A Socialized Medicine Death Sentence

[Coyote]

This article offers a bit more information: Who is Charlie Gard, what is the mitochondrial disease he suffers from and why was there a legal battle?

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.​

Essentially, when it came down to the EU court, they opted not to intervene in the lower court decisions

These were the arguments:

What did Charlie's parents argue?

Richard Gordon QC, who led Charlie's parents' legal team, had told Court of Appeal judges that the case raised "very serious legal issues".

"They wish to exhaust all possible options," Mr Gordon said in a written outline of Charlie's parents' case.

"They don't want to look back and think 'what if?'. This court should not stand in the way of their only remaining hope."
Mr Gordon suggested that Charlie might be being unlawfully detained and denied his right to liberty.

He said judges should not interfere with parents' exercise of parental rights.

Lawyers, who represented Charlie's parents for free, said Mr Justice Francis had not given enough weight to Charlie's human right to life.

They said there was no risk the proposed therapy in the US would cause Charlie "significant harm".

What did GOSH argue?

Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street's legal team, suggested that further treatment would leave Charlie in a "condition of existence".

She said therapy proposed in the USA was "experimental" and would not help Charlie.

"There is significant harm if what the parents want for Charlie comes into effect," she told appeal judges. "The significant harm is a condition of existence which is offering the child no benefit."

She added: "It is inhuman to permit that condition to continue."
Ms Gollop said nobody knew whether Charlie was in pain.

"Nobody knows because it is so very difficult because of the ravages of Charlie's condition," she said.

"He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot make a noise, he cannot move."​

 

[Penelope]

Does this child have a life, or is it for the benefit of the parents?

It isn't your right to say. My children are my responsibility. Not yours. Your children are your responsibility, not mine, not some panel's, not some bill in Congress'. Hands off.

Isn't abortion for the benefit of the parent? It certainly doesn't benefit the child.. Pick a lane......

This is not about abortion. Then you take care of your kids, apparently they are not, your tax dollar is.

The again I am pro the PPACA and pro choice, and you are anti abortion and anti PPACA, go figure. He has gov health insurance now, but he had best find someone else to work for as his employer is quitting, and I'm sure the hosp and drug company are paying for the maj of his care, in other words, YOUR tax dollars.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This article offers a bit more information: Who is Charlie Gard, what is the mitochondrial disease he suffers from and why was there a legal battle?

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.​

Essentially, when it came down to the EU court, they opted not to intervene in the lower court decisions

These were the arguments:

What did Charlie's parents argue?

Richard Gordon QC, who led Charlie's parents' legal team, had told Court of Appeal judges that the case raised "very serious legal issues".

"They wish to exhaust all possible options," Mr Gordon said in a written outline of Charlie's parents' case.

"They don't want to look back and think 'what if?'. This court should not stand in the way of their only remaining hope."
Mr Gordon suggested that Charlie might be being unlawfully detained and denied his right to liberty.

He said judges should not interfere with parents' exercise of parental rights.

Lawyers, who represented Charlie's parents for free, said Mr Justice Francis had not given enough weight to Charlie's human right to life.

They said there was no risk the proposed therapy in the US would cause Charlie "significant harm".

What did GOSH argue?

Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street's legal team, suggested that further treatment would leave Charlie in a "condition of existence".

She said therapy proposed in the USA was "experimental" and would not help Charlie.

"There is significant harm if what the parents want for Charlie comes into effect," she told appeal judges. "The significant harm is a condition of existence which is offering the child no benefit."

She added: "It is inhuman to permit that condition to continue."
Ms Gollop said nobody knew whether Charlie was in pain.

"Nobody knows because it is so very difficult because of the ravages of Charlie's condition," she said.

"He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot make a noise, he cannot move."​

"They wish to exhaust all possible options,

THAT..and they should be given that

 

[Coyote]

Horrifying. Parents no longer have the ability to protect their own children. The NWO court decides now who lives and who dies. It is where Obama got his death panel idea.

