Charlie Gard has passed

[flacaltenn]

Medicare killed my Dad in a similar way. He was deeply damaged by a couple Diabetic comas and it took a LOT of time to reason with him and explain things. So there was this "RF Heating Procedure" to shrink his prostate that he desperately needed. Urologist wouldn't treat him. Said he would be uncooperative. Because the procedure DESIGNED BY Medicare Govt officials did it with Local Anesthetic. Told me his kidneys would be shot in months without it.

So I asked his GP if he could be put under full anesthesia.. Doc said SURE -- "but that's not the way Medicare covers it".. So I had Med Power of Atty and said " I'll pay the difference for the Gen Anethesia".. He said he'd get into trouble if he set it up..

SO --- 3 months later his kidneys failed and 6 months later he died..

Same general Govt Gate Keeping.. Chalk line another body...

Did your dad have any alternatives? Or was Medicare his only option?

He worked for 40+ years and PAID for Medicare. He was due the health care. Not rich enough to avoid it and self-insure.. You have a problem with that? Why would anybody even ASK that question?

 

[koshergrl]

Sometimes there is a fine line between parental rights and child abuse.

Bullshit. There is no fine fucking line. Child abuse is when you abuse a child. When you hit, rape, imprison them.

The *fine line* that leftists imagine exists, is the line that exists between them, and other people. If you choose not to raise your children according to state dictates, then you are *abusive*. If you are not teaching your children according to current psycholunatic babble, you're "abusive". If you choose a medical treatment that they don't agree with, you've *abusive*.

In short, their enemies are almost always the ones on the *other side* of the child abuse/parenting lines. Funny how that works.

What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?

If they beat off lifeguards when their kid is drowning, they should be prosecuted.

When they decide to use treatment that isn't orthodox or *accepted* by the masses, that's their business.

If a child's life could be saved or pain relieved by basic medical care that the parents refuse in lieu of "non traditional" treatment with no proven track record how is that not child abuse?

What is the difference between beating off lifeguards and beating off doctors?

As you are perfectly aware, many of these *treatments* do not save children. Explain to me why you think parents should be forced to put their children through risky and un-guaranteed treatments (infant heart surgeries) ..but at the same time, parents should be forced to deny their child risky and un-guaranteed treatments (Gard)?

I know you don't appreciate how patently obvious the thinking errors in any ideology that works that way. But the rest of us do.

 

[Coyote]

Sometimes there is a fine line between parental rights and child abuse.

Bullshit. There is no fine fucking line. Child abuse is when you abuse a child. When you hit, rape, imprison them.

The *fine line* that leftists imagine exists, is the line that exists between them, and other people. If you choose not to raise your children according to state dictates, then you are *abusive*. If you are not teaching your children according to current psycholunatic babble, you're "abusive". If you choose a medical treatment that they don't agree with, you've *abusive*.

In short, their enemies are almost always the ones on the *other side* of the child abuse/parenting lines. Funny how that works.

What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?

If they beat off lifeguards when their kid is drowning, they should be prosecuted.

When they decide to use treatment that isn't orthodox or *accepted* by the masses, that's their business.

If a child's life could be saved or pain relieved by basic medical care that the parents refuse in lieu of "non traditional" treatment with no proven track record how is that not child abuse?

What is the difference between beating off lifeguards and beating off doctors?

As you are perfectly aware, many of these *treatments* do not save children. Explain to me why you think parents should be forced to put their children through risky and un-guaranteed treatments (infant heart surgeries) ..but at the same time, parents should be forced to deny their child risky and un-guaranteed treatments (Gard)?

I know you don't appreciate how patently obvious the thinking errors in any ideology that works that way. But the rest of us do.

Look at some of the examples in the article.

 

[koshergrl]

Bullshit. There is no fine fucking line. Child abuse is when you abuse a child. When you hit, rape, imprison them.

The *fine line* that leftists imagine exists, is the line that exists between them, and other people. If you choose not to raise your children according to state dictates, then you are *abusive*. If you are not teaching your children according to current psycholunatic babble, you're "abusive". If you choose a medical treatment that they don't agree with, you've *abusive*.

In short, their enemies are almost always the ones on the *other side* of the child abuse/parenting lines. Funny how that works.

What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?

If they beat off lifeguards when their kid is drowning, they should be prosecuted.

