less concern with parental rights. In the United States, we are so interested in the freedom to obtain care that we insist on releasing a legally brain-dead girl to her mother, so long as her mother wishes to keep her hooked up to a ventilator; in the UK, they are insistent on withdrawing the opportunity for life-saving care because it’s better to kill the child than keep it alive. While this case became a court proceeding, every single day the NHS makes decisions about how to ration care. Bernie Sanders tweets about how nobody should be denied care because they can’t afford it – but that’s what happens all the time under socialized medicine – and you don’t even have the capacity to raise the money to fund the care yourself.

Second, a government-run system breeds a shift in control. In the United States, the case of Charlie Gard is a major scandal; in the EU, it’s apparently no big deal. That’s because we in the United States like to think that we control our lives and that as parents, our priorities matter more than those of doctors who do not raise our children. But once you give up control over life and death decisions to an impersonal government, it’s nearly impossible to take back that control. This case could have been easy: the hospital could have released the child. The hospital didn’t do so because it believed that it had the final say. And why shouldn’t it? It always has the final say.

Third, allowing the government to control the value of life means devaluing life. It has been a fundamental hallmark of Western civilization that life ought to be preserved, in spite of pain, in spite of suffering – that death is no solution to suffering. But that notion has been stripped away in favor of the secularist standard of “healthy living” – and so in Europe, euthanasia is now available to people who are not terminal, but merely suffer from depression or anorexia. Better to "die with dignity" than live with pain, in the new math. That's a far cry from the original Hippocratic Oath which overtly stated, "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course," or even the Tufts Medical School version, which stated, "Above all, I must not play at God."

Socialized healthcare has nothing to do with this case and its not about money.

 

[Penelope]

Update on Charlie Gard

Everything you need to know about baby Charlie.

 

[Spare_change]

You’ve probably never heard of Charlie Gard.

He’s a terminally ill 10-month-old baby who has now been sentenced to death by the European Court on Human Rights – an Orwellian organization if ever there has been one – which determined that while his parents wanted to take him to the United States for a long-shot potentially life-saving treatment, they could not. Instead, the Court ruled, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children would withdraw all life support, killing Charlie. What was the Court’s justification? Charlie had to “die with dignity.”

Charlie suffers from a mitochondrial disease that destroys the muscles and the brain. There was no available treatment in the United Kingdom, and so Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised $1.6 million to fly him to the United States for an experimental treatment. But the hospital argued that the treatment wouldn’t help Charlie, and would prolong his suffering, and that they knew better than the parents who had to suffer through his illness and care for him every single day. Thus, the hospital argued that it would be in Charlie’s best interest to die.

UK courts agreed. The Gards appealed to the EU. And now the court has ruled against them, with the ECHR stating, “Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.”

His parents announced:

We begged them to give us the weekend. Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time. But now there isn’t even time for that. Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator but we are being rushed. Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can’t choose how or when our son dies.

There are several levels to the perversity here.

First, for all the talk of the evils of the American system of healthcare, at least we promote freedom of choice – and give as many options to people for their care as they can afford. As the doctor who offered experimental treatment stated in court, if Charlie had become ill at “any institution in the US,” they would immediately begin the treatment. But in the UK, a socialized medicine country where individual needs come secondary to the preservation of the “system,” there is less concern with parental rights. In the United States, we are so interested in the freedom to obtain care that we insist on releasing a legally brain-dead girl to her mother, so long as her mother wishes to keep her hooked up to a ventilator; in the UK, they are insistent on withdrawing the opportunity for life-saving care because it’s better to kill the child than keep it alive. While this case became a court proceeding, every single day the NHS makes decisions about how to ration care. Bernie Sanders tweets about how nobody should be denied care because they can’t afford it – but that’s what happens all the time under socialized medicine – and you don’t even have the capacity to raise the money to fund the care yourself.