I'm not sure it's that simple...

That's deceptive....

This is a really tragic story, especially for the parents, but it's being manipulated. The child is on life support, and severely braindamaged from the genetic disease. The parents are reaching out for anything that might help, understandably but what they've found is a treatment that works for another genetic disease, whom experts unanimously agree won't help with this one and nothing will reverse the the brain organ destruction that has already occurred to the point where the child has to be on life support.

This is a very slippery slope, the state should bow out

It can be but - Depends on who is paying for it. Even private insurance will refuse to pay for experimental treatments or indefinate life support.

Doesn't matter, the parents weren't permitted to make that decision regardless of the insurance, or cost. Some one else made the decision for them.. Are the parents allowed to pick out the coffin, or is that someone else's decision too?

And when does this move on to older children and adults on life support, or in intensive care?

I see what you are saying but - courts have become involved before, when there is conflict between what might be in a child's best interest and what the parents want, particularly in regards to medical treatment.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Typical LWNJ response. Deflect, redirect, misunderstand, change the subject. You can't teach a closed mind Doc.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Life vs death. Who are we to kill children that we feel are too defective to live on our earth? Good thing the above child was not born in today's society....

 

[The Irish Ram]

Does this child have a life, or is it for the benefit of the parents?

It isn't your right to say. My children are my responsibility. Not yours. Your children are your responsibility, not mine, not some panel's, not some bill in Congress'. Hands off.

Isn't abortion for the benefit of the parent? It certainly doesn't benefit the child.. Pick a lane......

This is not about abortion. Then you take care of your kids, apparently they are not, your tax dollar is.

The again I am pro the PPACA and pro choice, and you are anti abortion and anti PPACA, go figure. He has gov health insurance now, but he had best find someone else to work for as his employer is quitting, and I'm sure the hosp and drug company are paying for the maj of his care, in other words, YOUR tax dollars.

So kill the parasite?

 

[Penelope]

It happens all the time with organ transplants and sometimes they pick an older person instead of a younger one.

Does this child have a life, or is it for the benefit of the parents?

It isn't your right to say. My children are my responsibility. Not yours. Your children are your responsibility, not mine, not some panel's, not some bill in Congress'. Hands off.

Isn't abortion for the benefit of the parent? It certainly doesn't benefit the child.. Pick a lane......

This is not about abortion. Then you take care of your kids, apparently they are not, your tax dollar is.

The again I am pro the PPACA and pro choice, and you are anti abortion and anti PPACA, go figure. He has gov health insurance now, but he had best find someone else to work for as his employer is quitting, and I'm sure the hosp and drug company are paying for the maj of his care, in other words, YOUR tax dollars.

So kill the parasite?

I am pro the Medicaid expansion, but the GOP (you are anti it)
For Olga, this is a full-time job, replacing her position as a human resource assistant at IBM. That put a major financial strain on the family, forcing them to rely heavily on Medicare and private insurance.

You called him a parasite, NOT ME~!!!!!

 

[The Irish Ram]

Horrifying. Parents no longer have the ability to protect their own children. The NWO court decides now who lives and who dies. It is where Obama got his death panel idea.

I'm not sure it's that simple...

That's deceptive....

This is a really tragic story, especially for the parents, but it's being manipulated. The child is on life support, and severely braindamaged from the genetic disease. The parents are reaching out for anything that might help, understandably but what they've found is a treatment that works for another genetic disease, whom experts unanimously agree won't help with this one and nothing will reverse the the brain organ destruction that has already occurred to the point where the child has to be on life support.

This is a very slippery slope, the state should bow out

It can be but - Depends on who is paying for it. Even private insurance will refuse to pay for experimental treatments or indefinate life support.

Doesn't matter, the parents weren't permitted to make that decision regardless of the insurance, or cost. Some one else made the decision for them.. Are the parents allowed to pick out the coffin, or is that someone else's decision too?