When they decide to use treatment that isn't orthodox or *accepted* by the masses, that's their business.

If a child's life could be saved or pain relieved by basic medical care that the parents refuse in lieu of "non traditional" treatment with no proven track record how is that not child abuse?

What is the difference between beating off lifeguards and beating off doctors?

As you are perfectly aware, many of these *treatments* do not save children. Explain to me why you think parents should be forced to put their children through risky and un-guaranteed treatments (infant heart surgeries) ..but at the same time, parents should be forced to deny their child risky and un-guaranteed treatments (Gard)?

I know you don't appreciate how patently obvious the thinking errors in any ideology that works that way. But the rest of us do.

Look at some of the examples in the article.

I did, and I'm familiar with all this data. Intimately familiar with some of it. I've seen this acted out in real time in front of me. All my friends, all the people I know....all my life has been spent in the field, Coyote. I am telling you the state should never, ever, ever have authority over the way we raise our kids. The state should never dictate medical care. The state should never have any say at all in education. You do not want them there, they do not fix things. They make things infinitely worse.

 

[flacaltenn]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

 

[Coyote]

What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?

If they beat off lifeguards when their kid is drowning, they should be prosecuted.

When they decide to use treatment that isn't orthodox or *accepted* by the masses, that's their business.

If a child's life could be saved or pain relieved by basic medical care that the parents refuse in lieu of "non traditional" treatment with no proven track record how is that not child abuse?

What is the difference between beating off lifeguards and beating off doctors?

As you are perfectly aware, many of these *treatments* do not save children. Explain to me why you think parents should be forced to put their children through risky and un-guaranteed treatments (infant heart surgeries) ..but at the same time, parents should be forced to deny their child risky and un-guaranteed treatments (Gard)?

I know you don't appreciate how patently obvious the thinking errors in any ideology that works that way. But the rest of us do.

Look at some of the examples in the article.

I did, and I'm familiar with all this data. Intimately familiar with some of it. I've seen this acted out in real time in front of me. All my friends, all the people I know....all my life has been spent in the field, Coyote. I am telling you the state should never, ever, ever have authority over the way we raise our kids. The state should never dictate medical care. The state should never have any say at all in education. You do not want them there, they do not fix things. They make things infinitely worse.

You don't think any of those cases constitute child abuse?

 

[koshergrl]

If they beat off lifeguards when their kid is drowning, they should be prosecuted.

When they decide to use treatment that isn't orthodox or *accepted* by the masses, that's their business.

If a child's life could be saved or pain relieved by basic medical care that the parents refuse in lieu of "non traditional" treatment with no proven track record how is that not child abuse?

What is the difference between beating off lifeguards and beating off doctors?

As you are perfectly aware, many of these *treatments* do not save children. Explain to me why you think parents should be forced to put their children through risky and un-guaranteed treatments (infant heart surgeries) ..but at the same time, parents should be forced to deny their child risky and un-guaranteed treatments (Gard)?

I know you don't appreciate how patently obvious the thinking errors in any ideology that works that way. But the rest of us do.

Look at some of the examples in the article.

I did, and I'm familiar with all this data. Intimately familiar with some of it. I've seen this acted out in real time in front of me. All my friends, all the people I know....all my life has been spent in the field, Coyote. I am telling you the state should never, ever, ever have authority over the way we raise our kids. The state should never dictate medical care. The state should never have any say at all in education. You do not want them there, they do not fix things. They make things infinitely worse.

You don't think any of those cases constitute child abuse?

I don't think you can tell from what is written. I think the state and their officials lie when it suits them.

 

[Markle]

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

Nonsense. Of course, there's a villain. The government making decisions that should be made by the parents, wife, husband whoever but certainly not the government.

This is the undisputed goal of Obamacare from day one.

 

[Coyote]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

 

[koshergrl]

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

Nonsense. Of course, there's a villain. The government making decisions that should be made by the parents, wife, husband whoever but certainly not the government.

This is the undisputed goal of Obamacare from day one.

I don't get how they think they are *less villainous* than the Nazis and communists of times gone past who are reviled for the same human rights violations you hear Coyote defending right now.

 

[Coyote]

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

Nonsense. Of course, there's a villain. The government making decisions that should be made by the parents, wife, husband whoever but certainly not the government.