Second, a government-run system breeds a shift in control. In the United States, the case of Charlie Gard is a major scandal; in the EU, it’s apparently no big deal. That’s because we in the United States like to think that we control our lives and that as parents, our priorities matter more than those of doctors who do not raise our children. But once you give up control over life and death decisions to an impersonal government, it’s nearly impossible to take back that control. This case could have been easy: the hospital could have released the child. The hospital didn’t do so because it believed that it had the final say. And why shouldn’t it? It always has the final say.

Third, allowing the government to control the value of life means devaluing life. It has been a fundamental hallmark of Western civilization that life ought to be preserved, in spite of pain, in spite of suffering – that death is no solution to suffering. But that notion has been stripped away in favor of the secularist standard of “healthy living” – and so in Europe, euthanasia is now available to people who are not terminal, but merely suffer from depression or anorexia. Better to "die with dignity" than live with pain, in the new math. That's a far cry from the original Hippocratic Oath which overtly stated, "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course," or even the Tufts Medical School version, which stated, "Above all, I must not play at God."

Socialized healthcare has nothing to do with this case and its not about money.

You’ve probably never heard of Charlie Gard.

He’s a terminally ill 10-month-old baby who has now been sentenced to death by the European Court on Human Rights – an Orwellian organization if ever there has been one – which determined that while his parents wanted to take him to the United States for a long-shot potentially life-saving treatment, they could not. Instead, the Court ruled, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children would withdraw all life support, killing Charlie. What was the Court’s justification? Charlie had to “die with dignity.”

Charlie suffers from a mitochondrial disease that destroys the muscles and the brain. There was no available treatment in the United Kingdom, and so Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised $1.6 million to fly him to the United States for an experimental treatment. But the hospital argued that the treatment wouldn’t help Charlie, and would prolong his suffering, and that they knew better than the parents who had to suffer through his illness and care for him every single day. Thus, the hospital argued that it would be in Charlie’s best interest to die.

UK courts agreed. The Gards appealed to the EU. And now the court has ruled against them, with the ECHR stating, “Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.”

His parents announced:

We begged them to give us the weekend. Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time. But now there isn’t even time for that. Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator but we are being rushed. Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can’t choose how or when our son dies.

There are several levels to the perversity here.

First, for all the talk of the evils of the American system of healthcare, at least we promote freedom of choice – and give as many options to people for their care as they can afford. As the doctor who offered experimental treatment stated in court, if Charlie had become ill at “any institution in the US,” they would immediately begin the treatment. But in the UK, a socialized medicine country where individual needs come secondary to the preservation of the “system,” there is less concern with parental rights. In the United States, we are so interested in the freedom to obtain care that we insist on releasing a legally brain-dead girl to her mother, so long as her mother wishes to keep her hooked up to a ventilator; in the UK, they are insistent on withdrawing the opportunity for life-saving care because it’s better to kill the child than keep it alive. While this case became a court proceeding, every single day the NHS makes decisions about how to ration care. Bernie Sanders tweets about how nobody should be denied care because they can’t afford it – but that’s what happens all the time under socialized medicine – and you don’t even have the capacity to raise the money to fund the care yourself.

Second, a government-run system breeds a shift in control. In the United States, the case of Charlie Gard is a major scandal; in the EU, it’s apparently no big deal. That’s because we in the United States like to think that we control our lives and that as parents, our priorities matter more than those of doctors who do not raise our children. But once you give up control over life and death decisions to an impersonal government, it’s nearly impossible to take back that control. This case could have been easy: the hospital could have released the child. The hospital didn’t do so because it believed that it had the final say. And why shouldn’t it? It always has the final say.

Third, allowing the government to control the value of life means devaluing life. It has been a fundamental hallmark of Western civilization that life ought to be preserved, in spite of pain, in spite of suffering – that death is no solution to suffering. But that notion has been stripped away in favor of the secularist standard of “healthy living” – and so in Europe, euthanasia is now available to people who are not terminal, but merely suffer from depression or anorexia. Better to "die with dignity" than live with pain, in the new math. That's a far cry from the original Hippocratic Oath which overtly stated, "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course," or even the Tufts Medical School version, which stated, "Above all, I must not play at God."