And when does this move on to older children and adults on life support, or in intensive care?

I see what you are saying but - courts have become involved before, when there is conflict between what might be in a child's best interest and what the parents want, particularly in regards to medical treatment.

Who gets to decide? In the eighties, they decided that the boy in the video deserved to live. Today they would decide against that. We have a couple of judges here that I wouldn't let make decisions about my dog...
Those parents seem to care enough about their child to give him every opportunity to live. The courts has no business making that decision.
The courts get involved if the parents decision puts the child in jeopardy of dying, not living.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It happens all the time with organ transplants and sometimes they pick an older person instead of a younger one.

Does this child have a life, or is it for the benefit of the parents?

It isn't your right to say. My children are my responsibility. Not yours. Your children are your responsibility, not mine, not some panel's, not some bill in Congress'. Hands off.

Isn't abortion for the benefit of the parent? It certainly doesn't benefit the child.. Pick a lane......

This is not about abortion. Then you take care of your kids, apparently they are not, your tax dollar is.

The again I am pro the PPACA and pro choice, and you are anti abortion and anti PPACA, go figure. He has gov health insurance now, but he had best find someone else to work for as his employer is quitting, and I'm sure the hosp and drug company are paying for the maj of his care, in other words, YOUR tax dollars.

So kill the parasite?

I am pro the Medicaid expansion, but the GOP (you are anti it)
For Olga, this is a full-time job, replacing her position as a human resource assistant at IBM. That put a major financial strain on the family, forcing them to rely heavily on Medicare and private insurance.

You called him a parasite, NOT ME~!!!!!

You are concerned with the money aspect of this decision. I am not. Especially when you consider the amount of tax payer dollars that PP sucks out of the economy to kill fetuses.

 

[Penelope]

Horrifying. Parents no longer have the ability to protect their own children. The NWO court decides now who lives and who dies. It is where Obama got his death panel idea.

Horrifying. Parents no longer have the ability to protect their own children. The NWO court decides now who lives and who dies. It is where Obama got his death panel idea.

You might want to research this a bit or read the other post on it . Before the ACA , he would of been a goner.

What about the ACA saved him then....

Did you vote for trump, if so you are not pro life. Lets see the ACA took off lifetime caps, expanded Medicaid in states , except in 19 states due to the GOP ,

eliminated pre-existing conditions. I suggest you learn about it.

T now want to appeal the ACA and not replace it. The elites want the tax cut. This is your party, those who are anti abortion, anti PP. Disgusting.

 

[Penelope]

It happens all the time with organ transplants and sometimes they pick an older person instead of a younger one.

Does this child have a life, or is it for the benefit of the parents?

It isn't your right to say. My children are my responsibility. Not yours. Your children are your responsibility, not mine, not some panel's, not some bill in Congress'. Hands off.

Isn't abortion for the benefit of the parent? It certainly doesn't benefit the child.. Pick a lane......

This is not about abortion. Then you take care of your kids, apparently they are not, your tax dollar is.

The again I am pro the PPACA and pro choice, and you are anti abortion and anti PPACA, go figure. He has gov health insurance now, but he had best find someone else to work for as his employer is quitting, and I'm sure the hosp and drug company are paying for the maj of his care, in other words, YOUR tax dollars.

So kill the parasite?

I am pro the Medicaid expansion, but the GOP (you are anti it)
For Olga, this is a full-time job, replacing her position as a human resource assistant at IBM. That put a major financial strain on the family, forcing them to rely heavily on Medicare and private insurance.

You called him a parasite, NOT ME~!!!!!

You are concerned with the money aspect of this decision. I am not. Especially when you consider the amount of tax payer dollars that PP sucks out of the economy to kill fetuses,

Really you only care about fetuses, not infants or pregnant women. VD's are transmitted to the baby, even if the father has one. I am tired of you anti abortion Gop that are so pro life in the womb only.