This is the undisputed goal of Obamacare from day one.

Ok...then look at the article I linked to. When do parental rights become child abuse?

 

[Political Junky]

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

Nonsense. Of course, there's a villain. The government making decisions that should be made by the parents, wife, husband whoever but certainly not the government.

This is the undisputed goal of Obamacare from day one.

You didn't want Mr. Schiavo to decide his wife's fate.

 

[Coyote]

Here are some other examples. Should the government, doctors, courts stay out of it?

Victims of religion-based medical neglect

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That is a matter of opinion. I remember when my grandmother died and there was a heated debate about continuing the care.
I GUARANTEE you no one celebrated when she died. There is a level of suffering that no human should be subjected to.
You ARE looking at this through emotional goggles.

In addition to everyone having a will, I strongly believe everyone should have a living will. This alleviates the entire family from being forced to make such painful decisions as you indicated. No one wants to be the one who pops up and says, okay, she's unconscious, hardly knows anyone time to pull the plug. Everybody with me?

My doctor as his practice has all patients have a living will on file. I drove him nuts saying I wanted all life preserving methods. No one is supposed to exercise that option.

 

[PredFan]

What harm would have been done to try to save the child's life? None at all.

That's the sticky thing, trying it cost the state or insurance nothing and even if it failed maybe it could help down the road in another case

Exactly. Ignoring the human interest part of this sad tale, this is how science advances. New techniques, treatments, procedure, etc., are tried and wether they work or not, we learn. Of course, leftists and globalists hate science.

 

[PredFan]

What if parents deny life saving treatment for their child?

What if a GOVERNMENT denies life saving treatment for your child?

Example?

Are you fucking retarded?
Did you forget the title of this thread?

The gubmint didn't deny it. The courts did. The treatment also wasn't life saving.

Bull shit. That's just the lie you tell. There was a chance, had they not had to go through so much. At the end, the delay made it too late.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

Nonsense. Of course, there's a villain. The government making decisions that should be made by the parents, wife, husband whoever but certainly not the government.

This is the undisputed goal of Obamacare from day one.

You didn't want Mr. Schiavo to decide his wife's fate.

You mean after he knocked up his mistress?

 

[flacaltenn]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Not actually. It's based on a LAW that give Brit Health Service the right to dictate terms of service. That's not the same as the purer "science" debate between doctors IN the Brit Health and outside systems.

If it was a argument between doctors, the PARENTS would be the ones to decide. It's subtle. But a VERY important difference...

British Health Service is NOT DOCTORS.... It's legislation, bureaucracy, and arrogance...

 

[PredFan]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was a Death Panel. The decision was political.

 

[PredFan]

What people don't realize is that this isn't about socialized medicine. The child is being used to rail against socialized medicine. The parents had the money raised to treat the child. What stopped them is a law that essentially states that if the doctors and parents are in conflict the courts must consider the child first. That's where the problem. Even if there weren't socialized medicine the parents would have still faced the same legal obstacle.

I feel for them, it's highly unlikely the treatment would have had any affect, and the courts were faced with trying to determine whether That was worth the possible suffering he might have undergone.

There are no villains here, it's just a horrible disease and two parents desperate to try anything to save their child and doctors not wanting to cause further suffering

No.. Sorry.. There would be NO COURTS involved in that personal decision if the government didn't USURP the right to decide course of care and DENY the parents the right to TRANSFER the care of that child. Was NOT a medical decision. It was a Govt POLICY decision to deny the parents the right to transfer that child to another health care system..

EVERY patient is the same to them. It;'s GROSSLY dis-personal and GROSSLY not about medical efficacy or decisions.

It was based on a LAW that stated in a dispute over medical treatment between doctors and parents, the courts had to consider the child's interest as paramount. It was not government policy decision denying parents the right to transfer the child to another care system - it was what each party (the doctors and the parents) felt was best for the child and I think you do a great disservice to the doctors caring for him to say they are grossly dispersonal. If they were they wouldn't have opposed the parents.

I'm not saying that it's the case in THIS case but I can understand why that law exists when you see cases where medical treatment or lack of it can amount to child abuse.

Those were more politicians than doctors. I know real doctors, many personally. I have worked with them for 34 years. All specialties. I've never seen a doctor deny treatment the way they did. That's probably SOP in socialized medicine, but not here. We care.