Socialized healthcare has nothing to do with this case and its not about money.

Oh? Then, why don't you just tell us exactly what it IS all about?

 

[Penelope]

You’ve probably never heard of Charlie Gard.

He’s a terminally ill 10-month-old baby who has now been sentenced to death by the European Court on Human Rights – an Orwellian organization if ever there has been one – which determined that while his parents wanted to take him to the United States for a long-shot potentially life-saving treatment, they could not. Instead, the Court ruled, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children would withdraw all life support, killing Charlie. What was the Court’s justification? Charlie had to “die with dignity.”

Charlie suffers from a mitochondrial disease that destroys the muscles and the brain. There was no available treatment in the United Kingdom, and so Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised $1.6 million to fly him to the United States for an experimental treatment. But the hospital argued that the treatment wouldn’t help Charlie, and would prolong his suffering, and that they knew better than the parents who had to suffer through his illness and care for him every single day. Thus, the hospital argued that it would be in Charlie’s best interest to die.

UK courts agreed. The Gards appealed to the EU. And now the court has ruled against them, with the ECHR stating, “Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.”

His parents announced:

We begged them to give us the weekend. Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time. But now there isn’t even time for that. Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator but we are being rushed. Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can’t choose how or when our son dies.

There are several levels to the perversity here.

First, for all the talk of the evils of the American system of healthcare, at least we promote freedom of choice – and give as many options to people for their care as they can afford. As the doctor who offered experimental treatment stated in court, if Charlie had become ill at “any institution in the US,” they would immediately begin the treatment. But in the UK, a socialized medicine country where individual needs come secondary to the preservation of the “system,” there is less concern with parental rights. In the United States, we are so interested in the freedom to obtain care that we insist on releasing a legally brain-dead girl to her mother, so long as her mother wishes to keep her hooked up to a ventilator; in the UK, they are insistent on withdrawing the opportunity for life-saving care because it’s better to kill the child than keep it alive. While this case became a court proceeding, every single day the NHS makes decisions about how to ration care. Bernie Sanders tweets about how nobody should be denied care because they can’t afford it – but that’s what happens all the time under socialized medicine – and you don’t even have the capacity to raise the money to fund the care yourself.

Second, a government-run system breeds a shift in control. In the United States, the case of Charlie Gard is a major scandal; in the EU, it’s apparently no big deal. That’s because we in the United States like to think that we control our lives and that as parents, our priorities matter more than those of doctors who do not raise our children. But once you give up control over life and death decisions to an impersonal government, it’s nearly impossible to take back that control. This case could have been easy: the hospital could have released the child. The hospital didn’t do so because it believed that it had the final say. And why shouldn’t it? It always has the final say.

Third, allowing the government to control the value of life means devaluing life. It has been a fundamental hallmark of Western civilization that life ought to be preserved, in spite of pain, in spite of suffering – that death is no solution to suffering. But that notion has been stripped away in favor of the secularist standard of “healthy living” – and so in Europe, euthanasia is now available to people who are not terminal, but merely suffer from depression or anorexia. Better to "die with dignity" than live with pain, in the new math. That's a far cry from the original Hippocratic Oath which overtly stated, "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course," or even the Tufts Medical School version, which stated, "Above all, I must not play at God."

Socialized healthcare has nothing to do with this case and its not about money.

You’ve probably never heard of Charlie Gard.

He’s a terminally ill 10-month-old baby who has now been sentenced to death by the European Court on Human Rights – an Orwellian organization if ever there has been one – which determined that while his parents wanted to take him to the United States for a long-shot potentially life-saving treatment, they could not. Instead, the Court ruled, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children would withdraw all life support, killing Charlie. What was the Court’s justification? Charlie had to “die with dignity.”