 

[Penelope]

Typical LWNJ response. Deflect, redirect, misunderstand, change the subject. You can't teach a closed mind Doc.

Oh depending Medicaid, and the GOP wants rid of it. You RWNJ's only care about the fetus in the womb. Don't pretend you are pro life you are just anti Title X and Medicaid.

 

[Coyote]

Horrifying. Parents no longer have the ability to protect their own children. The NWO court decides now who lives and who dies. It is where Obama got his death panel idea.

I'm not sure it's that simple...

That's deceptive....

This is a really tragic story, especially for the parents, but it's being manipulated. The child is on life support, and severely braindamaged from the genetic disease. The parents are reaching out for anything that might help, understandably but what they've found is a treatment that works for another genetic disease, whom experts unanimously agree won't help with this one and nothing will reverse the the brain organ destruction that has already occurred to the point where the child has to be on life support.

This is a very slippery slope, the state should bow out

It can be but - Depends on who is paying for it. Even private insurance will refuse to pay for experimental treatments or indefinate life support.

Doesn't matter, the parents weren't permitted to make that decision regardless of the insurance, or cost. Some one else made the decision for them.. Are the parents allowed to pick out the coffin, or is that someone else's decision too?

And when does this move on to older children and adults on life support, or in intensive care?

I see what you are saying but - courts have become involved before, when there is conflict between what might be in a child's best interest and what the parents want, particularly in regards to medical treatment.

Who gets to decide? In the eighties, they decided that the boy in the video deserved to live. Today they would decide against that. We have a couple of judges here that I wouldn't let make decisions about my dog...
Those parents seem to care enough about their child to give him every opportunity to live. The courts has no business making that decision.
The courts get involved if the parents decision puts the child in jeopardy of dying, not living.

Honestly...I have no answer. It's a really hard decision AND it can be a slippery slope.

What happens if the parents want to do something that is not in the child's best interests? One of the things pointed out in the article was no one could tell if the child was in pain or not. Would dragging him overseeas for a treatment that is not considered to be helpful in his case be abusive?

 

[strollingbones]

as soon as i see info wars or alex jones i hit the big x on the upper right

 

[ScreamingEagle]

(Spoiler Alert: If you find slavery or infanticide disturbing, you may be too squeamish to read further.)


Here’s another face of socialized medicine that liberals don’t want you to see. A couple wanted to bring their sick child to the United States for a longshot treatment, but European authorities said, ‘NOPE, we’re just gonna pull the plug on the kid!’

What is the ultimate lesson in all of this, for all of us living under one degree or another of socialized medicine, throughout the allegedly civilized world?

No, it's not that a baby's life is less valuable to progressives than maintaining the necessary illusion of the State's infallibility, although that is true.

No, it's not that the wishes of parents who love their child are less important to the progressive State than the desire of the State's "experts" to make a problem (their failure) disappear, although that is also true.

The ultimate lesson, apparently a difficult one for some people to understand, is that what socialized health care means, above all else, is that the individual human being is property of the State.

Europe sentences sick child TO DEATH rather than get treatment in the U.S.!
Articles: The True Meaning of Socialized Medicine

 

[Blackrook]

Socialized medicine is ultimately a death sentence on everyone who passes a certain age, and is put on the death list of people no longer deemed worthy of receiving medical treatment.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Socialized medicine is ultimately a death sentence on everyone who passes a certain age, and is put on the death list of people no longer deemed worthy of receiving medical treatment.

except for the elites....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Interesting how this completely valid discussion on healthcare gets placed in the 'rubber room'..............

 

[Doc1]

Typical LWNJ response. Deflect, redirect, misunderstand, change the subject. You can't teach a closed mind Doc.

Oh depending Medicaid, and the GOP wants rid of it. You RWNJ's only care about the fetus in the womb. Don't pretend you are pro life you are just anti Title X and Medicaid.

They don't want it gone dipwad, they only cut the amount of the increase. Here's to hoping some bureaucrat let's your child die.