Charlie suffers from a mitochondrial disease that destroys the muscles and the brain. There was no available treatment in the United Kingdom, and so Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised $1.6 million to fly him to the United States for an experimental treatment. But the hospital argued that the treatment wouldn’t help Charlie, and would prolong his suffering, and that they knew better than the parents who had to suffer through his illness and care for him every single day. Thus, the hospital argued that it would be in Charlie’s best interest to die.

UK courts agreed. The Gards appealed to the EU. And now the court has ruled against them, with the ECHR stating, “Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.”

His parents announced:

We begged them to give us the weekend. Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time. But now there isn’t even time for that. Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator but we are being rushed. Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can’t choose how or when our son dies.

There are several levels to the perversity here.

First, for all the talk of the evils of the American system of healthcare, at least we promote freedom of choice – and give as many options to people for their care as they can afford. As the doctor who offered experimental treatment stated in court, if Charlie had become ill at “any institution in the US,” they would immediately begin the treatment. But in the UK, a socialized medicine country where individual needs come secondary to the preservation of the “system,” there is less concern with parental rights. In the United States, we are so interested in the freedom to obtain care that we insist on releasing a legally brain-dead girl to her mother, so long as her mother wishes to keep her hooked up to a ventilator; in the UK, they are insistent on withdrawing the opportunity for life-saving care because it’s better to kill the child than keep it alive. While this case became a court proceeding, every single day the NHS makes decisions about how to ration care. Bernie Sanders tweets about how nobody should be denied care because they can’t afford it – but that’s what happens all the time under socialized medicine – and you don’t even have the capacity to raise the money to fund the care yourself.

Second, a government-run system breeds a shift in control. In the United States, the case of Charlie Gard is a major scandal; in the EU, it’s apparently no big deal. That’s because we in the United States like to think that we control our lives and that as parents, our priorities matter more than those of doctors who do not raise our children. But once you give up control over life and death decisions to an impersonal government, it’s nearly impossible to take back that control. This case could have been easy: the hospital could have released the child. The hospital didn’t do so because it believed that it had the final say. And why shouldn’t it? It always has the final say.

Third, allowing the government to control the value of life means devaluing life. It has been a fundamental hallmark of Western civilization that life ought to be preserved, in spite of pain, in spite of suffering – that death is no solution to suffering. But that notion has been stripped away in favor of the secularist standard of “healthy living” – and so in Europe, euthanasia is now available to people who are not terminal, but merely suffer from depression or anorexia. Better to "die with dignity" than live with pain, in the new math. That's a far cry from the original Hippocratic Oath which overtly stated, "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course," or even the Tufts Medical School version, which stated, "Above all, I must not play at God."

Socialized healthcare has nothing to do with this case and its not about money.

Oh? Then, why don't you just tell us exactly what it IS all about?

Why not just read it? Read the other link I gave and then this one.
Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates & Ors [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam) (11 April 2017)

 

[Spare_change]

You’ve probably never heard of Charlie Gard.

He’s a terminally ill 10-month-old baby who has now been sentenced to death by the European Court on Human Rights – an Orwellian organization if ever there has been one – which determined that while his parents wanted to take him to the United States for a long-shot potentially life-saving treatment, they could not. Instead, the Court ruled, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children would withdraw all life support, killing Charlie. What was the Court’s justification? Charlie had to “die with dignity.”

Charlie suffers from a mitochondrial disease that destroys the muscles and the brain. There was no available treatment in the United Kingdom, and so Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised $1.6 million to fly him to the United States for an experimental treatment. But the hospital argued that the treatment wouldn’t help Charlie, and would prolong his suffering, and that they knew better than the parents who had to suffer through his illness and care for him every single day. Thus, the hospital argued that it would be in Charlie’s best interest to die.

UK courts agreed. The Gards appealed to the EU. And now the court has ruled against them, with the ECHR stating, “Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.”

His parents announced:

We begged them to give us the weekend. Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time. But now there isn’t even time for that. Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator but we are being rushed. Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can’t choose how or when our son dies.

There are several levels to the perversity here.

First, for all the talk of the evils of the American system of healthcare, at least we promote freedom of choice – and give as many options to people for their care as they can afford. As the doctor who offered experimental treatment stated in court, if Charlie had become ill at “any institution in the US,” they would immediately begin the treatment. But in the UK, a socialized medicine country where individual needs come secondary to the preservation of the “system,” there is less concern with parental rights. In the United States, we are so interested in the freedom to obtain care that we insist on releasing a legally brain-dead girl to her mother, so long as her mother wishes to keep her hooked up to a ventilator; in the UK, they are insistent on withdrawing the opportunity for life-saving care because it’s better to kill the child than keep it alive. While this case became a court proceeding, every single day the NHS makes decisions about how to ration care. Bernie Sanders tweets about how nobody should be denied care because they can’t afford it – but that’s what happens all the time under socialized medicine – and you don’t even have the capacity to raise the money to fund the care yourself.

Second, a government-run system breeds a shift in control. In the United States, the case of Charlie Gard is a major scandal; in the EU, it’s apparently no big deal. That’s because we in the United States like to think that we control our lives and that as parents, our priorities matter more than those of doctors who do not raise our children. But once you give up control over life and death decisions to an impersonal government, it’s nearly impossible to take back that control. This case could have been easy: the hospital could have released the child. The hospital didn’t do so because it believed that it had the final say. And why shouldn’t it? It always has the final say.

Third, allowing the government to control the value of life means devaluing life. It has been a fundamental hallmark of Western civilization that life ought to be preserved, in spite of pain, in spite of suffering – that death is no solution to suffering. But that notion has been stripped away in favor of the secularist standard of “healthy living” – and so in Europe, euthanasia is now available to people who are not terminal, but merely suffer from depression or anorexia. Better to "die with dignity" than live with pain, in the new math. That's a far cry from the original Hippocratic Oath which overtly stated, "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course," or even the Tufts Medical School version, which stated, "Above all, I must not play at God."

Socialized healthcare has nothing to do with this case and its not about money.

You’ve probably never heard of Charlie Gard.

He’s a terminally ill 10-month-old baby who has now been sentenced to death by the European Court on Human Rights – an Orwellian organization if ever there has been one – which determined that while his parents wanted to take him to the United States for a long-shot potentially life-saving treatment, they could not. Instead, the Court ruled, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children would withdraw all life support, killing Charlie. What was the Court’s justification? Charlie had to “die with dignity.”

Charlie suffers from a mitochondrial disease that destroys the muscles and the brain. There was no available treatment in the United Kingdom, and so Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised $1.6 million to fly him to the United States for an experimental treatment. But the hospital argued that the treatment wouldn’t help Charlie, and would prolong his suffering, and that they knew better than the parents who had to suffer through his illness and care for him every single day. Thus, the hospital argued that it would be in Charlie’s best interest to die.

UK courts agreed. The Gards appealed to the EU. And now the court has ruled against them, with the ECHR stating, “Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.”

His parents announced:

We begged them to give us the weekend. Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time. But now there isn’t even time for that. Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator but we are being rushed. Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can’t choose how or when our son dies.

There are several levels to the perversity here.

First, for all the talk of the evils of the American system of healthcare, at least we promote freedom of choice – and give as many options to people for their care as they can afford. As the doctor who offered experimental treatment stated in court, if Charlie had become ill at “any institution in the US,” they would immediately begin the treatment. But in the UK, a socialized medicine country where individual needs come secondary to the preservation of the “system,” there is less concern with parental rights. In the United States, we are so interested in the freedom to obtain care that we insist on releasing a legally brain-dead girl to her mother, so long as her mother wishes to keep her hooked up to a ventilator; in the UK, they are insistent on withdrawing the opportunity for life-saving care because it’s better to kill the child than keep it alive. While this case became a court proceeding, every single day the NHS makes decisions about how to ration care. Bernie Sanders tweets about how nobody should be denied care because they can’t afford it – but that’s what happens all the time under socialized medicine – and you don’t even have the capacity to raise the money to fund the care yourself.

Second, a government-run system breeds a shift in control. In the United States, the case of Charlie Gard is a major scandal; in the EU, it’s apparently no big deal. That’s because we in the United States like to think that we control our lives and that as parents, our priorities matter more than those of doctors who do not raise our children. But once you give up control over life and death decisions to an impersonal government, it’s nearly impossible to take back that control. This case could have been easy: the hospital could have released the child. The hospital didn’t do so because it believed that it had the final say. And why shouldn’t it? It always has the final say.

Third, allowing the government to control the value of life means devaluing life. It has been a fundamental hallmark of Western civilization that life ought to be preserved, in spite of pain, in spite of suffering – that death is no solution to suffering. But that notion has been stripped away in favor of the secularist standard of “healthy living” – and so in Europe, euthanasia is now available to people who are not terminal, but merely suffer from depression or anorexia. Better to "die with dignity" than live with pain, in the new math. That's a far cry from the original Hippocratic Oath which overtly stated, "Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course," or even the Tufts Medical School version, which stated, "Above all, I must not play at God."

Socialized healthcare has nothing to do with this case and its not about money.

Oh? Then, why don't you just tell us exactly what it IS all about?

Why not just read it? Read the other link I gave and then this one.
Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates & Ors [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam) (11 April 2017)

Maybe YOU should read it .... particularly paragraphs 14 thru 19.

Sadly, the child has a very small chance of recovery. We accept that as a reality ... but that doesn't mean that the parents shouldn't be allowed to exercise every avenue available to them. To deny them - the parents - of their rights, prerogatives, and alternatives, is as devastating as the illness to their child. Can you imagine sitting around the house for the next 40 years and saying, "We didn't do all we could for Charlie. The government wouldn't let us. They took our child away so they could kill it."

Parents can eventually accept the death of a child - they find comfort in the recognition that it was God's choice. Parents can't accept that some other person, some other government agency, can cause the death of their child.

A father and mother will go to the end of the world - explore any possibility - for a miracle that might save their child. I know. I did it. My miracle didn't work - but I take comfort knowing that I did everything I could for Michael. I can tell you, with all honest sincerity, losing a child is horrific. If somebody were to take my child from me, if somebody were to try to prevent me from trying every possible avenue for my child, I would hunt him to the ends of the earth. There would be no forgiveness.

Is it now more about the parents than about Charlie? Possibly. But, how can you, with any certitude, simply say that Charlie has to die, that Charlie has to be denied even the slimmest, most remote, possibility of recovery? How can you be so cold and so callous to allow another human being to judge when your child should die?

Is it about socialized medicine? You damned right it is. The government has usurped the rights of the parents. They have made themselves judge, jury, AND executioner. They have placed themselves above God.

 

[Spare_change]

(CNSNews.com) -- A judge at London's High Court ruled against the hospital and in favor of the parents of baby Charlie Gard--who is suffering from a rare genetic disorder--that they may present new scientific evidence concerning their son's treatment, which will be reviewed this Thursday and could possibly lead to Charlie receiving treatment in the United States. But the outcome is still uncertain and Charlie's fate is precarious.

Charlie Gard is 10 months old. He lives on life support in the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. His genetic disorder is destructive to muscles and organs, and most people who have the problem die in infancy. The baby's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, want their son to undergo an experimental treatment, which has been helpful in some cases. An online campaign has raised more than $1.5 million for the baby's treament.

Under the health care laws in Britain, however, the parents are not allowed to pursue this option. The hospital contends Charlie is brain-damaged and beyond medical hope, and the hospital wants to shut off his life support. This denial of the parent's desire to seek treatment for their son elsewhere led to several court rulings -- in favor of the hospital. On Monday, July 10, the judge who previously ruled against the Gards agreed to review whatever new evience they can present to him for a reevaluation.

 

[Tilly]

You are an idiot. The child is in constant pain and the hospital and the courts have taken a difficult decision in his best interests.
Its worth noting that he would not have lived this long in the backward US.

1) Anyone who thinks the courts have his best interests in mind more than the parents has no business calling anyone else an idiot. Let me ask you, when you're not being a smug, condescending bastard making pronouncements about strangers' lives from the comfort of your armchair, who do YOU trust with YOUR life? Do you have a living will stating that you're sure the courts will make the best decision for you, or are your family and loved ones going to make end-of-life decisions for you?

2) It's not "worth noting" anything that spews from your piehole, particularly when I see no proof from you that he would not have lived this long "in the backward US". Put up or shut up. Also, if the US is so "backward", why is it that WE are the ones who have the experimental treatments available for his illness, and the "enlightened" nations of the oxymoronically-named Human Rights Court don't?

So try engaging your brain and addressing these questions, if you can schedule some time in amongst your self-congratulatory "It's leftist, so it MUST be best" attitude problems.

If there was a chance of any sort that this treatment would help him then his Doctors would send him there. After all its not going to cost them anything. In fact that would have been the easy option for them because they could have passed the buck.

But they stuck up for him and are enduring a load of senseless abuse because of it. The OP is making a political case out of a tragedy and it makes me nauseous.

Perhaps you could also point me to the insurance companies that cover this type of illness and I will withdraw my remarks about Americas backward health system.

Once again, you blithely inform us that the doctors know everything, their motives are unimpeachable, and the final decision should be theirs. You have yet to explain to us WHY any of that should be assumed.

Try to wrap your brain around this: at its core, the decision ISN'T THEIRS TO MAKE. He's not the doctors' child. He's not the oxymoronic Human Rights Court's child. At the point where you decided that all knowledge and wisdom should be ascribed to government bureaucracies (of which the doctors in the UK are definitely cogs), you were egregiously, heinously wrong, and everything that spewed forth from that evil assumption had no hope of being anything but shockingly wrong.

What's nauseating is that you believe anyone except European leftists and evil they - and you - propound turned a tragedy into a political case. Why are you so simpleminded that you can't understand that it became political way back when the UK decided to adopt a healthcare system that allows the decisions of people other than the patient and their loved ones to supersede all else?

Perhaps you could point me to where the parents asked for insurance companies or anyone else to cover this. I realize that you're such a helpless, mindless child that you can't conceive of a world where you deal with your own fucking problems rather than sitting on your ass, begging someone else to take care of you, but - radical notion incoming! - it is possible for people to do for themselves, as witness the fact that Charlie Gard's parents raised the money to get him the treatment independently, and ask for nothing but the parental rights Americans take for granted - and dimwits like you frantically try to throw away with both hands as though it's repugnant - to take their child where they want and get him treatment as they think best.

And I still await the answers to the questions you utterly ignored, one assumes because you're too much of a hypocritical poltroon to face them: Do YOU have a living will designating the all-wise and all-compassionate government to make decisions regarding YOUR life, or will your family and loved ones be doing it? Have you put YOUR life and well-being where your fat, evil-spewing mouth is?

The longer you avoid answering this, the more I must assume that you've adopted "Good for thee, but not me" attitude to this question.

Very well said.
But Tommy is a commie who's already stated that the children of right wing people should be removed and the parents locked in zoos, so I guess removing parental rights and handing them over to the state is no biggie to him. Personally I think it's disgraceful to prevent the parents from pursuing every opportunity. Even though the chance the child will be cured is remote, they need to be allowed to know they did ALL they could, imho.